Would have been good if they hadn't called it Beowulf

Rating: 5/10 (25 November 2010)

It is not at all a bad film, but as a person who cares dearly about academics, I was upset at how it diverged from the epic, and worse, how people may assume that the original story went the exact same way.
I watched this film with my British Lit. class after we had read a translated version of the original story. At first, the movie was quite true to the original plot, but things really started to diverge with the encounter with Grendel's mother. In the actual story, she is a hideous beast, just like her son, and NOT a beautiful, scantly clad sea-witch. In the story, another fight occurs, but not in the film.
From there, the differences only get bigger. In the movie, it turns out that Hrothgar and Beowulf both had sex with Grendel's mother, that the dragon is the offspring of Beowulf and Grendel's mother, and Beowulf kills the dragon himself, at the cost of his life. Those are all untrue to the story: In reality, Grendel's mother is just another monster, the dragon is completely unrelated to her, and Wiglaf helps kill the dragon before it can kill Beowulf.
This is not to say that the story itself was good. Indeed, its theme was far more complex than that of the original Anglo-Saxon epic, and the action, special effects, and acting were all commendable. However, the story is simply too different to be called "Beowulf." Had they called it something else and stated that it was their own story, I would have given a much higher rating.