Blood of Beasts

"Blood of Beasts", also known as "Beauty and the Beast" was definitely not what I expected by the end of the film in a positive way. I actually found this movie listed on IMDb quite by accident-- but at the time it was not yet released on DVD, so I eventually forgot about it until I saw the DVD on ebay just a few days ago. I am all for the underdogs of film, but since the DVD was going for so much on ebay, I went down to my local video store and was pleasantly surprised that they had it there. So I rented it!

The Bad Points: I will say that the cover of the DVD is going to throw viewers off immediately. The cover has a very "Lord of the Rings" feel to it, so many may rent the movie thinking this is going to be another great epic film. It definitely is not. This must have been a very low budget film for several reasons. One, almost every male in the movie wore a wig or some sort of fake hair, and the only reason why I am pointing this out is because it is THAT obvious. Second, there is virtually no accents in the film, perhaps they couldn't afford a speech or language coach. Third, the costumes were all wrong...very bad, actually (oh, and the weapons were very fake looking such as the swords and daggers). Fourth, the scenes where there is fire...well, I guess they couldn't afford MAKING fire or setting things on fire so they computer generated it-- again, the only reason why I mention it is because it is THAT obvious and detracts from the film. The only thing that I think they did well with as far as special effects is how they chose to portray the Beast. They obviously didn't have a lot of money to use high tech computer effects so instead they used some interesting makeup and an animal hide costume. That may not sound great, but I rather see that then a bad computer generated beast. Plus, this Beast somehow reminded me of the cannibalistic creatures from the movie "13th Warrior."

The Good Points: So now you are probably wondering why I scored it a 6 if it was that horrible. Well, the truth is, it wasn't THAT horrible. I base most movies on the actual story-- 65-75% story/acting and 25-35% special effects/physical attributes of the actual movie. I understood from the beginning that the movie was going to be low budget, and I was expecting the story to be basically the same old Beauty and the Beast tale that we are all used to. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the end of the movie-- it has a neat twist that I am of course not going to spoil for anyone. The story itself starts out a little typical, but by the time the movie progresses about halfway through the film, you sort of feel your heart strings pull at the actual love story and the Beast's hopeless position. And again, the ending was a tad bit unexpected, therefore I think it makes up for the horrible wigs, lack of accents, and bad costumes. It's a shame that they didn't have more money to put into the film; it definitely would have strengthened the story itself.

So in conclusion, I recommend the movie for the story, not the special effects or accuracy of the accents and costumes. If you find yourself board on a weeknight or weekend and you don't go into the movie expecting too much from it, I think it can be enjoyable. I hope this helps! May Odin guide you!

I happened upon this rare piece of cinematic art whilst looking for Batman Begins at Blockbuster. Batman was out and this was there. Which was unfortunate. From the opening scene where viking teenagers are swimming and we see that apparently the producers forgot ITS COLD in Norse lands. Also every one is young and pretty. It felt very much like watching an episode of Xena. I mean lets be honest this is a straight to video release for a reason. The acting is very bad. Of course the material wasn't any help at all. I will say that the production design team did a very good job. I am sure this was a very low budget film but they did a good job. The story line works to a certain degree. I mean it is beauty and the Beast retold. If your looking for Vicking movies I would stick with the 13th Warrior.

Okay...truthfully, I knew this movie would not be a cinematic masterpiece. I knew it would be some low-budget, straight-to-video Lord of the Rings knock off. It was low-budget and it was straight-to-video. However, it wasn't a LOTR knockoff...which is unfortunate. The story was Beauty and the Beast all over again...only it was set it the days of the Vikings. This is a problem because the characters didn't act like Vikings, nor did they dress like Vikings. For God's sake they wear all wearing chain mail...CHAIN MAIL!!! Vikings were only a couple of centuries BEFORE chain mail. If this story had taken place on an imaginary world with imaginary tribes and people and such, it would have been much better. However, setting it in Viking era did nothing but fill the movie with historical inaccuracies.

Inaccuracies aside, let's talk hair. Most of the actor were wearing wigs and it was obvious. There was one in particular...I remember him vividly. He was only in the movie for a couple of seconds. You say him in the background on the boat. He had no lines and no name that was mentioned. He was obviously just an extra. His job was to just blend in. Unfortunately, he didn't. Why?? Because he was wearing this ridiculous 1980's Britney Fox wig. This thing was WAY too big for the actor's head. It was just so terrible. All of the actors had bad wigs, but this one was the worst. Also, William Gregory Lee had hair extensions, but, apparently, the budget wasn't big enough for him to get a full head of them, so the producers just gave him a few. You could see where they were attached to his head and...it was awful. Also, what the heck was up with that little twig over his forehead. That thing got on my nerves.

The acting was, by no means, great. It was like watching a high school play or an after school special (for those of you old enough to actually remember after school specials). Anything with Justin Whalin is destined to be crap...let me present Exhibit A: Dungeons & Dragons, Child's Play 3, Lois and Clark...you get the idea. However, he wasn't the worst actor...in fact, he did well. William Gregory Lee got on my nerves. Obviously, he wasn't really all that tough, because he seemed to be having trouble acting tough. Jane March was okay, but not great. David Dukas, who played the Beast/Agnar, was probably the best, but only whilst playing the Beast. He struggled through the three minutes that he played Agnar. Very strange. The other actors were nothing short of mildly mediocre.

The SFX in this movie were...well...almost completely absent. The Beast was a guy in a prosthetic suit. And though it was a pretty cool idea, it really just looked like a guy in a bear skin rug. Also, the fires never looked real. Apparently, it was cheaper to make fake fire rather than actually set stuff on fire for real. The flames looked like those TV fireplace things and the smoke...well...there are no words to describe how bad the smoke looked. In the film's defense, though, this was a low-budget movie. That is something that must be taken into consideration. The weapons were obviously fake. They looked like wooden weapons that were spray-painted to look like metal only the producers hired some one-eyed imbreed from a Mississippi body shop to paint them.

In the end. This film was low-budget and watching it gave constant reminders of this fact. However, the low budget wasn't the real problem. The real problem was that the producers tried to pass it off as a Viking tale. They should have just gone ahead and made it a cheap knock-off of LOTR. It would have actually been a better film. 3/10.

But at the same time I didn't find Blood of Beasts a good movie. It is far better than the 2010 Beauty and the Beast also directed by David Lister though. Blood of Beasts' flaws come from some hilariously fake wigs, costumes that are not very authentic, the substandard effects especially the fires and the man in a prosthetic suit for the Beast, stilted dialogue and some rather forced acting from William Gregory Lee. On the other hand, I did like the fantasy-adventure nature of the sets, the photography and editing are above average and the score was cool with some beautiful and atmospheric themes. The story may strike you as standard, but it didn't feel predictable, it held my attention and unlike Lister's later Beauty and the Beast film the romance was somewhat believable. The acting is also not too bad, Jane March exudes beauty and is commanding also. Overall, not good or bad, more average to me. 5/10 Bethany Cox

This movie is not great, by any stretch. It is the story of Beauty and the Beast retold from a vaguely new perspective.

Having said that, its not as bad as it first appears. Sure, the costumes suck...it is obvious that this is a film with a very low budget.

But the acting is decent, and there were even a few that stood out. The writing is decent. And the directing was obviously quite good. He/she did quite a bit with very little money spent. Even the production was decent. Not spectacular, by any means. But certainly could have been worse.

So, does it top my A list? Not a chance. But if you are looking for a movie that is a pleasant diversion, this may be the ticket.