I didn't expect a lot from 'Beowulf', for lots of reasons, most of which were to do with the casting: incorrigibly cockney Ray Winstone as a warrior from what's now southern Sweden; wacky John Malkovich as a cynical counselor; loony Crispin Glover as a flesh-rending monster, and weirdest of all, Angelina Jolie as the monster's mother...thaet waes wundorlic castyng, as the poet might have put it. Then there was the way they did the whole thing in CGI, running the risk of making it all look a bit rubbery. Finally, Robert Zemeckis is the director and my great respect for him plummeted through the floor and into the crawlspace after he presided over the insufferable 'Forrest Gump'.

Nevertheless, this is a lot better than I thought it would be. I missed the 3D incarnation as we were watching the DVD rather than the cinema release, but after a while you stop looking at the CGI and start enjoying it. This is a 'Beowulf' where the story, although different from the poem, is actually very far from shabby.

Without giving too much away, the main difference from the poem is that in the poem, there is no connection between the monster Grendel and his mother on one hand, and the dragon in the latter half of the poem on the other hand. In the film, a connection exists. Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary do a professional job of tying it all together in a satisfying Hollywood way, without betraying the basic darkness and sadness of the story; it's not like Beowulf rides off into the sunset with Wiglaf at the end. Crispin Glover is genuinely scary as the tormented and raw-boned Grendel, whose main problem is that he just can't stand the sound of people having fun, although since most of this fun consists of hairy men singing lewd songs you can see his point. Angelina Jolie's animated self spends all her on screen time walking around without any clothes on, something that apparently gave Jolie a blush when she saw a cut of the movie. (One of the more eerie things about this film is that the cartoon Angelina Jolie looks marginally more realistic than the actress herself.)

Despite an accent that's more Stockwell than Geatland, Ray Winstone does a fine, sombre job as the hero, although my wife thought that the animated Winstone looked more like Sean Bean. Brendan Gleeson does a splendid job in the niche he's carved for himself of Hairy Sidekick. The acting honours, or at least the animation honours, go to Robin Wright Penn (or whoever worked on her character) as the pale and melancholy queen; she has moments of subtle hesitation and sadness that struck me as a triumph of CGI acting.

There is much excellent smiting, some of it unfortunately toned down a little in order to keep a PG-13 rating - so we don't actually get to see Grendel biting men's heads off, just people's reactions to him doing so. Most importantly, the story is not a travesty of the original. It's thoughtful and interesting, as you'd expect from a writer of Gaiman's quality (if not from the author of 'Killing Zoe') and contains some striking meditations on the power of legend and reputation. Plus, there's a really huge kick-ass dragon. 'Beowulf' is a strange and unexpected treat.


It seems we have a new cinematic fad coming into fashion... the genre of mythological action. It began with '300' (a film I really enjoyed), and the first that stands to benefit from 300's success is Beowulf. Beowulf is the newest film from Robert Zemeckis. Zemeckis implements many of the same visual themes of his last project, the heart warming Polar Express, with varied success.

Beowulf tells the story of the kingdom of King Hrothgar (a delightfully campy Anthony Hopkins)which is currently being terrorized by a monster named Grendel (Crispin Glover). Help comes in the form of mighty Beowulf (Ray Winstone), who arrives with an army of 14 men and his right hand man, Wiglaf (Brendan Gleeson). It his his job to slay the monster. However, he must also deal with Grendel's mother (Angelina Jolie). Beowulf is opposed by Unferth (John Malkovich), and has also been paying close attention to the king's wife, Wealthow (Robin Wright Penn).

Perhaps the most surprising element of the film is its sly, wink and a nod, sense of humor. This can be viewed two ways. The first view is one of enjoyment and laughter. However, it is hard to comply when we are asked to feel or identify with these characters after so many scenes presenting them as mere caricatures.

As expected, Beowulf is visually stunning. I'd argue it is the one category where this film bests 'Polar Express'. The 3-D photography is shockingly good. It is a film I wouldn't want to imagine in the traditional two dimension format. I strongly advise anyone who is going to see this to view the film in 3-D. Without it, the film would be borderline un enjoyable. The highlight is by far the final battle scene,which just begs you to forget the film's past misdeeds. Close, but no dice.


I have read Beowulf a couple of times. It's great northern European mythology, and mandatory reading when you are young in my opinion (Along with Norse, Greek and Roman Mythology as well). And though the movie wants to re-write some of the epic, you will need to separate the Hollywood version from the beautiful measure of the original works. Being a work of CGI, you will also have to allow for the flaws of pure CGI work. Very stylized and beautifully colored, it is an epic adventure that elevated Zemeckis' previous work "The Polar Express" to a new level. Polar was beautifully modeled after Chris Van Allsburg illustrations for his book, but Zemeckis' adaptation to the story went a little over the top when it became a musical. Even though most of Beowulf's story line is answered here, it did make me pause and wonder:

Why didn't Robert Zemeckis just direct this thing in real life instead of virtual?

With the capabilities of dropping in CGI into real life action, this telling of the story could have had so much more of an impact if the expressions were more poignant. Look what he did with "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"? Zemeckis is fully capable of it. Also, to add to this, when you have CGI characters like Jacksons Gollum and King Kong to compare notes with, the modeling here just isn't up to snuff. I felt the entire movie came off like a gigantic "cut-scene" to a video game than a full featured animated project. I can only give this a little better than a good, hence the exclamation. I do this sadly. You really should see this in a theater, bigger than life. The dragon is excellent, the ugly v/s the beautiful is wild, the sequencing is uneven, though at the end it takes you on a great ride. Oh, and for you people that want to go see Angela Jolie nekkid? IT'S CGI!!! I've seen harder stuff on Fox networks! Seeing my wife and I saw this as a matinée, the crowd was on the sparse side and there was literally no kids present. I couldn't get a solid feeling from the audience though most people as they left seemed genuinely happy with their experience. I'm sure it was PG13'd because of the sequences with Angela, otherwise it would be a solid PG. I wouldn't suggest this for a kid under 8.


I have never had the experience of seeing a 3-D movie before on the cinema, the only experience I have had with a 3-d film, only courtesy of some 3-d glasses coming free with a DVD, was Spy Kids 3-D, a movie while mildly entertaining isn't exactly the best film every to display the greatness of 3-d. So Beowulf today was my first 3-d experience, I went in expecting something good because of the 3-d, but I didn't expect the movie itself to be superb. Part of my reasoning behind this was because of the one and only experience I had had with Zemeckis and his new way of making movies. That movie was unfortunately the Polar Express, a supposedly happy tail that actually freaked me out more than most horror movies! So what an absolute delight to say that Beowulf not only works because of it being in 3-D (more on that brilliant factor later) but also the movie is a genuinely brilliant movie anyway. The motion capture isn't remotely creepy this time round and actually it seemed to make sense in some bizarre way as to why they did the movie like this. The actors surprised me big time, Ray Winstone delivering actually one of his best performances in a long while, Angelina Jolie playing the slinky seductress to perfection and Anthony Hopkins being a joy to watch on screen. Beowulf is an action packed, well written and entertaining piece of popcorn cinema. Just watch the dragon sequence near the end, every single person in my cinema was on the edges of their seat and looked in awe. The action sequences just amaze, and the dialogue sequences surprisingly really work as well. Unfortunately however if you see this movie in 2-D then you will not be experiencing Beowulf in my eyes, take off the 3-D this is a 9/10 movie, with the 3-D it gets the 10/10 rating with a blink of an eye.

