Grendel (TV Movie 2007) Poster

(2007 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
44 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Beowulf has gained nothing from Sci-fi Channel's attentions
takseng13 January 2007
Where to begin? Anachronism? High tech cross bow with a scope in about 500AD? Arrows with explosive charges in 500AD? A monster Grendel that looks like a robocop and obviously never interacts with any of the weapons fired or swung against him? The heart torn out of his victim's chest without any sense of contact? Possibly the blond who would fit in on a recent fashion show with her make-up and streaked hair? The ancient Danish court represented in Classical Greek style? The queen played by Marina Sirtis more savaged by her makeup artist than by madness? The effects are way too weak to carry this story. There are some stories that don't mind or even benefit from cheap effects, but this Grendel isn't one of them.

What about characters who seem to jump about in their attitudes without motivation? A bravado idiot prince whose home has already been savaged more than once by the monster Grendel seems to have less respect for the danger he faces than Beowulf who was sent from afar from the land of the Geats to help the desperate Danes. In this it feels more like an old cowboy western than any kind of myth.

Beowulf is an ancient tale from an era with almost no literary tradition and much of both its sentiment and its drama is obscure. I suspect that any modern telling which doesn't make an intelligent attempt to penetrate the obscurity must fail. I didn't love the recent "Beowulf and Grendel" which sees Grendel essentially as human and sees Hrothgar and his Danes as too arrogant and stupid to recognize Grendel's attacks as well-justified vengeance, but I had to respect its revisionist position that Hrothgar's Danes were a bunch of macho thugs who never grasped, even after it was all over, that they had brought this nightmare on themselves, and therefore, the original story of Beowulf, as it was written, was a misrepresentation of the real story. I think there's a more complex meaning to be understood than that, but this "Grendel's" terrible secret that Grendel's attacks are tied to previous human sacrifice doesn't really bring us closer to the shame experienced by Hrothgar and the Danes.

This Beowulf has little to recommend it as traditional myth or as modern fantasy. I give it a 4: higher than it deserves, but always hopeful that a poor effort will draw attention by someone who is up to telling the story intelligently. In the meantime, Sci-Fi's movie-making seems to be following the NASA policy that it's better to build lots of probes that fail than a few that succeed.
40 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Feed this movie to Grendel
YGoodwriter14 January 2007
Why oh why can't anyone make a decent film out of a legendary tale? This is the second adaptation of "Beowulf" I've been disappointed with in a year. But I have to say, the previous version ("Beowulf & Grendel", starring Gerald Butler) was far superior to this. That one was only a little disappointing. This one is a mess!!!

What bugged me most? Was it the useless plot elements they added in for no particular reason (Human sacrifices? Pointless love interest?), or the bad CGI, or the inconsistency of the characters or the uninspired acting? Even worse was the way they made beautiful Marina Sirtis look so horrible!!! And lets not even talk about that ridiculous crossbow?

And why did they continually remind us that Beowulf had the strength of 30 men, and yet he never showed the slightest sign of such strength throughout the entire film. He was tossed around by both monsters he fought, relying on his sidekicks to save his bacon. Even when he slugged the arrogant prince, he didn't knock him out. He was much too reliant on weapons. Beo-wimp is more like it. This was certainly not the powerful Beowulf of the epic poem!

I'd like to end this on a positive note but I can't really think of one offhand. All I can say is, if you've ever read "Beowulf", you'll be infinitely disappointed by this dismal, inaccurate excuse for an adaptation!
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bad acting, poor script, ...
dkosiur17 January 2007
It's hard to say what was the worst thing about this show: the bad acting, poor acoustics of different portions, bad CGI, improper sets for the period, the poor script. It would have been nice if the script followed the original tale a bit closer -- there's enough tension and good material in Beowulf to provide a great deal of good material, and a better story line, than the scriptwriters could come up with.

And why introduce a strange new weapon like a crossbow that fires explosive bolts?

I see that this movie was made in "only" 21 days. It shows in the lack of quality. I'm beginning to think this is general (poor) attitude taken by Sci-Fi channel (and others) when it comes to making movies out of classic tales in the past few years.

What a waste!
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Have the writers even read the poem?
j_cirino14 January 2007
Just once I'd like to see a version of Beowulf where it appears the screenwriters have at least a passing familiarity with the original poem. Yet again, after watching this Sci Fi presentation, I'm disappointed.

