The end of motion picture, as we know it

Rating: Null/10 (15 November 2007)

I've heard some say that starting with the silent movies at the beginning of the last century, the motion picture has finally reached its ultimate destination, in something like "Beowulf". I am inclined to share this view.
The bizaare merging of real life acting with animated screen presentation was fun as far as it went in "Waking life" (2001), particularly when it had Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy giving the craving audience another glimpse of Jesse and Celine, between "Before sunrise" (1995) and "Before sunset" (2004). But "Waking life" is true animation, by which I mean you see characters drawn the way they would appear in a comic book.
"Beowulf" is an entirely different kettle of fish. In this "animation", they try to make the characters look as if they were real. Question: if I can see the real actors, why would I want to see their computer-generated replica? A general observation of the result: the men look almost real probably because of the effect of their beard, but the women look pathetically "plastic" (can't think of another way to describe how they look on screen).
As an animation heroic tale, "Beowulf" scores high. The entire story is shrouded in a gloomy Greek tragedy mood. The characters are larger than life  tragic and flawed hero, blood-curdling and yet irresistible enchantress, lovely suffering queen, terrifying monsters, loyal comrade-in-arms. The action sequence produced by cutting edge technique is of course a visual treat. There is also excellent voice acting, particularly from Anthony Hopkins and Ray Winstone. In the end, however, I stand firm in that while I enjoy tremendously CGI action sequences, I prefer to see real actors. "300" is just fine but "Beowulf" has gone too far. But if people like Anthony Hopkins and John Malkovich see a reason to lend their support to this project, what am I to say?