As I've previously said the acting in the movie really caught me off guard. Ray Winston obviously is not the first actor who comes to mind when playing an ancient warrior. However when you see the movie and see the performance you understand why Winstone was cast. Sure his cockney acting at first seems a bit bizarre coming from the character, but after a while you see the subtlety of the performance and come the final half hour you realise he's quite possibly the best thing in the movie. He delivers a heartfelt and genuinely brilliant performance. Anthony Hopkins not only looks real in the movie, but he too delivers a performance truly worthy of Anthony Hopkins. Sometimes Hopkins can do a role for a sake of a role (see Mission Impossible 2), but here he seems to be having a blast as Hrothgar and he has some superb moments in the movie. Angelina Jolie plays the most interesting character of the movie, Grendell's Mother, alas she appears very briefly. But her few scenes stick firmly in memory, and her entry scene is one of the most beautifully pieces of cinema I have seen when watched in 3-D. Crispin Glover too has brief screen time as Grendell, but he delivers a heartfelt performance, in fact I felt genuine sympathy with Grendell. Glover might not be recognisable, but his performance shines through in the early scenes. John Malkovich and Robin Wright Penn too deserve considerably praise, as does a brilliant cast Brendan Gleeson.

So as I've said the 3-D really makes the movie have a cherry on top of an already beautiful cake. After they filmmaker get over the gimmick of chucking things at the screen the 3-D is used less prominently, until any action sequences, and when the action sequences begin I doubt you will draw a single breath. Grendell's attack on a beer hall is the opening action sequence, and it is surprisingly violent for a 12a and also amazing to behold. But its the dragon sequence and late battle sequence that stick firmly in mind. I shall not spoil them, but those sequences really did make me wish that every action movie ever made from now will be in 3-D. The problem with the 3-D being so good is that the 2-D version seems like a cash in, in fact the movie relies so much on the 3-D at times that I doubt the 2-D version is worth watching. Swords pointed at screens, the camera pans through trees, the multi layered effect it gives off, in 2-d it just won't work as well, so my advice is to find a cinema that does play it in 3-d, you'll get much more for your money if you do. The storyline and film making is also extremely effective. The subtle dialogue scenes, especially the stuff between Winstone and Jolie really are some of the highlights. Also the relationship between Beowulf and his queen is touching.

So are their any faults? As I've mentioned the 2-D version just won't be as good, but also the movie doesn't seem like it'll be that good at the start. In fact at the beginning, for five minutes, I was expecting to be bitterly disappointed. Thankfully that little slouch at the beginning is livened up with the arrival of Grendell, and from that point onwards you will adore the movie. This is Zemeckis' best movie since Back to the Future and definitely one of my favourite films of the year. Go and watch in 3-D and pray that more movies will be made like this in the near future.


Short answer: If you love the old Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf, do not see this movie. You will be nauseated.

Longer answer: In the Dungeons and Dragons community, there is an old joke that the characters "kill things and take their stuff." Well, Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary managed to kill Beowulf and take his stuff. Then they proceeded to kill Hrothgar, the helm of the Shieldings and take his stuff. Then they killed Grendel and took its stuff. Then, they killed Wealtheow and took her stuff. And so on, and so forth. These two imbeciles with Underwoods (an orangutan could have come up with a more sensitive treatment of one of the seminal pieces of English literature!) completely changed the tone of the poem from a serious heroic epic to just another post-modern round of "no more heroes" buffoonery.

The literary atrocities of Messers Gaiman and Avary upon the source material are as follows: 1. The poem has been dechristianized: On the one hand, it does take out a glaring anachronism (the action of the poem takes place during the Migration Period of the AD 400s-500s, when they would still be following the traditions of the Aesir religion, but the poem was written down in a very Christianized context in England, and the anachronism does add a richness to the language) The only sop to the underpinnings of the source material come in a discussion between two urinating Danes over the relative merits of Christianity and Aesir-worship, and later when Unferth suggests praying to Christ as well as Odin, a suggestion that Hrothgar rejects out of hand (perhaps a reference to the opposite situation in the poem, where the Danes throw off Christianity for a time, hoping that the old gods will smite Grendel where the Christian ones had apparently failed).

2. It is implied very heavily that Beowulf was a liar and braggart in his earlier exploits, including the race with Breca: As with many of the other changes, it seems to be part of a deliberate campaign by Gaiman and Avary to strip away the heroic nature of the source material, turning Beowulf into just another trendy 21st-century flawed anti-hero.

3. The characters often speak with a much more modern speech pattern (see, for instance, Unferth's first confrontation with Beowulf, where he comes off as much more smarmy than in the poem) that is jarring to the ear and that often seems to lead, yet again, into Gaiman and Avary's unspoken goal of de-heroizing, de-mythologizing, and de-bunking the poem.

4. Beowulf does not kill Grendel's Mother: In the poem, it's reported as fact that Beowulf kills her after a ferocious struggle. Nowhere in the poem does it suggest that she seduces him and he lies about killing her. Again, it's the old song of "everything you know is false -- there are no true heroes." 5. Beowulf fighting in the nude: Beowulf does forswear the use of arms in fighting Grendel, but nowhere does it say that he would fight the monster in the all-together, tackle-out (with only strategically-placed objects protecting his modesty). In fighting with Grendel's Mother, it is explicitly stated that he is wearing chain-mail armor and that that saves his life. I'm giving a pass to her appearance, as it's never stated exactly what either she or Grendel actually were supposed to look like.

6. Hrothgar is almost explicitly stated to be Grendel's father: No, no, NO! Nowhere in the poem was any mention of Grendel's father made, least of all it being Hrothgar, whom Grendel's Mother would not have been able to have "known" anyway, as he was a consecrated king, and it is implied that Cain's kin could not go near signs of rightful royalty. (Cain, the first murderer, who is claimed to be the ancestor of Grendel's kind, not "Cain," the not-appearing-in-the-poem whipping boy of Unferth's, that is.) 7. Hrothgar and Wealtheow have no issue, because Wealtheow will not sleep with Hrothgar due to his sleeping with Grendel's Mother, and the subsequent romantic subtext between her and Beowulf: Wrong again. Leaving behind the fact that Wealtheow probably was not as nubile in the poem as in the movie and showed no romantic interest in Beowulf whatsoever, she and Hrothgar had two sons, and as mentioned before Hrothgar had not slept with Grendel's Mother.

8. Hrothgar gives his kingdom over to Beowulf and then commits suicide by jumping off the tower of Heorot: At this point, I walked out of the theater and demanded my money back, as the movie had officially jumped the shark with no hopes of return.

In short, the movie was little more than a parody, a lampoon on a great epic.


To all who have seen the movie and read the book, then I am sorry. To those who didn't read the book: The writers of the film did not follow the story line at all. Beowulf was supposed to pull of Grendel's arm, not shut it in a door. Grendel's mother was supposed to have lived in a lake of fire and be an ugly hag. Beowulf was also supposed to kill her, not make a dragon child with her. Grendel's mother was only supposed to kill one man when she comes to Herot, not all of Beowulf's men. And Hrothgar never gave Beowulf his kingdom. Beowulf had his own. Beowulf, after a long, unsuccessful battle with the dragon, was supposed to have died, not having killed the dragon and Wiglaf ended up defeating it. I cannot give this movie high ratings because of its twisting of the original story, which disappointed almost everyone in that theater.


I was excited that now, with CGI, a great epic tale like Beowulf might be successfully made into a movie. I will keep waiting for a responsible screenwriter and director to try this again. First of all, I thought there would be more live action/acting. Since this had such a lovely cast list, I assumed they would really act. The stilted phrasing and wall to wall sexual innuendos made this one of the worst scripts I have encountered and brought to the screen. Beowulf, the great epic is full of magnificent epic poem, richly enhanced with kennings and alliteration that bring power and dignity to all of the characters. There was no dignity here. Instead, Beowulf was enveloped in shame (and given this script it was, unintentionally, the only thing they got right.) Please people,READ THE BOOK! The only thing this movie had in common with Beowulf were the names of the characters. Say no to bastard children, naked mommies of monsters, and lips that do not match up with the dialog. The only thing I got out of this was true/false test material for my British Literature students who think they can get away with watching the movie instead of reading our text.