I'm not suggesting the writers need to understand and analyze the poem in Old English, but I wish they could at least try to read a translation in modern English and attempt to construct a story based on what actually transpires. The story is exciting enough; why add plot elements that are non-existent and ruin the story? What's wrong with being faithful to the text?

Grendel is immune to weapons of any kind; why introduce some super-crossbow that is unbelievable and could not have possibly existed in this time period (as correctly pointed out by the previous reviewer)? The fight with Grendel was Beowulf vs. Grendel. That's it. No one else took part in the battle. The only way Beowulf could have defeated him was by choosing specifically to engage the monster without any weapons, the mistake made by all previous challengers. Yet, in this version, Danes and Geats fight the beast and Beowulf hacks off Grendel's arm with a sword! Again, why couldn't they portray what really happened? Personally, I think a one-on-one grappling match between the two would be much more exciting.

Overall, this is a pathetic and abysmal depiction that is faithless to the true tale. Why add in a pact with Hrothgar and Grendel's mother that includes sacrificial offering? Why create extra characters, like Finn, that add nothing to the story? There was no love story in the poem. They couldn't even set the scenes in the appropriate locations (a forest instead of the swamp and no lair under the lake). They fail to notice the metaphor that Grendel's lair signifies – it's supposed to be underground to represent hell. Why not instead center on the symbolism inherent in the epic poem? Even my high school students last year were able to do immensely better when they created a short film based on Beowulf, since they focused on the themes and symbolism underlying the story. If Hollywood could create a film that centers on these elements and is faithful to the plot, then that would be a truly great movie.
31 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Truly Awful.
irvine-stuart16 January 2007
I just read a review defending this film because it had a low budget, now my take on things.

The CGI monsters was reasonable well animated but was implemented in the worst possible way. The fight scenes weren't even fights it was just one shot of an actor then one shot of monster with very interaction at all. When the monster did interact it looked like it was done in paintshop pro. In my opinion if you have a low budget you should use models and puppets. They may not look as fancy but at least they interact, just look at Peter Jacksons early films.

As for the acting Beowulf did an descent job but the rest of the cast were either not trying or they forgot where they where.

The script seemed confused to me. One minute they would be talking as if it were a modern day setting the next you get drama club Shakespeare speech. I'm not say it should be all 'ye' and 'that it be' but you need to find a cohesive balance so the lines sound like they come from the same person.

I did notice one part near the start when Beowulf was quoting the old testament which would have been find had he not spent the rest of the films talking about the gods and portents.

In short, this film is a very slightly polished turd, but a turn none the less.
19 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Public Service Announcement
garrett-6214 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I watched Grendel the other night and am compelled to put together a Public Service Announcement.

Grendel is another version of Beowulf, the thousand-year-old Anglo-Saxon epic poem. The SciFi channel has a growing catalog of inoffensive and uninteresting movies, and the previews promised an inauthentic low-budget mini-epic, but this one refused to let me switch channels. It was staggeringly, overwhelmingly, bad. I watched in fascination and horror at the train wreck you couldn't tear your eyes away from. I reached for a notepad and managed to capture part of what I was seeing. The following may contain spoilers or might just save your sanity. You've been warned.

  • Just to get it over with, Beowulf's warriors wore horned helmets. Trivial issue compared to what came after. It also appears that the helmets were in a bin and handed to whichever actor wandered by next. Fit, appearance and function were apparently irrelevant.


  • Marina Sirtis had obviously been blackmailed into doing the movie by the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey circus. She managed to avoid a red rubber nose, but the clowns had already done the rest of her makeup.


  • Ben Cross pretended not to be embarrassed as the king. His character, Hrothgar, must have become king of the Danes only minutes before the film opened and hadn't had a chance to get the crown resized to fit him yet.


  • To facilitate the actors' return to their day jobs waiting tables, none were required to change their hairstyles at all. The variety of hair included cornrows, sideburns, buzz cuts and a mullet and at least served to distract from the dialog. To prove it was a multi-national cast, all were encouraged to retain whatever accent they chose.


  • As is typical with this type of movie (at least since Mad Max), leather armor was a requirement. In this case it was odd-shaped, ill-fitting and brand-new.


  • The female love interest, Ingrid, played by Alexis Peters, followed a long-standing tradition of hotties who should be watched with the volume turned completely down.


  • The unintended focus of the movie was a repeating, compound crossbow with exploding bolts. It never needed to be loaded and even had a recoil when fired. It managed to shred the laws of physics, the integrity of the original legend, historical fact and plot suspense all by itself.


