Beowulf is a wanderer who learns about a man-eating creature called Grendel which comes in the night to devour warriors trapped at the Outpost. The Outpost is ruled by Hrothgar. He has a daughter, whose husband may have been murdered by the Outpost's master of arms
- Stars:Christopher Lambert, Rhona Mitra, Oliver Cotton, Götz Otto, Vincent Hammond, Charles Robinson, Brent Jefferson Lowe, Roger Sloman, Layla Roberts, Robert Willox, Patricia Velasquez, Marcel Cobzariu, Vlad Jipa, Diana Dumbrava, Andrei Rusu,
- Country:USA, UK
- Director:Graham Baker,
- Writer:Anonymous (epic poem "Beowulf"), Mark Leahy (screenplay), David Chappe (screenplay)
A sci-fi update of the famous 6th Century poem. In a beseiged land, Beowulf must battle against the hideous creature Grendel and his vengeance seeking mother. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Beowulf torrent reviews
(us) wrote: well made plot, a good scenery, and a scenario that shows the power of doubt.
(ca) wrote: 6.5. Interesting. Decent acting. Not a bad film.
(nl) wrote: Heerlijke lichtvoetige film over Turkse gastarbeiders in Duitsland
(ag) wrote: Not all that funny but a good examination of the arbitrariness of life.
(es) wrote: What a fascinating documentary of the post-effect of the 2016 election.
(fr) wrote: Aaron Kwok vs Mark Dacascos => delicious
(jp) wrote: it was soo good! I cried at the end
(ru) wrote: although williams does a great job - he's such a great character actor, I was disappointed because I thought this would be a "hidden dangerous secret" deal, kind of like Pelican Brief and I have to say I didn't really understand the plot- and the girl interest, which could have been avoided altogether, was rushed and pointless.
(kr) wrote: A really neat film about base baseball. Edward James Olmos stars as a scout for the California Angels who finds a very talented pitcher and guides him. Lorraine Bracco is awesome in this movie, a good cast with a great story.
(gb) wrote: Not only is this movie bad in the conventional sense, it also boasts overt pedophilia and homosexual themes throughout the film. This includes, but is not limited to, a naked Jesse Ventura inviting a young boy to come sit on the bed with him, while he relates a tale of two men who were 'partners'. Overall... a must-see!
(it) wrote: Parce que j'aime que toi
(ag) wrote: Tibor Takacs' second good horror film (after The Gate.)
(fr) wrote: Two and a half stars.
(br) wrote: From what I hear there is a cut from original director, Richard Donner, that fixes some of the issues I have with this film. But you'll have to bear with me because Netflix only provides the theatrical (Richard Lester) cut. The huge missteps in this film are when it takes very odd cartoon-like turns that don't fit with the rest of the tone (For instance the cellophane "S" that Superman throws at Non.) I also have some issues with the random nature of many of the super powers. Instead of holding to the standard ones we know...Zod seems to have telekinesis, they all can shoot beams of energy out of their fingers, and Superman has mind-altering kisses. At a certain point it feels like they are just randomly assigning whatever power the plot needs them to have. Aside from that, I think this is a very good Superman film. Just like its predecessor, this movie spends a fair amount of time focusing on how much Superman loves humanity. The primary theme of the plot is based on him sacrificing his own happiness in order to save the world. That makes for a very strong superhero story. And the fight sequences between the Kryptonians might seem slow by today's standards, but I thought it did a nice job highlighting the uniqueness of each combatant. My personal preference at this point is to watch three Superman films: Superman, Superman II, and then Superman Returns. Then I ignore anything that came between or after these movies. It makes for a strong trilogy and encapsulates all the best of the man of steel I grew to love as a child.
