Rating: 
Summary: Hidden story within
Review: Have you ever read Beowulf, the 12th century poem written by an anonymous poet? You want to get a Hollywood version of Beowulf's tale? I suddenly realized that this was truly his tale after I finished The Tower Of Beowulf by Parke Godwin, and only because I remembered one scene at the very end of the film that was remeniscent of the final scene in the story. It's The 13th Warrior. It is told from the annonymous poet's point of view in the movie, but Bulwyf is Beowulf, and he truly does go to help King Hrothgar with his demon problem, although in the movie, it's the Wendor trying to make you think they're bears, whereas in the story, Grendel is really a demon haunting the great hall. After reading the story and watching the movie, I can see where they combined all the characters into one story to condense it a bit. For example, Edgetho is Beowulf's father in the story, not Hygelac, and in the movie Edgetho is one of Bulwyf's sword companions. Prince Wigliff is actually Beowulf's successor when he becomes King of the Geats after King Hygelac's son is killed in a raid instead of King Hrothgar's son as in the movie. And Wigliff in the movie is boastful, distainful of Bulwyf, and said to have killed his brothers, which means he's filling the role of Unferth the boaster, who is contemptuous of Beowulf at first and accidentally killed his brother, and Hrothulf, the nephew of King Hrothgar and the murderer of his two sons after he dies. Confused yet? Let me tell you more. In the original story, Beowulf travels to King Hrothgar, the Lord of the Danes, to help him defeat Grendel and stop the demon from ruling the great alehall, Heorot. Then Beowulf returns home and much later when he's old and gray and King of the Geats, he takes on the dragon in the underground cave with twelve other young warriors and the thief, a foreign slave, who disturbed the dragon in the first place. I have a feeling that the Arab in the movie was supposed to represent that thief/foreign slave who had to show the warriors where the dragon and the hoard was. Anyway, Beowulf ends up dying from wounds given to him by the dragon over a great treasure. He dies sitting up against a tree and looking out over the world in front of him with his sword stuck into the ground beside him. Wiglif, his second cousin twice removed, succeeds him as King of the Geats and buries him on the pile of treasure that had created greed, strife, and ultimately, the dragon itself. You see, the northern peoples believed that when you were so consumed with avarice that you took on the shape of that evil; hence, the dragon. Clever, eh? Well, the movie brought all these things together, got rid of the dragon altogether, made Grendel the Wendor, and had the final real fight in the underground sea cave. I didn't figure it out that it was the Beowulf tale until I read the book and remembered Bulwyf sitting down at the end and thrusting his sword into the ground next to him, to die of fatal wounds while staring out at the world. Very clever indeed. I don't think very many people realize that Michael Crighton took that poem and rewrote it in a more modern tale to tell it to people once more. I was just lucky that I read the story after I saw the movie. No one knows that they are getting that story that was written so long ago no one remembers it but those who grew up with it. Very cool. I recommend this film not only because of the cinematography and the well written script (there are some great lines like: "What do I do?" "Keep your teeth together and go back to work!", but also because it reintroduces a beloved story in a form that modern audiences can really enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Movies Ever
Review: This movie is quite possibly one of the best movies I have seen. Although it is not exactly the same as "The Eaters of the Dead" or "Beowulf" for that matter. However, the movie goer sees the adventures of the Beowulf character through one of his fellow warriors. It made me want to read "Beowulf" again and then compare all the similarities. I LOVED IT!
Rating: 
Summary: A good action movie but a ok drama
Review: The action part of it was pretty good. The drama part was so-so. The plot and story outline was incharesting and inchreging but I rate this movie 3 stars. It is really avrege. And nothing special.
Rating: 
Summary: Read the book first.
Review: Based on the book "Eaters of the Dead", this movie actually follows the book fairly closely. Most of Michael Crichton's other work that has been made into movies didn't turn out very well. At least not if you had read the book before seeing the movie. As always, this movie was not as good as the book, but it was a pretty good attempt. Surprisingly, Antonio Banderas was almost perfect for the lead role. I'm obviously not a big fan of what Hollywood usually does to books that I enjoyed, but this was actually a pretty good adaptation. I can see where if you just saw the movie without having read the book, it might seem a little weak and shallow. But if you read the book first and get all of Crichton's asides and research into the time period and cultures that are represented, then the movie will make a lot more sense and be a more enjoyable experience.