  • Hrothgar's palace, Heorot, rather than being a Norse long hall, apparently was designed and constructed by artisans who sank with Atlantis.


  • Beowulf arrived at the Danes' homeland in a two-masted stern-castled ship that originally was part of a set, the other two being the Santa Maria and the Pinta.


  • Prince Unferth observed Beowulf's ship's approach using a telescope. Before you could recover from that astounding innovation, you got to see the ship from his point of view. Judging from the angle, the prince was in an aircraft of some sort.


  • Fun fact 1: In Bulgaria, fire (as from a fireplace) creates light without heat. This explains why you could see the actors' breath whether indoors or out.


  • Fun fact 2: Dark Age dancing in Denmark looks like slow dances I went to in the 8th grade.


  • Fun fact 3: You, too, can make a catapult with a timed-release air-burst explosive. But, don't expect it to actually harm anything. Incidentally, Beowulf was apparently a veteran of World War II, yelling "Incoming!" to shred any remaining suspension of disbelief.


  • Grendel was so upset and always in a snit because as a completely CGI creation he couldn't leave footprints. Even in snow.


  • Grendel's mom ("Hag") was in a foul mood because she was a single mother and junior hadn't inherited her wings. Recessive gene, I suppose. By the way, we can now make an educated guess that Grendel's pop was probably Swamp Thing.


  • Grendel and mom chose to randomly kill, fly away with or drag away their prey based only on a close reading of the next few pages of the script.


  • Fun medical fact: Being slammed by a mythical beast hard enough to be thrown fifty feet against stone causes slight facial scratches that don't bleed much.


  • The sword of legend Beowulf used to dispatch the Hag was as long as he was tall and would have contained enough steel to put a second deck on the Golden Gate Bridge. Luckily the wobbling dispelled any concerns over its weight.


  • Best line of the movie: Prince Unferth had just been impaled by Hag and spit a quart of blood roughly six feet. Princess Ingrid cradled him gently and said, "You're going to be okay, my prince." So much for that job at the triage clinic.


I feel better now.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Laughable
klchu19 January 2007
This movie lost me with the crossbow RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). It was like someone cut and pasted a scene from Robocop. I half expected Beowulf to say exclaim, "I LIKE IT!"

I watched this because I like Chris Bruno from "The Dead Zone" TV show and he did his part. He chose a strange accent, but at least he kept it consistent for the whole movie -- unlike any of his costars. They kept slipping into all kinds of speech from old English to modern English, sometimes in the same sentence.

There are already many comments on how this movie is different from the source material. However, even on its own, this movie's plot is not good. It's just boring, which even the low budget doesn't excuse. Having a low budget means that you need to at least have a good story, dialog and decent acting. Those things don't cost much. Instead, they spent their money on half-assed CGI and some decent costumes and sets.

Life is too short to watch this movie.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Q&A with the Writer!
glen-8814 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'm an associate of Ron Fernandez and after viewing some of the enlightening comments made I thought I'd have a quick Q&A with the writer of "Grendel". The following is a transcript:

G: Hi Ron.

R: Hi Glen, It's great to be here.

G: So Ron, how do you feel about the movie as a whole?

R: Overall I think it came out great(he says smiling) considering the resources and timetable involved in these films. I think SciFi Channel and UFO films did a super job of translating it to the screen. Nick Lyon, who directed it and is now doing Species 4, brought great life to the characters, and I particularly enjoyed watching Ben Cross coax the drama out of his scenes. Chariots of Fire to Grendel... Hmmm...

G: Cool. Yeah I enjoyed watching it with you over many beers at our favorite pub.

R: Maybe the beers helped.

(both laughing)

G: What did inspire you to manhandle this epic poem?

R: When I was hired by the production company I realized the daunting task of adapting one of the greatest stories in western culture. Tough choices had to be made in order to make this epic tale fit the parameters of a fun Saturday night SciFi Channel flick, and I think those choices paid off. For example, I decided to add a love story which would frame the tale for modern audiences. The crossbow gun was not my creation, by the way, but it happens to be cheap and easy to blow things up in Bulgaria.

G: I think the Rambo 2000 crossbow gun was actually pretty damn cool. But Im glad you mentioned it, because a lot of people out there don't understand the process of storytelling within the constraints of a producer and bottom line run production. Damn those wacky producers.