(us) wrote: amol palekar was the best of his time wid utpal dutt ofcourse... makes u laff ur ass off
(ca) wrote: Wow, it's no fun being married, Japanese, in love with a courtesan, and in the 18th Century. Who knew? But [i]Shinj: Ten no amijima[/i], based on a Japanese [i]bunraku[/i] and morality play, it some pretty heavy stuff. I mean, there is no happily-ever-after here, and we'd know that even without the title. I mean, when you call your movie [i]Double Suicide[/i], we're not exactly expecting Our Hero to triumph and carry Our Heroine away, are we? But the story itself makes it pretty clear that somebody is not going to end happily, and it's probably going to be everybody, even without the give away of the title. And, of course, the story is old enough so that no one in all of Japan would have been likely to have been surprised anyway. As indicated, Jihei (Kichiemon Nakamura) is in love with a courtesan named Koharu (Shima Iwashita), despite being married to Osan (also Shima Iwashita, in one of the film's many interesting stylistic choices). He is wasting his family's money and all his time hanging around the brothel where she works, and his brother and his father-in-law are starting to get seriously upset about the whole thing. They conspire to make Jihei give her up, but it doesn't work. Then Koharu's life is in danger, and Osan gives up everything in order to save it--as Koharu later puts it, they forgot to be jealous. Jihei rescues her, but for reasons I don't entirely understand, they'll never be safe, so in order to stay together, he kills her and then himself. Let's face it; it doesn't make any less sense than [i]Romeo and Juliet[/i]. It's a beautiful piece of film. Breathtaking, really. The choice of style doesn't work for everyone, but I think it's the only choice that fits. You see, [i]bunraku[/i] is a kind of puppet theatre, and while we are working with human actors, here, we keep the puppeteers. They are everywhere, silent men all in black who follow Our Lovers around, moving scenery and saying nothing. They steer the story, and we watch it. That's simply how it works. There is no attempt at an illusion of reality; the whole thing is seen from a different plane entirely. On the other hand, it makes it seem almost more real, almost [i]hyper[/i]-real. Everyone, I think, half-suspects that everyone is watching them anyway. Everyone is the center of their own attention, in that lovely Eddie Vedder phrase. In the case of Our Lovers, it just happens to be true. The more Japanese film I watch, the more aware I become of some of the slight differences in many works. Later film, both Japanese and American, is strongly influenced by the great directors of each. Hence [i]The Magnificent Seven[/i], really. But there is always Japanese film, such as this, which makes far more shots like those beautiful Japanese paintings. They are stylized; these people are themselves and archetypes and copies of themselves all at once. It's as though you could go to any cemetery in Japan and find these lovers, find any lovers, as though no Japanese cemetery is complete without them. Any geisha is Koharu; any man who loves a geisha is Jihei. Also, it is quite clear that there is no Code in Japan, or if there is, it's looking for [i]very[/i] different things. No American film of 1969, or at least no mainstream one, would have shown a pair of adulterous lovers, one a prostitute, having sex--complete with her orgasm!--in a graveyard. This film feels earlier than it is. I went and double-checked the year, and all I could think was, "1969? Really?" And, of course, we think of American film of the era as being more shocking. But this film is willing to show us the eroticism of a revealed leg; American film of the era showed us all of everybody's legs. An American version of this would be sexual; this is romantic and erotic.
(mx) wrote: The first half of the movie was beautiful and heartbreaking at once. But the latter half was poorly done and dragged on. I DESPISED the ending and last minute message of honor before all else.
(ru) wrote: the best movie I have ever seen.
(de) wrote: Mediocre = 2.5/5Not a terrible movie by any means. in fact, there was surprisingly a decent amount of things I liked in this movie. Like Mila Jovovich herself, some of the characters, and I appreciated their focus on tension building and story development between the characters. However... the movie is way too slow at times, has mediocre action sequences at best, absolutely terrible CGI, way too many predictable jump scares, and was overall not nearly as entertaining or exciting as you would come to expect from a movie with a premise like this.
(au) wrote: A good film, with a god cast. However, something about the production gave it a very "made for TV" feel.