It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Released in 2005, "Beowulf & Grendel" tells the basic story of the epic poem: Beowulf (Gerard Butler), a hero of the Geats (modern-day Sweden), comes to the aid of Hrothgar (Stellan Skarsgård), the king of the Danes (modern-day Denmark), whose great hall is terrorized by the monster Grendel (Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson). In the poem Beowulf fights Grendel with his bare hands and, in the second act, he takes on Grendel's sea hag mother (Elva Ósk Ólafsdóttir) with a magical sword he finds in her lair.The third act of the poem takes place fifty years after these events when Beowulf is king of the Geats wherein he takes on a fire-breathing dragon, which is entirely omitted in the film.The first two acts are, of course, re-imagined for the film. Grendel is no longer an evil monster, but rather a Neanderthalic lug who lives by himself in the wilderness, which the director described as a "Sasquatch," but – don't worry – he looks nothing like a conventional Bigfoot. He looks just as described: A mentally-challenged Neanderthalic lug. The movie wisely adds the character of a seer outcast, Selma, played by Sarah Polley. I've heard people complain about her performance, but I regard her as a highlight.The fact that the movie is called "Beowulf & Grendel" signifies that Grendel is probably going to be a more sympathetic character than in the poem, and he is. The motive for his slaughter of the Danes isn't due to the agonizing sounds of celebration, as in the poem, but rather primal vengeance. Despite Grendel's lack of sophistication there's ethicality to his killings. For instance, he refuses to slay Hrothgar and also refuses, at first, to harm the Geats. The story reveals why. As for Beowulf, he isn't depicted as a one-dimensional; he plays the detective who starts to see that there's more going on than meets the eye.The movie plays like a fairly realistic Viking tale, but the inclusion of the sea hag puts it in the realm of fantasy. What the heck is a "sea hag" anyway? In any event, this is an excellent live-action companion-piece to 2007's animated "Beowulf," which was much more popular at the box office ("Beowulf & Grendel" bombed, but – then again – it was barely released). The percussion-oriented score is great and the Icelandic locations are magnificent. While the plot is simple, there's a lot more going on underneath the surface. For details see Callmomrad's incredibly well-written and erudite review on IMDb. My lone criticism is that you can only make out about half the dialogue due to the heavy accents and muffled deliveries, which wouldn't be a problem if the DVD had a subtitle option, but it doesn't; so you'll have to listen closely.The film runs 103 minutes.GRADE: B+

I have seen this movie after watching the 2007 version on French television. My memory of the Beowulf saga was a black and white picture of a gigantic arm hanging with warriors around. This picture was so terrible that as a youth I kept hiding the book itself, afraid as I was to see the arm escape. The story of Beowulf is tragic. Most Nordic tales are tragic. The great quality of this movie is to actually show the landscape of the Dane Mark of lore. This is the land, which inspired Odin. Great empty spaces. Cold and clear streams. Arid mountains. And a few dwellings by the sea. It could have inspired Kurosawa who would have put ink in the rain to make it dark. It is a very good movie with a true story of love, and recognition. That the land we own today was the land of people before, and that we are trespassers. There is a message of hope, though. Races do mix, and horror is beaten. The tale continues. Excellent movie!

OK, I understand poetic license, but did any of the production staff read Beowulf?! Nothing was right. Beowulf is credited as the first English epic and they screwed it up. I'm sure it may of had some merit as a good film, but I couldn't get over the irritation factor. Please anyone that's hoping to get out of reading Beowulf by watching this (which I clearly am not one) realize that you will fail. I'm very sure that the story was great in its original telling, so... tell it that way!P.S. THE NORSE GODS WERE NOT MENTIONED ONCE IN THE ORIGINAL WRITING SO THEY SHOULD'NT BE IN THE SCRIPT! NOR DID GRENDEL HAVE HUMANITY!!

although notable for setting choice, that hardly made up for the shocking lack of talent or viable script material. Gerard Butler, although a proved actor (and hottie), could have done much better than to star in this terrible film because frankly anyone can grunt. Furthermore, I was so disgusted by the description of rabbit bestiality during the dinner sequence I didn't think it could be topped. I actually threw popcorn at the screen. That was until of course the troll/witch rape scene in which a young outcast woman is violated and appears to enjoy it. the lack of music was shocking. the lack of meaningful dialogue was shocking, and quite honestly the content was shocking as well. had the writer stuck to the original story of Beowulf the audience might have had even a faint storyline to follow and the movie a fighting chance.