R: The challenge is delivering a quality story to viewers at home. I think our film stacks up well if not better than some of the other SciFi pictures I've seen, but the power of the original Beowulf narrative of course helped us a lot. If you haven't read it in a while I recommend you do. I had to read it when I was a Freshman in high school and I didn't get it. But going back I was astounded by the beauty of the language and the heroic character of Beowulf and the others.

G: Some of the user comments here indicated that there were some factual mistakes made (i.e. Grendel's mother not being fought underwater, the townspeople being sacrificed etc.) How do you respond to this?

R: We saw the original text as a launching point for the recontextualization of a classic. As I said tough choices had to be made in terms of story and the reality of budgeting. The climatic scene in the poem, where Beowulf confronts Grendel's mother underwater was in the first draft but you know it couldn't be done in the time alloted. As to the second part of your question, believe it or not, the story of children being sacrificed to appease the angry monster is in the original poem. But we chose to emphasize it.

G: Do you see SciFi taking on more literary or epic narratives or adaptations? And what new projects can we expect to see from you in the future?

R: I hope that SciFi continues to take risks by re-envisioning more of the classic tales of the past. Right now I'm writing another film for them, this one set in the present and currently entitled "The Monster". It's a cross between American Werewolf in London meets Excalibur. It should be a hoot.

G: Always a pleasure Ron.

R: Thanks, Glen.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
They weren't Vikings, and Vikings didn't wear horned helmets anyway
dhickey-415 January 2007
After having seen the Canadian/Icelandic/British 2004 production of "Beowulf & Grendel," which I thought brilliant and stunning, I approached this--the first of 3 newer Beowulf movies due out this year--with trepidation. As soon as I heard "Viking" and saw the horned helmets, I groaned. These were Migration Era Swedes and Danes, not Vikings (they came later). And even the Vikings never wore horns on their helmets (horns make it easy for your enemy to knock your helmet off and then brain you). Then there's Hrolfgar's palace, which looks like a set for a movie about Greece or Rome, not 6th-century Denmark. The swords and armor look like props left over from earlier films set in various historic periods. I spotted weapons that might have been used by Crusaders in "Kingdom of Heaven," and one character was even wielding a Windlass Steelcrafts reproduction movie sword from "Beowulf & Grendel"! Beyond the basic plot of the original epic poem, the writing was dismal and the acting totally wooden and unconvincing. The biggest yuk was a secret-weapon crossbow, complete with sighting scope and exploding projectiles, that looked like something bought from Iraqi insurgents. The special-effects monster and his mom were so on steroids that Beowulf could never have torn off an arm, as he did in the poem. Thank the gods for bazooka crossbows! I could go on, but I won't.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Saints preserve us!
mattord-114 January 2007
May the saints preserve us, because this movie is not going to help.

Someone with access needs to e-mail Mel Gibson and tell him we need a faithful production of Beowulf. Something that actually has something in common with the epic poem that is the foundation for all modern western literature.

The recent (since 2000) versions of Beowulf make we wonder two things. First, why is there so much interest in the story. Second, why are all these filmmakers squandering mountains of cash on this crap.

The only reason this got a two is that the version with Lambert in it (Beowulf 2000) was worse and needed the 1.

What is even worse, some people will watch this and get the wrong idea about the poem. How can an industry where Peter Jackson gets a literary conversion to film so right can get it so wrong. I mean really, the Roman Forum as a model for Heorot is too much.

And PLEASE, horns on helmets? Spare me. This is insulting.

/hjm
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wrong....in so many ways.
Abnegatus13 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
SciFi has been having some extremely bad luck making quality movies lately (such as Minotaur or Dog Soldiers). Grendel is supposed to be based of the great epic Beowulf, however, it deviates so much (and offers so little in comparison) that the advertisements on television might as well have titled it 'some shitty Christopher Lambert movie'. I wasn't expecting it to be as accurate as a full blown Hollywood production, but I did however expect the 'artistic integrity' to not interfere with the actual story (even if a little bit was changed to make a two hour storyboard flow nicely in the allotted time slots).