For over 1000 years Beowulf the epic has described Beowulf as a mighty hero who killed Grendel AND Grendel's mother. He became a mighty King in his own right after protecting the existing incumbent and his son. At the end of a life of courage and honesty he sets out to fight one last battle, KNOWING he may be going to his death but willing to protect his people for one last time. During the final battle with the Fire spewing serpent, Beowulf was losing, but one of his companions remembered his duty and where others deserted Beowulf, Wiglaf returned to stand by his dying lord, shielding him and dealing a stroke that abated the Serpent's fire, enabling Beowulf to deal the death stroke to the serpent with his battle knife. Finally after the death of the serpent, and the subsequent death of his dear lord from his wounds, Wiglaf berates the cowards who deserted their lord and made them feel their shame.

A short synopsis of the Epic of Beowulf.

What Beowulf is presented in this movie?

A pervert who sleeps with a Demon, holds his lands at her behest, abhors his life and spawns a mutant.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong, so wrong it is not remotely funny.

The main thing that bothers me is that those who see the film will think it is in any way accurate (even in the fight against Grendel Epic Beowulf stated he scorns to carry sword or shield he does mention his shirt of mail!) and a tale of unblemished heroism that has lasted fire and reformation over 10 centuries gets buried by a below average CGI flick with a bigger advertising budget.


Beowulf is among the greatest and most well-known epic tales of Norse Mythology, but it only took me five minutes into the movie to realize that this film was not even close to as something grand. Why? To my surprise and disappointment, this movie was animated. Sure, animation isn't a big deal for a film along the lines of Shrek or Ratatouille, but not for a story like Beowulf. Beowulf is a very serious tale that covers many topics such as vengeance and forgiveness, cruelty and mercy, curses and revelations. I admit, this movie has some of those aspects, but it rather focuses on a corny, stylish animation work.

The action and animation itself reminded me of a teen-rated video game rather than a masterwork. However, there were a couple of scenes in the movie of which some of the up closes of the actor's face in certain scenes look real rather than animated, particularly in the scene of where Beowulf encounters Grendel's mother. I don't know if this was digitized or not, but either way, I felt like I was brought back to a normal film in these scenes versus a silly cartoon.

As with the story, rather than beginning with King Hrothgar murdering Grendel's father, it opens with the King having a party of drunkenness and very inappropriate nudity, particularly for an animation film. Then the party is suddenly raided by the giant Grendel. After this raid, which is quite bloody (especially for an animated film) and long ends Beowulf is finally introduced.

Now, the movie does not explain why Grendel keeps attacking Hrothgar. In the myth, it was because he was responsible for Grendel's father's death. There is no sign or even an implication of this. As for Grendel, well all I can say is he looks like a giant mummy from The Mummy Returns and loves to yell at the top of his lungs. I felt no pain for him, rather an urge to say, "Shut your gull!" I don't want to even bother in trying to explain the rest of the story. It is mainly a combination of Beowulf's two great tales smashed together in under a two hour film.

Since the story wasn't really developed well, the actors did not have much breathing room to really act. The monsters were evil and the good guys were heroes. Ray Winstone as Beowulf is pretty much like Gerard Butler was as King Leonardis from 300. He has a muscle-bound figure, loves to kill things, occasionally tries to be civil in politics, loves to walk around butt naked and shout drunkenly, "I am Beowulf!" I can't help but think of, "This is SPARTA!" Anthony Hopkins, as great an actor as he is, is an old, senile, drunken fool who can't stride from one chair to the next. Angelina Jolie, well, she's Angelina Jolie. She has a great body and speaks smoothly with her accent from Alexander. There's nothing worthwhile in this film, just a wasted epic that relies too much on the CGI department and has vivid images of sex and violence. I'm even more surprised that the great director Robert Zemechis of Back to the Future and Forrest Gump would direct this garbage.

-1/10 I wish I can get my money back.


As far as movies go, this one has what is popular: action, adventure, sex, blood, and lots of twists that will keep you guessing what the truth is.

However, if you've read Beowulf (which, judging by the reviews, is a small number of people), and you appreciate the characters and hold them in a place of dignity and respect in your mind, then forget about appreciating anything about the movie. Though Beowulf is portrayed in the epic as the great leader and hero who never has done a dishonorable deed, he is, in the movie, portrayed as a liar and a deceiver. He defeats Grendel by closing his arm in a door. He never kills Grendel's mother because she seduces him and together, they beget the Dragon. How does this even make any sense? He returns to the Geats claiming to have defeated Grendel's mother and is then made king by Hrothgar. This is, of course, good for Beowulf, because he has a thing for Wealtheow, Hrothgar's wife, anyway. The kind and noble King Hrothgar has also been degraded to a cheating husband who also sleeps with Grendel's mother (hence the existence of Grendel) and who end up killing himself after making Beowulf king. the only noble deed that Beowulf seems to achieve (in the movie) is by severing his own arm from his body and by tearing out the dragon's heart with his bare hand (neither of which is in the book, by the way.) Funny, in the book, I don't remember the fight with the dragon leaving the cave at all...

We can only pray that someday someone does this epic justice and makes a decent film out of it. Until then, I give this steaming pile of movie a one... out of ten.


Beowulf has been my personal favorite book ever since I read it. I read it three times now. Every movie I have seen or heard of based off the book was nothing ridiculously bad but you could easily tell why they weren't in theaters and some of them were decent but nothing too exciting.

I was really excited last year when I heard that a Beowulf movie was actually going to be released in theaters! So the wait is over and I finally saw the movie...

It was nothing like I anticipated it to be. The movie shows Grendel as some sort of monster to be pitied, which the book shows him as a heartless demon without mercy. Grendel was more of an annoyance than anything in the movie with his constant whining/yelling and immature, babyish, personality.

Grendel's mother in the movie was mainly an animated Angelina Jolie, which again, her personality and looks were nothing like the book. The movie shows Grendel's mother and the dragon to be in some sort of league with each other. The dragon was killed years after Beowulf killed Grendel's mother, according to the book.

So in other words you have a great story but a sh*tty movie. The CGI animation throughout only made it even worse. The book was not based on Norse mythology, which the movie made references to Odin and Ragnarok and such, but rather based on beliefs of God. (The book was supposedly written by a Christian monk with all these references to God) I'm not saying that this entire movie should be based on the book. But I was expecting something similar to that of the 13th Warrior, which strongly reminds me of Beowulf every time I watch it. It had a dark feeling throughout, was about a culture similar to that of the vikings, and was well-written. Beowulf promises animation, annoying accents, annoying yelling/screaming, and whining. It felt like watching a child's version of Pathfinder mixed with Shrek. Beowulf is shown as a fallible character and is persuaded into a deal with Grendel's mother. I could go on and on with the mistakes of this film and how much of a disappointment it was.


This is the worst movie I have ever seen and I have seen a lot of movies in my life.

First off, I have to tell you I haven't read the poem and so wasn't aware of the gross changes made to the substance of the story that I found about while reading comments here. Thus, I won't talk about the awful and treacherous rendition but more of the failings of the movie as a story separate of its source.

The main thing that was inconceivable for me was the so-called hero: Beowulf, hailed by many of his entourage (during the movie) as a savior, as a luminous figure with glorious achievements and high courage is in my eyes, as portrayed in the movie, again I repeat, a braggart, a liar and a cheater( since there is a difference between the two), a power-grabbing sell-out and a lecherous Don Juan in the worst sense of the word (no flashbacks to long-suffering Johnny Depp, please, they're in different classes).

