Jon Plowman I had no high expectations (my crap detector predicting a "meh" out of 10) but was still disappointed. Don't get me wrong: I like Gerald Butler, for reasons which escape me, but hey, if you can stomach King Leonidas sporting a red Speedo and a Scots accent, you can handle Beowulf. Amiright? No fan of 300, I was pleasantly surprised to see Gerry manage an entire hack-and-slash movie role without displaying a six pack or a male nipple. I wasn't surprised that he didn't manage a single syllable of dialogue without the Scots brogue. His portrayal of Beowulf could charitably be called "competent"; he didn't fudge his lines and he didn't drop his sword, but he could have been replaced by any of a hundred other actors. Oh yeah, he ran up the hills fairly well. Not that it counts. Zero points.I was very pleasantly surprised at possibly the best performance I've ever seen from Stellan Skarsgard. The man's an extremely accomplished actor, but watching him bring the conflicted, haunted, guilt-ridden, drunken sot King Hrothgar to life was a revelation. His was without doubt the best performance in the entire film, with one possible exception, of which more in a moment. Worth a solid two points alone.The only real competitor for best performance was from Eddie Marsdan. Eddie's one of those character actors, someone who will likely never hold a leading role in any movie you'll ever see, but whose character portrayals provide a great foil to the leading actor's performance. His lunatic Brother Brendan was highly amusing, at times inspired, and only betrayed by poor direction and cinematography. They should have used him more intelligently. One point there.Interesting to see Rory McCann in a role other than that of the Hound from Game of Thrones, but seeing him without GoT armour and prosthetics was the only interesting thing about his involvement in Beowulf & Grendel. His performance was flat, uninspired, completely forgettable. Zero points.The rest of the cast can be lumped together, except for a shout out to the actor whose spastic village idiot reveals the location of Grendel's cave. One of the better mentally handicapped performances I've seen recently. One point.The direction was lacklustre and dull, sometimes even tiresome. In some scenes it seemed like the actors had run out of things to do and were waiting for the director to remember to shout "Cut!" Many of the best moments - Grendel's first attack on the Danes for instance - were completely ballsed-up by bad direction, mediocre choreography and poor planning of shots, and then compounded by indifferent to awful cinematography. Those two elements together reduced potentially a great retelling of the epic story to the level of a low-budget TV movie made by the film industry rank-and-file. I'm tempted to deduct a point here, but let's face it, this film hasn't scored many yet, so I'll be nice and let them get away with an undeserved zero points.The soundtrack was nothing but dull orchestral elevator music. In many scenes there was no music at all to help us feel the emotional tone. At others times it was intrusive, and it was almost always completely inappropriate. This is inexcusable. There are extremely talented film composers working in Iceland today - Atli Örvarsson's soundtrack for The Eagle is a fantastic example of the work coming out of there. The Norwegian band Wardruna contributed a great deal of absolutely superb music to the Vikings TV series. They use authentic instruments and Nordic singing, and their albums are nothing less than haunting. It's a crying shame that we had to sit through the audio drivel we were served up in this case. Minus one point.The script was generally good and even at times very good, but it was badly compromised by modern syntax and grammar, modern colloquialisms and worst of all, modern Anglo-Saxon swearwords. The plot was decent enough in that it's fairly close to the original epic poem, but that wasn't so much a function of good scriptwriting as it was of good source material. One point for a nice effort.The props, sets and costumes were generally good, especially the weapons and helmets. The modern, shiny-finish leather used in some of the armour was a serious mistake, as was the use of some modern textiles. And the hairy muscle suits worn by the trolls looked ridiculous in every well-lit shot. Someone should have noticed that during production and tried to fix it. One point there, but only because I can't give half points on IMDb.One ludicrous moment was early in the film when Beowulf was introduced to us by swimming ashore in full armour, minus helmet, and wearing a sword in a sheath. The fact is that authentic Viking chainmail hauberks weighed something in the order of 10 or 15 kg - call it 25 to 30 lb if you think Imperial. Add another 3 kg - say 8 lb - for a medium sword, plus a few kilograms of assorted leather, and you're looking at probably 20 kg (50 lb) of weight he'd have to be carrying, not including shoes and other clothing. It doesn't matter how strong a swimmer he is, he'd just sink like a stone. The fact that the film industry uses aluminium and rubber in place of metal and leather armour specifically in order to reduce the weight worn by the actors is no excuse. None at all.So the grand total is a whopping five points, which I think is probably far too generous. To sum up, if you decide to watch Beowulf & Grendel, don't expect much and you're unlikely to be disappointed. If you want to see something special then don't bother wasting your money unless you're a fan of Stellan Skarsgard. Or you have a crush on Gerry that doesn't depend on well-chiselled abs and the briefest of red briefs.

Python Hyena Beowulf and Grendel (2005): Dir: Sturla Gunnarsson / Cast: Gerard Butler, Stellan Skarsgard, Sarah Polley, Ingnar Sigurdsson, Tony Curran: Technically well drawn film about conflict. Beowulf is summoned by a struggling King to slay a troll named Grendel. Film opens with the slaying of Grendel's father and the revenge sought. Structure is repetitious with Grendel attacking then Beowulf failing to end the feud. It doesn't end pleasant but its misplaced humour is distracting. Gerard Butler as Beowulf is pretty straight forward. He bests Grendel then he eventually kills Grendel before dealing with the wrath of his demented mother whom he will also kill. Stellan Skarsgard portrays the King who is paying for his past. Sarah Polley is terrific as a witch to whom Beowulf will seek answers from. Ingnar Sigurdsson plays off the vengeful spirit of Grendel. Director Sturla Gunnarsson keeps the tension high as villagers fear to shut their eyes in fear of waking under attack. He previously made a greater film called Such A Long Journey, another film about a lone figure attempting to knock down a wall of sorts. The special effects are not too overwhelming, which allows them to accompany the narrative as oppose to rule it. It delivers on its ancient sets and grotesque creatures without mocking the story. Theme regards hate and its everlasting plunge into death and despair. Score: 6 ½ / 10

gordon451 I stumbled upon this movie at the local video library, and picked it up comparing it to the lamentable Winstone/Jolie CGI version.There's no point in recapping the story -- others on these pages have done that well. It's not Oscar material, though the screenplay, direction and acting are fine enough. It's old-school film-making, and Sturla Gunnarsson should qualify as a Bard just by this movie. But I have to say this is the first movie I've seen that truly qualifies as a Greek tragedy in the classic sense.Hrothgar did not have to kill Grendel's father. Hrothgar could (should?) have killed young Grendel. So he lays out his Doom. None of his subjects has the strength to fix things, so their Doom follows Hrothgar's.Beowulf is young, with the arrogance of youth. He could (should?) have asked a couple of questions. But he learns humility, and some wisdom. This is not an adventure he can boast of on return to Geatland.And we wonder what the future holds for Grendel's son, Selma's boy. And Selma? Will the tragedy continue?Why cannot Hollywood ask these questions? But maybe we do need to shovel tons of gravel to find each diamond. I didn't think of Casablanca until just now: but that's the quality of "Beowulf and Grendel".

J Vaughn This movie has many redeeming qualities but managed to have enough ludicrous diversions from the Anglo-Saxon poem to receive an indisputable "thumbs down". Let's start with the good aspects: the clothing was great, Heorot looked authentic; the actors were skillfully selected; Grendel's stature and acting was very convincing; Grendel's mother and the scenes with her were perfect; the horses (ponies) were historically correct; the boat (hring-stefna) and the scenes with the icebergs were amazing. Now let's peruse the plethora of negative aspects: Hrothgar was a drunken moron, unlike the Hrothgar presented in the poem; Grendel is a sympathetic hero who cuts his own arm off and tosses Beowulf around like a rag-doll; The Christian missionary is a weak moron-not that there were not weak Christian morons in the northern islands in the 10th and 11th centuries, but the portrayal of this character comes across as ironically "preachy"; God is a joke, which contradicts the entire poem's tone. The premise to this movie is an absurd speculative theory that the pagan oral story/poem "Beowulf" was "Christianized" by a tampering Christian author. This is, well, absurd. On the contrary many critics feel that the Christian elements in the poem are so thoroughly entwined in the poem's actors, dialogue and plot that the poem would fall apart without them. The need that progressive story and film writers feel to rewrite this epic poem is changing the way modern readers of this poem interpret this work. Please, Peter Jackson could you take two years of your life and produce a Beowulf movie that is free from 21st century literary criticism!