Did the director and producers have any idea about what they were doing (did any research go into this?). Obviously not, as one could tell from the massive horned helmets that Beowulf and his crew (save for mullet boy) are wearing. One major problem I have though was with the very look of Grendel…if Beowulf is supposed to wrestle him, shouldn't he not have been sixteen feet tall and weigh 2 tons? Grendel's death segment was also lacking in every way – in my opinion the one in the epic was actually better than the made up junk on the script; for example: Grendel is supposed to have his arm ripped out from the socket by Beowulf – not cut off at the forearm after he was set on fire by an exploding arrow from a crossbow that looks like it weighs 300lbs! And Grendel's mother…did they just combine her with the dragon at the end of the epic where he eventually dies when he succumbs to his wounds? And honestly, what the hell was with that mullet?

If you want to see this movie because its connection to the epic….don't, as there really isn't one (other than character names). The only way I could recommend this film is if you liked the movie Druids (directed by Jacques Dorfmann) – although I don't recommend watching either.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good movie, bad CGI.
expos_panthersdude13 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The only bad thing in this movie was the CGI.

The Director did a good job for the most part. Didn't get the best acting out of his actors, but no one here was truly bad. The music felt like it belonged in the film. It did its job and nothing more. The set design was okay in some parts and TV like in others.

The movie was somewhat different from the poem. In this version, our hero Beowulf has this primitive high-tech bow and arrow. It actually has a sniper scope on it. The arrows shoot out of it with this blue light...exploding on impact once it hits something. A little high-tech for the time period.

The script isn't bad. It's not entirely true to the poem, but it's better than your average Saturday night Sci-Fi Channel TV flick.

I enjoyed this movie. Going into this movie...I hadn't heard too much about it. I knew it was coming out, but didn't really bother to watch it. I figured maybe it would be cheesy in a good way, but it wasn't. It wasn't cheesy at all in my opinion, but it was a good low budget movie.

Overall, a 8/10.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Let's keep things in perspective...
perry-12215 January 2007
I don't think anyone here would expect an Oscar nod for a Sci-Fi original movie, so let's keep things in perspective. This production actually had a budget of only 1.4 million, as you well know that's almost more than they pour into one episode of BattleStar Galactica.

For what it is worth (meaning taking the budget into consideration), It's pretty damn good. Sure let's all make fun of the CG monster and the fact that it didn't bleed even when it's head got cut off. But there was a pretty epic setting (Bulgaria), and aside from a couple bad seeds the acting was pretty good, and the Photography was much better than average.

Let's consider the behind the scenes too... "Script", and let's pretend the director had a bit of latitude. The direction was very good. Most people say "garbage in - garbage out". I feel given what there was to work with the director made the most of it and pulled it off deserving praise. And you don't have to even have liked the flick to approach it in a critical way like this.

In my opinion this is a great forum to discuss all aspects of any release. My only piece of advice is to please not react in a knee-jerk way immediately after you've condemned someone's creative work. Great constructive criticism takes just as much effort and introspection. It's really easy to say something sucks; people likely won't pay you much attention though unless you do it constructively.
34 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Sci-Fi channel movies are awful
englander_1314 January 2007
I work at a Blockbuster store and every week we have movies that come in with just a few copies, these are the kind of movies that the Sci-Fi channel shows. The kind of movie that nobody ever wants, and only that idiots rent, when they bring it back I ask them "was it any good?", they say "no we turned it off after 15 minutes!" Movies with terrible computer generated, super imposed monsters and such like, very unappealing.

This is the same type of movie that Grendel is, and absolute waste of time, if you want a reasonably (and only reasonably) good Beowulf based movie then try Beowulf & Grendel , starring Gerard Butler, who is also starring in the eagerly anticipated 300, as King Leonidas of Sparta.

Plus, later this year we have another Beowulf movie, with a star studded cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins and Brendan Gleeson, to Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich.

But don't let that get your hopes up like we all did with Eragon, or we are all in for another big disappointment.

And regarding rentals, here is my rule of thumb: If there is only one or two copies, don't rent it because its a load of crap.( This is true 99.9% of the time, usually not true if the title is foreign, or a documentary.)
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not a bad version -- But not good, either.
BronwynN13 January 2007
I first became acquainted with the story of Beowulf when, in high school, I was forced to read the first twenty lines of it in the original Anglo-Saxon (with a glossary, of course). It's an old story about a champion who comes to the aid of the Kingdom of the Danes which has been beset by a monster by the name of (Surprise!) Grendl. If you've read the story already, you know how it comes out. If not, try this film.