I have so resented the mockery made of this supposed hero that I felt nothing but relief at the end of movie and was left completely cold by his death. (I think I felt more about Grendel's death, such a pitiful creature). Now, I assume, this isn't the reaction sought by the filmmakers, but this is what they got from me and I'm not the only one who left the theatre with an acute sense of disbelief.

The women, well what to say about them: in every scene they were present, they were seen as objects of sexual desire or were involved in romantic flirt, and moreover they seemed to revel in it, the aging Beowulf's young flame was absolutely sickening in her haste to be "approved" by the then king. Not one remote moment where they were more than just acting womanly the men around. Not even Angelina Jolie: I would have expected a knife through the heart for her child's murderer not a roll in the hay (well, mud from cave to be exact).

Sir Anthony Hopkins: the amount of respect I have for the man risked by the filmmakers through a risqué and needless unveiling of flesh in a drunkard romp which I bet they thought it would be funny. And also poor, poor lines, that even his talent couldn't save. I hope to see him in a new movie quite soon to drive the bitterness away. I echo the sentiment for John Malkovitch whose ambiguous, confusing character traits didn't allow him to truly expand.

Other things to nitpick at: the allusions to Christianity seemed out of place most of the time as I didn't understand what they could contribute to the plot (maybe atmosphere), the gory scenes that might look great on 3D, but just left me nauseated (a tip,less is sometimes more), but not when involving Beowulf's striptease nudity (I thought it was real cold up North, but go figure).

The last thing that topped it off and sent me in front of my computer was Wiglaf's last scene, where they finished it in true horror movie style, with the continuity of the evil character that will come back for revenge. It's not the sequel-wanting that troubles me, but what it implies of humankind: this man has been the witness of not one but two falls caused by the same mistake and he's seriously thinking that he should want a repeat of it and get a different result: that's the definition of madness. For me that was the last straw, for the cheap effect, they had forsaken the lesson and its consequences and offer no hope.

As for the animation, I'm not an expert but the friend I went to the movie with who is one says to tell you the animals weren't veridical, the humans' hands looked weird and some often the movements were real awkward, though the dragon was awesome.

That's it, ramble over,hope it helps.


And I loved it. The creators of this little gem have far more potent imaginations than I and I envy them that. What a rousing movie! I picked it up in DVD to fill up an evening while my wife was away and what a pleasure it was to get engrossed in this brilliantly told tale of courage and adventure. It took me about 30 seconds to get used to the animation. It will take you longer to get used to the idea that this movie actually does a better job evoking a bygone time than the literature on which it's based. That's amazing to me. Another surprise was that Ms Jolie's much ballyhooed nude scenes were more disappointing than I had expected. I found myself more entranced with Robin Wright Penn's Wealthow who is undeservedly undervalued as an indispensable part of this film's magical weave. Ray Winstone rings more true in the lead than anyone had any right to hope for, in my opinion. And then there's Anthony Hopkins and John Malkovich, both adding bits of irrepressible humanity to the mix. This is in sum a thoroughly enjoyable film and I don't hesitate to recommend it, but especially to guys who will have a richer appreciation of it all than I would expect the usual woman will.


This is a film meant ONLY for the theaters, and should be restricted to IMAX to boot.

I just watched this on a regular TV/DVD player. Okay, although it may have been a viewing experience in the theater it was boring at home.

I was bored, granted I didn't experience the film the way it was meant to be.

That being said, this was another film that banked mostly on the effects (computer 3d animation) and little on the story. Yes, it was a cartoon, basically, so what kind of acting can you get out of a cartoon.

All I can say is that the film ended with me feeling cheated.


Excellent film for fans of swords, heros, monsters and beautiful demons.

The Angelina Jolie character is sooo sexy. The scene where she seduced Beowulf was excellent.

The violence is NOT cartoon-like and this film cannot be recommended for any young children - it WILL give them nightmares.

The CGI is very realistic, except for the eyes.

Bad things - the accents/voice acting was a bit weird - you had Grendel doing the Old English thing, Beowulf sounding like he was about to ask why Grendel hadn't bought his tool to the fight, etc.

I also query why they got squeamish about having Beowulf fight naked, but not show his todger. Either let him wear pants, or let it all hang out... the Austin Powers-like covering his naughty bits with other objects all the time was just silly - having the hero fight naked worked perfectly in the recent Eastern Promises, with Viggo Mortensen giving his all. If he can do it, I don't know why a virtual Ray Winstone has to be shy.

Overall, a good film, and well worth a look.


A few of my friends recommended I go and see Beowulf. They all said that the story wasn't much but that visually it was amazing and to make sure I see it in 3-D.

The story is almost frighteningly small. Beowulf turns up to a kingdom (and a small kingdom at that, it seems to be one hall big sometimes) to rid the king of a monster (WARNING SPOILERS from here on in) and does so only to find out the king was actually the father of the monster as he'd slept with the monsters mother who's also a monster but being played by Angelina Jolie helps make bestiality understandable.

Beowulf then becomes King, sleeps with the Monster Jolie and then a monster son comes after him. Only this time the monster is a dragon!

Sounds great doesn't it. Full of action! We'll to a degree it is full of action but the way producer/director Robert Zemekis was chosen to do it (entirely in 3-D CGI graphics) ends up destroying most of the excitement to be had from this story. The whole film being done as 3-D CGI graphics element stopped me from really getting into the film and the end result was a film that felt like an extremely overlong cut-scene from a video game.

I think this problem with relating to the characters isn't just because they're not real, anime and Fleischer Brothers cartoons have given us numerous characters that we've been able to relate to strongly. I found the original FIST OF THE NORTH incredibly moving when I first saw it. Same with PRINCESS MONONOKE and the original TRANSFORMERS movie

The problem is that BEOWULFS 3-D creations more resemble video game characters then actual animated characters. My 3-D animation teacher told me never to copy directly from real life as the actual animation ends up looking "dead". The key to a great animator is knowing the best way to over-emphasize.

In BEOWULF they used a special software that enabled them to capture the actors performances pretty much exactly but in the conversion to 3-D animation they have for the most part come out dead. The only two actors who escape this are John Malkovich and Angelina Jolie. These actors quirks are so strong that vestiges of their humanity still manage to come across in there on-screen avatars/characters. I never thought they're would be a way of stopping Ray Winstone (star of so many great films such as LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THE AMAZING STAINS, SCUM, NIL BY MOUTH and SEXY BEAST) or Brendan Gleeson from giving magnetic performances but Robert Zemekis found a way. Poor Robin Wright Penn fairs the worst in this process. Such a great subtle actor, her performance is totally lost in the translation to 3D.

Which leads me to the finale of BEOWULF. In the end Beowulf must confront and single- handedly destroy the dragon. In the course of this he is thrown about, shot at with arrows, rides the dragon and nearly falls to his death. We'll in a live action film this would be completely riveting. The 1980's movie DRAGONSLAYER proved how incredible dragons could be in movies. That whole film was based on what an incredibly frightening sight they are. But unfortunately since you know that you don't have control over the video game looking and that all the things you are seeing are being controlled by artists via a computer program there's no reason to become to involved in what's happening on-screen.

The enjoyable things about BEOWULF are all technical. Seeing how detailed computer graphics have become and the new visual fluidity a camera is allowed in a 3-D environment. How realistic water and fire effects can be rendered.

The first 14mins (about the length of a He-man cartoon) are the best. The close ups of objects are great too, such as a shot of pebbles on the beach just before a horse comes crashing over the camera and scatters them.

The worst shots are the wide shots as they show just how cheap and fake 3D can be. One particular shot of Beowulf running on one side of a chasm with his troops on the other firing arrows at the dragon looked like a bad D & D video game.

What makes this sad rather then just a novelty is that Robert Zemeckis used to be such a great director and one of the things he was best with was memorable characters. Remember how many great characters there were in the Back To The Future series? Marty Mcfly, Biff, Doc Brown? All great!