Rating:
Summary: Fails to live up to its potential
Review: The 13th Warrior had its heart in the right place: At its core, the film is the kind of swords-and-shields romp little seen since Conan the Barbarian. There are dimly lit battles, inhuman foes, tankards of ale and much bonding between brothers-in-arms. That the bonding occurs between rambunctious polytheistic Nordics and a Muslim almost gives the narrative a politically correct anachronistic flavor. I suspect that Crichton used Ahmed's point of view to explain the Norse culture to outsiders -- but the movie doesn't take this opportunity. It's an obvious example of The 13th Warrior's insistence on attending to subplots and subtext when it hasn't provided the basic framework for an adventure. A major challenge to the flicks credibility was how quickly Ahmed learns the Vikings' language; once we get past the camp scenes where he learns it (an apparent timespan of a few weeks), he seems to have as perfect a command of their language as the Vikings themselves. Utterly ridiculous....Now, The 13th Warrior isn't a terrible film, it's just a film that fails to live up to its potential. Completed a full year prior to its release, it did poorly at an early test screening, causing Crichton himself to go back and re-shoot scenes and re-edit much of the film. At any rate, fans of Viking cinema, looking for well choreographed scenes of bloody combat will be pleased with the film. Viewers looking for an intriguing story to go along with the battles would be advised to look elsewhere, because like an underachieving child, The 13th Warrior never quite lives up to its potential.
Rating:
Summary: Neat twists and turns in the plot
Review: The first viewing of this film kind of left me not knowing whether I really liked it as a film or for the action alone. The second viewing, however, made me realize that even though it was obviously a victim of the editor's bench, it had numerous small but significant twists in the plot that left me thoroughly enjoying the entire thing from start to finish.
Rating: 
Summary: Another Michael Crichton novel turned into a bad movie.
Review: I don'tknow why so few film makers can do justice to a movie version of a good Michael Crichton novel, but John McTiernan joins the growing list of film makers who do not seem able to do good movies based on a Michael Crichton book. This one on a band of Arabs who meet the Vikings in the Northern Europe area, and then fight some of the most powerful foes that they ever encountered, is really a victum of some bad editing, which makes the movie very uneven. Both the actors and the screenplay also suffer from rushed production to get the movie done on time. I tell you, the only film makers who have made good movies based om some of Michael Crichton's books have been Robert Wise on the Andromeda Strain and Steven Spielberg for both Jurassic Park and the Lost World.
Rating:
Summary: An Underrated Film
Review: Reviews of this movie wrote it was simply as a male-bonding film. It certainly qualifies, but the film is much more. This is, essentially, a tale of good versus evil with a good deal of action, suspense and a minor love interest. The film makes a serious attempt at depicting medival warfare (the ships used were built for the movie) and portrays life in this period as something close to what it was: grim and dirty. It does point up how that Arabs were much more civilized than the barbarians in the north. Perhaps the best recommendation I give give is to admit that I have seen it several times and never get tired of viewing it.
Rating:
Summary: Director's Cut?
Review: I loved this movie but realized, early on, that it was savaged in the editing. Can anyone tell me if they are planning on releasing a director's cut of this film?
Rating:
Summary: Good bloody action
Review: Antonio Banderas is an Arab diplomat who joins a band of Viking warriors as the prophesied '13th Warrior' to fight an ancient evil, the 'Eaters of the Dead' as in Micheal Crichton's book of the same name. The battle scenes are great and bloody, sort of like Braveheart and Gladiator. And the Viking leader Buliwyf is super in his role, stoic and quiet like a Norse Arnold Scwazenagger. The story isn't perfect, especailly how Banderas 'learns' how to speak Norse. But on the whole good action and aometimes quite scary. Not a bad movie. An A-
|