This is a fairly accurate retelling of Beowulf, which is the reason I gave it a "5." However, certain of the characterizations are not terrific, and production values aren't very valued. Chris Bruno, in the lead role, works hard to bring dimension to a role which, at the very best, is one-dimensional. Beowulf, after all, is a Hero, and heroes don't have to be well-rounded -- just strong and brave. Ben Cross doesn't seem to have his real voice, and Marina Syrtis, of Star Trek Next Generation fame, looks haggard and old. The supporting players, I think, were chosen more for their willingness to work for scale rather than for their talent.

The CGI monsters, unfortunately, are poorly executed and not very scary. If it wasn't for the fact that the original story has a strong plot, the writing, which tries very hard to be good, winds up being long-winded and silly. The production design and costuming is about what one might expect from a low-budget film -- Suffice it to say that Beowulf's troop all wear horned helmets -- something that one usually only sees in grandiose productions of Wagner.

All in all, the movie is about what one would expect to see on a boring Saturday night. And you need to be very bored to enjoy it.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Heresy I say!!
AnimeKingGT1213 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a farce! Names are grossly mispronounced and the plot is twisted and gnarled into something unrecognizable by any literature enthusiast. And they have the gall to give Beowulf a ridiculous cannon/crossbow weapon. Beowulf doesn't need a weapon like that! In the poem, he rips off Grendel's arm with his bare hands! And I can't believe that the scriptwriters did such a thing. The way Grendel is portrayed is impressive however. That and the cast are the only positive points of the feature. My English teacher would go insane if she saw this abomination. Unless you are a die-hard fan of the epic poem "Beowulf," avoid this film at all costs. And even then, I wouldn't recommend it.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Too much CGI, not enough cult
jayce227913 June 2007
I understand this movie was made on a very low budget but that is no excuse for the monstrosity that is Grendel. Deathstalker, The Throne of Fire, Barbarian Queen, Conquest, the Invincible Barbarian were all done on shoestring budgets and poor special effects yet they still managed to create cult classics by adding some scantily clad women warriors and a good sense of humor. The primitive costumes, dark castles and beautiful Bulgarian landscape gave Grendel the potential to be a very good low budget sword and sorcery film, but the makers completely ruined this opportunity by using extremely poor CGI effects and colorless characters. Compare this film to Beowulf (1999). It may not be Citizen Kane but it is a good example of how an entertaining low budget sci-fi/ adventure movie can be made by using credible special effects and appealing characters.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A crossbow? What?
lemn-peal16 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I stopped five minutes in when Beowulf was given a double-shot, automatic crossbow with sights on it. Not only do crossbows not have telescoping sights, but Beowulf beat Grendel in hand-to-hand combat. The terrible, wooden acting and eternal darkness that plagues all Sci-Fi Original Movies didn't help either. Having only gotten a few minutes in before I felt my bile rise and decided to watch I Love Lucy reruns instead, that's really about all I have to say. But, you might as well just realize that it's a made-for-TV movie and skip it right there.

A travesty.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Very Bad, But Had Potential...
fearfulofspiders27 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
First off, this is no where near as bad as some of the other trash the Sci-Fi Channel has produced; that isn't to say that Grendel is a good film, in fact, it is very bad, but it definitely had potential to be a lot better. The flaws of the film come from character design, character, absurd additions to the story, the visual effects, the music, and for the most part: the acting.

When speaking of character design, I, of course, mean the way our heroes and villains look. Beowulf and the other Danes seem like ridiculous Vikings, rather than warriors of brute strength -- that helmet our main protagonist wears is just too silly. Grendel looks like the Hulk but with strange tentacle-attachments to his elbows.

The characters are very limited. Beowulf is same from beginning to end, however Finn -- a useless sidekick -- achieved some two-dimensionality, due thanks to his romantic subplot, and Unferth gets some notion as well, as he becomes less conceited.

Much like Finn, there are useless additions to this story to make it its own, while still holding to the source material. The crossbow that is gifted to Beowulf is so ridiculous, I'm surprised the cast didn't walk off the set. Besides additions, there's omissions, such as the underlying themes of Christianity and Paganism, as well as the consequences of lying.

The special effects are mighty terrible. Grendel and his mother Hag are poorly conceived, and as such, they're portrayal on screen is less than believable.

The music is overbearing, especially when a character dies.

All in all, this is not Sci-Fi's worst film to date. No. It is actually one of the better films, though trash it still it is, it is good trash, making it a guilty pleasure at best. The only thing that works is the dialogue, which is still wooden here and there.