Do you remember Forrest Gump? For all the anti-American sentiment of it in Australia I know plenty of people who found it incredibly emotionally moving and a large part of that was director and the actors attention to performance. It's telling that the most emotional shot in the whole film is a wide shot of Forrest telling his wife that despite his mental handicap he does understand love.

But in his last two outings something has gone terribly wrong. The technology has taken over the film. The vital human element has been lost under a plethora of pixels.

I can't think of anything about the Polar Express that would make me want to see it in the form it is or even show it to my younger relatives (those who are of the age to appreciate that sort of film). Same with BEOWULF! Nothing about the technical approach added to the film. If I had really gotten to see the real Ray Winstone playing Beowulf then maybe the small plot would have been less of a concern because I could have related to him. What's so baffling is that there already exists a successful formula for making ancient stories into great cinematic entertainment. It's called JIM HENSONS STORYTELLER and 90mins of that flies by.


The best thing about the 2007 Beowolf is the performances and dialog appropriate to the story and setting. The second best thing was the background scenery. Where the movie fails is with its silly looking special effects which were NOT enhanced by the awful camera work and excessive zoom-lens jump-about. Also, I thought the story was weakened by a lack of camaraderie among the men.

Angelina Jolie is a true beauty and she did not need a "nude scene" where her breasts are enhanced with rubber to a 60+ size. How silly. Also, besides the rubber breasts, most of us prefer our women without over-sized scale-laden tails wagging like a T-rex. How does a man have sex with a creature like that? And why? What's the logistics of dealing with a 100 pound T-rex tail wagging all over creation? Since Beowolf does just fine with women his age or half his age he could "just walk away" from any woman with a questionable unsightly giant tail.

Sixty years ago Hollywood excelled in making outstanding pictures in this genre. But now they lack creative talent with the maturity to put the breaks on the Whiz Kids with all the fancy gadgets that simply wreck most 2007 movies. A film like this --- almost without suspense because of continual misjudgments by the director --- will run its course on DVD in the next few months and end up in the same dumpster as a Styrofoam clam from Mickey Dee's, while the classics of 1938-1950 will be sought-out long after we are all planted in the ground.


I finally figured out how to enjoy this movie when I realized it was a cross between a cheesy bodice-ripper romance novel and an Eddie Izzard routine.

I wish I had seen it in 3D, at least that would have added some amusement to an otherwise disappointing movie. Although, Angelina Jolie is always pleasant to look at when scantily clad. Wish I'd just stayed home and rented Gia.

OH, and stilettos in 750 AD? Whatever.

(Lustlimb is how one Beowulf's men refers to his penis when he's chatting up the local serving wench.)


Sturla Gunnarsson's film version of this Anglo-Saxon poem and legend a couple of years ago robbed the story of its legendary elements. Since Beowulf is a national myth freely blending the magical, fantastic, and historical, nothing very memorable, or even appropriate, came out Gunnarsson's well meaning effort to make it brooding, "historical," and "realistic"--except that he did capture the overwhelming gloom of much Anglo-Saxon poetry.

Robert Zemeckis has done a new version, vivid and full of life, gore, and occasional humor. To achieve this effect he has used motion capture technology, with improvements over the previous feature to use the effect, Polar Express. He's also enlisted some rather famous actors, and the movie's been shown in regular format, a 3-D projection with the old glasses bit, and I-Max.

All of which turn the tale into something fabulous, perhaps a bit kitsch, pretty entertaining, and the most ridiculous PG-13 movie ever. It's extraordinarily violent; but then, so are many traditional children's stories, myths--and national epics (the Iliad and the Odyssey aren't sweet little nursery tales; but that's the point: nursery tales aren't sweet).

In the 3-D version I saw, as in the old days of 3-D, which never did catch on, spears and drops of blood and pebbles spew constantly in your face. We'd be dead or maimed if our mugs were thrust so close to such events. But after a while you get used to it. You adjust to the motion capture imagery too. It makes sense for legendary characters to have an artificial gloss. The point is there's no naturalistic way to render the Beowulf story.

This movie has done well at the US box office. Some have compared it to a computer game, and it's certainly comic book or graphic novel material in the Zemeckis version. But the result is surprisingly effective, and despite some jarring elements--most people may just remember a naked Angelina Jolie with an odd accent, and maybe Crispin Glover covered in gore and spore and magnified to fifteen times a man's size, as Grendel, the monster.

A highly computer-enhanced Ray Winstone (provided with a super-nautilus body) plays Beowulf, the Geat who comes to slay Grendel for Hrothgar, leader of the Danes. The story opens with the great "mead hall" where the early Scandinavians got drunk and swore oaths they later were held to. Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) is a drunken, fat old man with a young wife Wealhtheow (Robin Wright Penn); he's nonetheless extraordinarily brave. When the monster Grendel, a misshapen, outcast creature, comes to kill many of Hrothgar's men in the hall, Hrothgar stands up to him boldly--and survives. But the next day he closes the hall and goes into a period of grieving.

When Beowulf comes along offering to slay Grendel and boasting of his prowess, he is challenged, primarily by Unferth (John Malkovitch)--an interesting character, unappealing, cowardly, but a useful foil for Beowulf whom the hero ultimately forgives and in the film version turns friendly. Unferth accuses Beowulf of exaggerating his prowess in a swimming contest. In the movie, Beowulf is a liar several important times. This is not exactly the way the story originally went, but writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary have embellished the original in interesting ways.

The most obvious one is Angelina. "Grendel's dam" (an animal term for mother) as the poem calls her is never clearly described--certainly not as a big-breasted, bee-sting-lipped naked babe. This is certainly a lively element, but a pretty distracting one. Beowulf has to battle Grendel, then his mother, and then, later, a great dragon. Arguably the dragon is even more distracting, since it's a huge, spectacular, golden creature. But this makes for an appropriately grandiose climax.

Grendel is pretty weird looking, a little too grotesque and disgusting and not monstrous on a heroic scale as the epic poem implies, but naturally Crispin Glover does good things with the character, making him a pitiful as well as scary figure.

Scholars argue endlessly about the meaning of various elements in the story; a big issue is how strong the Christian element in it is. As someone who studied the original pretty closely at one time myself, I was impressed at how well this movie brings the story to life. It doesn't seem to have appealed much to the critics. But the ancient bard who spun out the original poem was not an art-house filmmaker. Yes, it's kitsch; yes, Angelina's a jarring element; and yes, the various accents are a dreadful mixture. But anything that leads people back to the oldest English literary tradition of all and gives it popular appeal again seems pretty worthwhile to me.


I'll keep this brief and straight to the point, unlike the movie. The movie incorporated a commendable animation, which was near realistic. Of course there's a morale to the story, the folly of men, but how many movies and tales do we have to hear about our own bane. While you're condemning our actions you might as well enthrall the audience. I was mortified with the action scenes. I wasn't particularly fond of butchery.

I was hoping for a more Underworld type movie, and what I got was an array of screaming fable creatures and a depressing story line.

Not to be criticizing the directors, they seem intelligent but this is not the way to make millions.

An audience prefers to leave a movie happy or in positive or intellectual verbal contemplation of the storyline. I didn't recall a murmur, silence in fact.

I apologise for the hard work. Great actors but not such a great motion picture.


Let me start by saying I am well read in the original Norse tale of "Beowulf" and "Grendel" and am a proud Swede. I have never been so excited to see a blockbuster action flick adapted from a book in my life. I went and stood in line to see it at the IMAX in 3-D. The theater was packed and the crowd was in great spirits.

As soon as the movie started, you are like "Wow", is this really animation? I mean, you know its fake, but the close ups and detailing is really amazing. Hopkins was super classic as the drunken king too. Instantly the movie kicks into action when Grendel shows up. The movie then introduces Grendel's mother, looking hotter than in real life and does a great job of tempting everyone.

