Grendel
- TV Movie
- 2007
- 1h 22m
King Higlack of the Gauths entrusts prince Finn and a fire ball weapon to his champion, slayer Beowulf. They lead twelve men on a mission to help king Hrothgar of the Danes, whose once glori... Read allKing Higlack of the Gauths entrusts prince Finn and a fire ball weapon to his champion, slayer Beowulf. They lead twelve men on a mission to help king Hrothgar of the Danes, whose once glorious realm is terrorized by the undefeated monster Grendel. The task is made more difficult... Read allKing Higlack of the Gauths entrusts prince Finn and a fire ball weapon to his champion, slayer Beowulf. They lead twelve men on a mission to help king Hrothgar of the Danes, whose once glorious realm is terrorized by the undefeated monster Grendel. The task is made more difficult as Hrothgar kept gruesome secrets.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Unferth
- (as Jack Minor)
- Finn
- (as Chuck Hittinger)
- Ingrid
- (as Alexis Peters)
- Olf
- (as Maxim Gentchev)
- Captain
- (as Vlado Mihaylov)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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!
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.
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.
Did you know
- GoofsMuch of the armor worn was of a design that was current many centuries after the poem was actually set.
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $1,800,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 22m(82 min)
- Color