I highly recommend you skip this film and watch Robert Zemeckis' take on the ancient story of Beowulf, simply because this film (Grendel) is only half the tale, and not the whole thing, which garners this movie a three-star review.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Well, the sets are cool.
KennethEagleSpirit13 January 2007
And thats about all that is. This thing is slow. The actors have ability, they just don't seem motivated to put forth the effort. The plot isn't that great and is hampered further by the aforementioned slowness of it all. The accents, when there are any, are British. Uh, lots of these folks are supposed to be Danes. OK, OK, accents aren't that important. But language is. I don't think they used words like "yeah" and "OK" in Beowulf's day. And that supposedly way cool weapon his king gave him? Did he ever reload that thing? Did he ever sight it in? Or was Beowulf just that bad an aim? Well, his aim did at least match the computer graphics used in generating the monsters. Those were rather off too. Bad special effects. Bright spot? Just one that I can think of. Marina Sirtis has held up well over the years.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bummer
cpage-516 January 2007
For such a great classic tale, the setting (location), Grendel was disappointing. As a writer, I blame the script which completely lacked dramatic tension. The rubric of the club story is useful and would have provided a new take on the literary classic. For some weird reason that rubric was dropped early on. To know this was shot in 21 days says to me, "rushed" and it unfortunately shows. Now we'll have to wait for the Hollywood version on the big screen. I word on FX, I can tolerate really crappy CGI but the script has to rock and this one was just too slow, spartan and lacking in drama. I'd blame it on the actors but... since I know writing more than acting, I'll pick on my colleague.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
This was a fun, good movie. I liked it.
supervixen715 January 2007
I watched this movie on Sci Fi Channel and I really enjoyed it. It was a fun movie. The animated monsters were a bit fake sometimes, but also really good sometimes. But all in all, the story was well told and the acting was good. I especially like Ben Cross and the guy who acted Unferth. But Beowulf was also good. I think that for a TV movie it also had a nice style and looked really good. Not like some other things on that channel. Different than other stuff. Admitedly, I don't really know the original Beowulf tale, and I'm sure he didn't have a crossbow that fires explosive heads. But it was a retelling, so why not. It's in good fun and well done. I hope to see more like it from the Sci Fi Channel!

MissBulg
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
What can I say it's an above Average Scifi movie
Captain_Quint17 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Overall Grendel is an average movie taken from a great story. The only people that may love this movie are those who haven't read the epic poem "Beowulf".

It keeps the same basic plot elements from the epic poem, other than that the only thing used from the poem are some of the names of the characters. The acting for once in a scifi original movie is actually half way decent, same went for the dialogue of the movie too. Special effects are the same Scifi average cgi, fake and outdated.

Disappointments in the movie (SPOILERS ARE FOUND HERE!): The scenes in which Beowulf fights Grendel were incredibly disappointing to those expecting a close adaptation, especially if you were expecting Beowulf to fight Grendel bare-handed instead of using the ridiculous cross bow that fired exploding rounds. If you watched Grendel expecting to watch Beowulf rip Grendel's arm off with his own strength you will be disappointed because instead Beowulf hacks off Grendel's arm with a sword.

The overall the movie's average and unless cheesy Scifi channel "orginal" movies are your cup of tea than the movie is for you. Most of you should be like me who were some what disappointed should wait for the release of Beowulf in theatres later this year.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Did anyone read the poem?
OC4715015 January 2007
I had to read Beowulf several times in high school and college for English lit classes. I'm gong to find my old books and see how far off the movie was from the poem.

Just to get through the movie (I taped it) I started doing something else. Rewinded a scene or two.

The acting was so-so. I kept thinking, okay, Ben Cross has found steady work over the years, but steady, quality work?

Like someone previously posted, the sets were the highlight. Don't know if the sets actually existed or were in a studio. Need to check that out.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This was NOT Grendel
wong-ex21 October 2007
I was expecting the movie based on Grendel, the book written by John Gardner in the late 1970's. It was based on the Beowulf epic, but told from the perspective of the monster.

Whatever you may think of Gardner's book, a movie based on the Beowulf epic should not be entitled Grendel, when it doesn't say anything more about the monster beyond the few pathetic scenes in which the CG monster is shown as nothing more than a modified Predator.

On top of this, the writers should also be punished for screwing up the original story so badly and contributing to the continued growing ignorance of mass TV audiences throughout the US.

Typical Hollywood to get this so wrong.

Very disappointing and a complete waste of time.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed