Beowulf & Grendel (2005)

A troll and his son were enjoying the outdoors when suddenly a band of riders appeared.  The troll scooped up his son and raced toward the shore.  It was a cliff far above the sea; there was no escape.  He hid his son on a ledge and turned to face the Danes.  Spears, arrows, and fire forced him over the cliff to his death.  Hrothgar (Stellan Skarsgard) looked over the ledge to the dead troll but spotted the child.  What to do?  He left the child and rode away with the others.  Nearly 20 years later, the young troll, Grendel, attacked Hrothgar's newly built hall.  Though Hrothgar himself tried to fight the troll, it ignored him; it only killed his men, specifically Danes.

Over the sea in Geatland, Beowulf (Gerald Butler) and his friends discussed the good times in Geatland.  With all well in the lands, the king agreed that Beowulf and his men should aid Hrothgar in his time of need.  Though Beowulf repeatedly sought battle with the troll, it refused to fight him or his men.  He had given in no reason to kill him.  Hrothgar had not revealed his history with the troll's father.  Beowulf consulted a witch, Selma (Sarah Polley), to discover how to fight the troll.  Eventually, he and his men provide a reason for the troll to kill them.

The movie does a good job with the setting.  The gear, ships, armor, clothing, buildings, and such fit in the early 6th century.  However, the geography is wrong for Denmark.  It is far too rugged and craggy; it was filmed in Iceland.  Though Beowulf has plenty of ego, this version of him also has humility.  He's not nearly the boaster like Ray Winstone's Beowulf (2007).  However, his reputation precedes him wherever he goes.  Even when he is washed ashore near a humble fisherman's wharf, the fisherman knew the tales of Beowulf.

The story is faithful to the source material, but adds a lot too.  After Grendel has died, there follows a battled with Grendel's mother.  She had been shown as an eventual foe when they sailed; her pale white hand would grab men near the rail and try to drag them into the sea.  In the poem, the death of Grendel's mother concluded the troubles.  It does here too, but there are loose ends.  Grendel had a son himself and Beowulf - like Hrothgar before him - was unable to kill the child.  Will a new vengeance cycle start in another decade or so?

It is strange to embrace trolls and sea hags but then have no magic.  The witch says she can foretell death, which appears true.  Was the sword that Beowulf grabbed from her stash a magic one, thus being able to kill the sea hag?  Maybe.  That there was mention of Clovis (466-511) and the presence of Father Brendan (Eddie Marsan) put it firmly in the historical setting, rather than mythical.

Just okay.

King Arthur

Here is the previously mentioned movie review, originally posted August 2, 2004.

 

Foolishly, I saw King Arthur today and, as a member of this group, you shall suffer my rant.

I heard several good reviews for this movie so I dared to see it. Unfortunately, the reviewers knew nothing of history and could thus be fooled by this drivel. How is it that boys from southern Russia have Celtic or French names (i.e. Tristan and Lancelot)? Why are Saxons landing in Scotland? Why is it snowing and icy in one place but a day's ride away, the trees are still covered in leaves and the land is green with grass? Obviously, the makers of the film didn't know that Roman cavalry didn't have stirrups. How is it that Arthur claims to have met Pelagius when the man has been dead for nearly 50 years? Why are Romans recruiting boys from Sarmatia when the Goths swept away the Sarmatians centuries ago? Better still, the story starts in 452, while Attila the Hun is pillaging Gaul but somehow some Romans have time to collect boys from Sarmatia so they can send them to Britain (BTW, Rome abandoned Britain in 410). How is it that Saxons have crossbows several centuries before they are invented? If the Woads are SO dangerous north of Hadrian's Wall, why the hell are these important Romans living there? Guinevere, Warrior Princess: enough said on that topic. How is it that these otherwise primitive and tattooed Woads are using something like a trebuchet to fling fire at the Saxons? How is it that 6 knights prove decisive in a battle against hundreds of Saxons? Don't these Saxons know how to fight cavalry? There are tactics for defeating cavalry but these fellows don't know about them. I guess they had never seen a horse before. So the entirety of Arthur's command is 6 knights, the rest having died over the long years? Basically, this movie was horrendously bad, more so because it claimed to be the 'historical Arthur.'

I am something of a stickler for history so this truly irked me. I find that those less familiar with history enjoyed this and other historically inaccurate films (e.g. Gladiator). However, you have been warned.

 

The cast was impressive, including Clive Owen (Arthur), Ioan Gruffudd (Lancelot), Mads Mikkelsen (Tristan), Joel Edgerton (Gawain), Keira Knightley (Guinevere), and Stellan Skarsgard as the Saxon leader, Cerdic.  Also, the movie does dispense with the chrome armor of Excalibur (1981) and leans correctly toward Roman armor.  Of note, this was Antoine Fuqua's first sally into historical films.  His latest film, The Magnificent Seven, shows that he is still unsuited for films in a non-current setting.

 

Mindless popcorn fun?  Sure.  True story of King Arthur?  Absolutely not!