My only problem with the movie is it gets a little boring in the middle. I understand the reasoning, but I think it could have been adapted better to keep the audience more interested.

All in all, great movie and I can't wait for the DVD!


When I go to see the movie I was bored and have no expectation of this movie at all, the trailer didn’t even look that convincing. I needed to see some movie so I went to see it; also it was directed by Robert Zemickis, for me this name is good enough for me to buy the ticket.

Synopsis: When a small town was terrorized by a monster, a king ordered his men to trace a warrior that could save his town a greatest reward. That is when our hero came in – Beowulf.

I have never read the books before so I will go by the story of what I see in the movie. The whole movie was much more entertaining than I thought it would be, maybe because I have no expectation like the others who also went to see it. I must say that extra money that they charge me for the 3D thing was worth it, the outcome, the animation and everything was breathtaking. It was crystal clear. They even gave the preview the different between 3D and non 3D.

I thought the whole story was pretty OK, nothing great or memorable, seem like they put more energy in the making of this movie into 3D than the great storyline. The story is not that well distributed and here and there can be a little bit boring. The character is quite shallow and the dialogue in this movie was way too little. And there is so much gore that seems quite unnecessary.

The good outcome was I don’t really get border by the fact that this movie is CGI like I felt as I watch The Polar Express; this one felt more like a normal movie. As I said before this movie seem to only concentrated a lot on making it a lifelike as possible so tried to watch it in a highly enhance Digital Cinema like I did and you will felt quite impressive at the new technology that everything look so clear and real.

Overall it was a fun flick, don’t expect that good of the story but tried to look at that awesomely done CGI.

Recommendation: Should At least Watch It Once.

Reason to Watch: The Future of Film Making!!!! Reason Not To: Story is very shallow, and if not for CGI this movie is just average Mythology movie.

Rating: 6.5/10 (Grade: C+).

Please Rate Y/N After Read.


Well, it is surely an impressive animation movie with a very advanced technique which mixes real and virtual actors. The story is also very well designed, BUT it is not faithful to the original tale. In the Beowulf, Grendel's mother is killed by the hero, the cup appears only in the third act and the dragon has no relationship with Grendel's mother.

I understand the necessity to change the story for commercial reasons, but we risk to transfer to the descendant an altered version of story. I personally do not like that. Most people still think that the Andresen's Little Marmaid is an happy ending story because of the Disney cartoon. I do not like that. We need to preserve original tales.


About two minutes into Robert Zemeckis' sumptuous Beowulf, you'll breathe a sigh of relief; for the most part, the 'hollow-zombie-evil-eyes' syndrome which plagued Zemeckis' previous motion-capture outing, The Polar Express, has been enormously improved upon. Granted, the technology still remains unable to fully replicate the spark and nuance of actual human performance, but early in the piece, it becomes very clear that Zemeckis and co. have come damned close.

A modern re-jigging of the Old English epic, Beowulf sees its titular hero arrive at the hall of the aging King Hrothgar to slay the demon who's befouled his once-great kingdom and torn half of its inhabitants limb from bloody limb. Voiced with gruff swagger by a stalwart Ray Winstone, this Beowulf is a boastful champion, a man almost as great as the stories he tells of himself, but by golly, does he know it. This pride proves Beowulf's curse, and his lesson in humility and, in turn, true greatness, could scarce come harder learned.

An excellent supporting cast all rise to the occasion here, with Anthony Hopkins as the ill-fated Hrothgar and an ethereal Angelina Jolie as the demon's succubus honeytrap mother fleshing out the tragedy and elevating this to the level of genuine (albeit heightened) drama. As written by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary, Beowulf is an exhilarating spin on the classic hero's journey that sees richly realised characters brought to vivid, mesmerising life by Zemeckis' eye for scope and detail and the incredible technology at his disposal.

In fact, the only real complaint is that the film could have benefited from a few extra minutes to further cultivate plot and character and really push this into the realms of greatness for which its flawed hero so desperately grasps. Despite a solid effort in ensuring characters are given time to come into their own, the plot seems to move at whipcrack pace, and, at its completion, does leave the impression of being comprised almost entirely of action. That's not to say the film is left in want of character complexity, however, but more that the sheer spectacle of it all can tend to overwhelm its various more subtle aspects.

As for the technology, in IMAX 3D, Beowulf becomes a wholly immersive experience. The film's visual extravagance is serviced magnificently by the format; the major set-pieces bookending the film are nothing short of spectacular when witnessed like this. The 3D is rich and crisp and wholly convincing, providing, quite literally, an entirely new dimension to the action. If you plan on seeing the film at all, plan on seeing it like this.

Teeming with bawdy humour, surprisingly graphic violence and finely-honed visual inventiveness, Beowulf is not only Zemeckis' best film for some time, but also rates as one of the year's most fabulously exciting exercises in bang. If you like your action literate, with brains as well as boom, don't make the mistake of overlooking Beowulf.


After seeing the trailer for Beowulf, I decided I had no interest in seeing the film. However, after the screening last night, in 3-D at an IMAX theater, I'm glad I did. Other than the character names, places and objects, and some of the sequences that take place, the film is nothing like the epic poem. In fact, the underlying premise of the entire movie is completely made up and found no where in the poem. It's certainly sexed up and modernized, Hollywood style, to make it more accessible. And while I think it works well for the film, I certainly hope no ninth grader deems it a substitute for reading the actual epic. I actually pulled a copy myself from my library to re-read.

But who really cares about the poem, right? Haha, I jest! The story's the same as all the trumped up warrior movies of late (compare "I...Am...BEOWULF!" with "This...Is...SPARTA!"): heroic, sexy, hedonistic and violent. The monster Grendel is a foul ravaging, pus-ridden beast who towers over men with ease and rips their heads off like twigs. Liberties were taken, however, to make him also meek and hesitant, and clearly existentially bewildered. This gives the character soul and compels the viewer to find humanity in the creature. I really liked Grendel's mother, I must admit, even though creative license took her far beyond the original character in the poem. The cartoon version of Angelina Jolie arouses just as well, if not better, than the real thing (I could have lived without the high heels though). If I were Brad Pitt, I'd be quite jealous of cartoon Ray Winstone! It's a cool movie and definitely worth watching, but more so because of the technology, and less so about the story. You've got swords and blood and waves and stones and spears and beasts all coming at you at once! It's like you're in this foreign world battling right along with our hero! Alright, it's not that impressive, but it's certainly worth a movie ticket to check it out. I really can't say for sure how I'd feel about the film if I'd seen it in traditional two dimensional style on a normal movie screen... But then again, I'm not reviewing that experience, now am I?


The thing that struck me most about this program is that meerkats are more interesting than any Big Brother series. It has a distinct Big Brother style situation with cameras situated around a family of meerkats and it follows their everyday movements. The group is dominated by 'Flower'. The voice-over is totally hilarious as well for example; "Flower has been the only female in the family allowed to have babies, a) because she loves being the centre of attention, and b) because she's a psychopath" The program is what show like Big Brother and Celebrity Love Island want to be. The show is just a great piece of television, whether its the members of the family sneaking of to a different clan to have a quick nookie or to the young-ones fighting off elders for bits of scorpion!.


Oh my god. This show is just hysterical...Those meerkats are just so animated! I love how they run, rub themselves against stuff to mark their territory...If you are looking for quality entertainment, screw E!'s Top 100 Juciest Breakups, watch Meerkat Manor. The narration is GREAT (Sean Astin! Yeah!) and the filming is fantastic. It, of course, incorporates even the meerkats with social problems (I was half expecting the next meerkat to be a drunk.) The greatest thing is how they all move together and how the "rivals" test each other. Ialmost want to insert trumpets when they stampede the offending group, back ends kicking up. And when they run...it is just HILARIOUS. Their tails straight up in the air, bobbing above everything else. And how they climb on everything is beyond amusing. The overall cuteness and intense hilarity of this show will definitely draw you I'm.


OK, so the hardest part of watching this is to not assign human emotions to this little wild critters and to get over our human desire to save every creature. After all, they live in the wild and they have their own ways and we need to just let them be and enjoy them.

The meerkats are adorable...the funniest little faces and bodies and they way they stand on their hind feet and look around is just a scream, but of course it has purpose. The closeups give me the shivers because I can see the fleas flitting around their little bodies and there for a while one of them had ticks, which are normally group groomed off.

Listen, take the time to watch this. Anyone would enjoy it, or they don't have a heart. The meerkats are adorable and lovable, except for the fleas.


It's hard not to develop an appreciation and affection for meerkats after watching this show. Every episode is either watching a new drama unfold or one that continues to unfold in the never dull life of a mob of meerkats known as the "Whiskers" family. It's easy to get engrossed in the comings and goings, challenges, and drama in the meerkat family. Pluses include getting acquainted with other wildlife in the Kalahari Desert through the Whiskers family, whether it's their encounters with plovers, hunts for scorpions, or on the lookout for dangerous neighbors and predators. Also, the amazing close-ups both above and below ground, beautiful cinematography of the Kalahari landscape, and astute narration is a big thumbs up.


I had to comment to Melvira's post. I know that was over a year ago, and this comment board is old, but I think people need to understand one thing.

The researchers aren't going to interfere with the animals. Why? Well that would bias the research. If a meerkat that should have died lives on to reproduce, then chances are the offspring won't have the best genes for survival either, which means the meerkats will all need human help to live... which I hope you can see isn't a good idea.

Life is tough. Sometimes fuzzy, cute little baby meerkats die. But it is nature's way of weeding out the ones that aren't strong enough to survive in the harsh world. If you start saving the weak ones, they go on to produce more weak ones, and you have tainted the gene pool in an endless cycle of animals needing human help. That isn't natural.

Melvira sounds like a typical PETA person (whether or not they are, they sound like one). They say they care about animals, but they know very little about them, have never even taken biology classes, do not understand the circle of life and the laws of nature. I am studying to be a zoologist, and yes I do want want to work in a zoo and take care of animals, but I at least understand how the real world natural kingdom works. If prey doesn't die the predators will. Animals kill, animals die.

And I'm sure it was hard on the researchers, who studied this group for 10 year... TEN YEARS they watched this tribe of meerkats. I'm sure they love animals just as much as anyone else who gives up a nice salary to work with animals (there isn't much money in this sort of thing) and I'm sure it tore them up inside to watch whatever meerkat you are talking about suffer and die. But it wouldn't have been right or ethical to step in and mess up nature.

People are so crazed recently about having everything natural. No pesticides, organic food, etc. But when they see the dark side of what that really means they can't handle it. It isn't the fault of the researchers that the meerkats die, its the natural way of life, dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. Deal with it.


I have always been an animal lover but these meerkats stole my heart. Especially brave little Shakespeare. The editing and narrating are incredible. It pulls you in and you really start to care about these little creatures....as is they are are somebody you know. Kudos to Aminal Planet for bringing wildlife in Africa into the American home. This series touched me so much that I was compelled to donate to Fellow Earthlings' Wildlife Center. This center revolves around taking care of Meerkats. After watching this series I hope that you will contribute too.

These little meerkats are really incredible. Their social order is almost human. They have the dominate female who rules all (and what a perfect world that would be :-), babysitters who watch their young, and they don't mate with anyone related to them (please tell me how they know that). I urge you to watch this series and I promise, you will will fall in love with meerkats too.


The only show that we definitely make it a point not to miss right now is Meerkat Manor. It is super! I am also glad that they have begun to rerun it occasionally on Sunday nights, so that when we do miss a show, we can catch up. (It is also fun to watch them all over again.)

I am normally reluctant to watch animal shows as bad things always seem to happen to the animals. The Whiskers family does experience some tragic moments, to be sure, but these are infrequent and watching the family dynamics is fascinating. You get lots of drama and comedy, and all of the actors are incredibly cute. You really do get caught up in it - I am sure that Yosarian's moving the pups episode had a lot of viewers yelling at the screen.

It is so nice to have a show to watch that isn't so drearily predictable - you never know what Flower, Mozart, Tosca and company will be up to or up against next. (I am really concerned about Tosca right now!) Too bad the reality shows involving people aren't half as entertaining as this.


These are our fellow mammals....and they are highly social creatures.....it is easy to see their rules of engagement....maybe we should reflect and adapt?? For my part, this is a wonderful reflection on how nature exists as well as an interestingly creative documentary with a "soap opera" type of story progression. I wish they would show an episode with how the series is filmed as well as a summary on the demise/ascension of the various meerkats. I really miss Shakepseare and want to know more about what happened to him. He was a hero meerkat, indeed. A wonderfully touching story with all of the stark realities of life. Worth the while.


I think this show is Fantastic! From waiting patiently for the very first show to appear, I watched that episode and I have watched and enjoyed each and ever episode since the first one! In fact my husband tapes them for me to watch again later on in the week. I find myself waiting and looking forward to the new show coming up the following week! In this day and age it is wonderful to have this type of show to look forward to watching! So exciting, so wonderful, so real.....family type situations at their best....as well as at their saddest too! It's good for all ages.....little children to older adults! Babies to Grandparents (one of which I am, a Grandmother..not baby! HA! HA!! It's truly refreshing TV at it's best. My Thanks to Animal Planet for another good one! Thank You again Animal Planet and my Thanks also goes to everyone in the cast and crew of The Meerkat Manor show!


Animal documentary cameras follow the daily activities of a mob of 12" high Meerkats living in the African Kalihari desert. Alpha female Flower, her mate, Zaphod, socially inept Uncle Yousarian, slutty daughter Mozart, and the teenagers and pups make up a family unit known as the Whiskers. Their 3 square miles of forage territory must be defended from other mobs such as the Lazuli and Commandos. Leadership is dependent on strong and often ruthless decisions that mean only the alpha female may bear pups, and the fate of the group's breeding age adults becomes a series of illicit one night stands with rival non-related meerkats, and hard learned lessons in meerkat morality that leaves younger wanton daughters ousted for pregnancy. Each meerkat has become a star in the series but some more than other such as loyal Shakespeare who may have died battling the Lazuli raiders while babysitting the infant pups.

Keeping up with the numerous yearly litters of four or five pups means the size of the Whiskers group fluctuates as its members stray, die, or disappear after encounters and fierce battles often to the death. It is a dire existence in which family loyalty is reinforced by mutual grooming, scent marking, and hunting juicy huge scorpions and centipedes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Yummy! And, the meerkats are hunted as well by prey birds and other beasties of the desert environment.

Filmed by Cambridge University for over ten years, and narrated by actor Sean Austin, the family life of small weasel-like creatures takes on all the drama and humor of reality TV shows without having to design dresses or cook gourmet dinners. This is real survivor TV at its best and the often harsh reality of life and death of the charming and adorable wild creatures brings to the screen a complex and enormously endearing story of animal behavior.


I'm kicking myself for having missed this show until the final week of the first season (at least I managed to catch several repeats inside of a single night!). Whatever I've been gallivanting about doing on Friday nights can't have been as good as this.

While some might object that the show anthropomorphizes, despite its naming of the little creatures and its soap-ish format it doesn't go overboard in this respect. Meerkats are very social animals to begin with, and it's part of what makes them ideal for this kind of program. Also, while some would argue that it was unconscionable to let some of the animals die, I am inclined to disagree. I had a hard time with watching the loss of pups, and if the show were filmed as entertainment alone, I'd not have condoned such noninterference. But it isn't. It's science first, and scientists filming in the wild generally interfere with nature's own course to the least extent possible. There's room for argument about this practice, granted, but the sadnesses that happen on this show are NOT simply human hard-heartedness.

That said, sadness doesn't last long at Meerkat Manor. These are some very funny, frequently affectionate, and bold little creatures. They are fascinating, they are captivating, and they are downright addictive, so do plan to curtail your social life accordingly--or tell all your friends and get a bigger couch.


The perfect soap opera, Meerkat Manor has it all. With dangerous liaisons, mob family fighting, and internal family rivalries this show could easily pass for any prime time soap; the only difference is the players are 12" tall. Each half hour episode ends with a cliffhanger to get you back next week to see what happens. The first season ended with a huge mystery that they say will be explained when the second season opens. The shows main family is the Whiskers headed by Flower (the dominant female) and her current mate Zaphod. Zaphod's neurotic brother Youssarian causes mischief and is always on the lookout to mate. Three of Flower's daughters, Daisy, Tosca, and Mozart have mated without permission. The perfect son, Shakespeare, looks after his little siblings though it could cost him his life. This is just within the Whisker's family. The Lazuli family is always on the lookout to take control of the Whisker's territory, and meerkats fight to the death. Throw in the natural predators of the Kalahari and you never know who will live or die.


Well i watched it from 1st episode...every Friday i was waiting for new part of great life of those little creatures.. Recording quality is GREAT.. The narration is GREAT ...characters are 12 inches high You will get to know each individual character as intimately as any human soap star but here the relationships, births, deaths and conflicts are for real. It is the best documentary movie i saw.. So Click on animals planet and watch it I'm waiting for DVD to get it ASAP. Thw whole show is just HILARIOUS !!! Hight quality entertainment.. lots of action..Meerkats running around fighting for their territory, food.. Main Characters : And EVERYONE GET READY THEY ARE COMING BACK TO ANIMAL PLANET September 29th SO GET READY FOR ACTION !!!!


I started watching Meerkat Manor about 18 months ago when I turned the T.V. on the Animal Planet and I just fell in love with it, it is in my opinion the best documentary series ever made. Those little Meerkats are some of the cutest animals I have ever seen. My favourite was and still is Flower, she was a great leader and she lead the family with an iron paw (as the narrated said in one episode). It was very sad when Flower died but that is a part of nature and it is no-one's fault not even the Researchers, that was the saddest episode of the whole series. I also loved Sharkespeare and still wonder what happened to him. I also felt sad for Mozart and Tosca when Flower evicted them from the family. Meerkat Manor isn't on here in Australia at the moment but I have the first 3 seasons on DVD so I can watch it whenever I like.


I never tuned into Meerkat Manor until a few episodes before the Season 1 finale. I was addicted to it right away. I figured a documentary on MEERKATS couldn't be worth watching. But it most definitely is. I love this show.

This all follows a large group of Meerkats called the Whiskers who fight for survival in the rough Kalahari desert. Several rivals clans surround them and they're always on the lookout for predators. Being so little, Meerkats have many.

Flower is the dominant female of the Whiskers. And she has one of the largest group of Meerkats in the manor who she leads proudly with her loyal mate, Zaphod.

I guarantee you'll be addicted to this wonderful, fascinating show that teaches you so much about some of the smallest animals on this planet.

Watch it. You won't be disappointed.


As sad as it is, whether the RESEARCHERS not filmmakers, had been there or not he would have died. These men and women are researching the lives of the meerkats and are taking great care to not interfere with their way of life. It is the harsh reality that is nature. Like when Len and Squiggy died and I cried my boyfriend had to tell me that even if the researcher's hadn't been there and this hadn't been broadcast it still would have happened. That is what makes this show so great. It is heart wrenchingly sad when something bad happens but so amazing when something good happens. The way these little creatures survive surrounded by such a harsh environment; it is truly amazing. And like in nature as in life people die and we already mess with nature enough, through urban expansion and deforestation for the researchers to keep a meerkat alive that would have died in there absence would be bad. It would mess with the meerkats and the Kalahari's delicate way of life. So while yes this show has sad scenes that a researcher could prevent, it is the hard facts of life in the Kalahari and it is an amazing show.


Whomever filmed this to leave a meerkat dead when they obviously were there filming it and could have saved it is not an animal lover in my opinion. This disturbed me and I think you should rethink your filming process! Obviously you were there you filmed it. I thought this was in bad taste and then you want people to sponsor all of this. Why so you can film another helpless animal dying in the sun. They may have a tough time of it but obviously greedy filmmakers are no help. Why don't you make slasher movies it suits your personality better. I can't even believe animal planet would be "down with this" and show it. Poor Poor Taste!


With Friends Like These.... is definitely a cut above most Hollywood films about Hollywood. It is laugh-out-loud funny as well as warm, touching and authentic when it comes to depicting relationships between friends and spouses...a totally worthwhile experience! The entire cast is great, especially Adam Arkin and Laura San Giancommo as transplanted east coasters trying to tough it out until their ship comes in on the west coast. Bill Murray's turn as the self-involved famous producer is a riot. The fact that this film was not distributed at the time it was originally made, is a sad comment on the business end of the business, where so much junk makes it's way to the big screen, and other films, of higher quality, like this one, get lost. The writing is hysterical, filled with rapid one liners reminiscent of classic comedians, delivered with perfect timing. For anyone who has ever suffered through endless casting cattle calls or tried to get "in front" of the right people, this film is a must. For everyone else it's a decided pleasure.


"With Friends Like These" is a gem of a movie waiting to be discovered by millions of people who are intelligent, love comedies, and have a deep feeling for the human condition -- especially as it involves competition among friends for fame and fortune. While the friends in this movie are "bit actors" operating within the "Hollywood"/cinematic context, the forces that move them -- and us, as viewers -- are universal, and could apply to any group of friends, in any situation. The premise of the movie is simple, and like many things simple, it derives from a brilliant observation: friends will be disloyal to one another if they sense the rewards of disloyalty are great enough. On the face of it, the rewards seem obvious--money and adulation--but the desire for them itself reflects the true motivation of the actor-friends: desire for simple recognition of their talent in a system that chronically ignores and demeans them as human beings, artists, and professionals and -- at best -- underutilizes what they have to offer both film-makers and audiences. In a word, they are frustrated . . . to the point of desperation. And the thought of auditioning for Martin Scorcese himself -- in a new mob movie he is casting -- is irresistible. Worth anything, in fact -- even the risk of losing the love and respect of their dearest friends. Given this powerful motivator, the "secret" about the Scorcese audition initially held by one of the friends is soon let loose, and rapidly spreads among the others like an infectious disease . . . thus creating the competitive situation that fuels the film. Unlike most comedies today, however --which pathetically attempt to garner laughs from the audience through the characters' mindless "schtick," pratfalls, and mean-spirited jabs at one other -- the humor in "With Friends Like These" derives organically from the situation the characters find themselves in, aided by their idiosyncratic personalities. Even the situation, itself, however, and the types of characters who inhabit it, would not produce the guffaws, chuckles, and deep smiles that "Friends" does, were it not for the intimate knowledge of the movie industry and actors that Phil Messina, the writer-director, brings to every frame. "With Friends Like These" is much more than a comedy: It is a perceptive depiction of the "human condition" in a modern, capitalist society,conveyed in a humorous, humanistic way. For these reasons, "With Friends Like These" -- like the exceptional films of Woody Allen -- is a rare gem that should not be missed by anyone who loves great movies.


This is a pretty good 'slice-of-life' comedy. It revolves around four male actors who become captivated by the prospect of auditioning for the part of Al Capone in Martin Scorsese's next production. The Los Angeles actors' lifestyle is chronicled here, with several ironic references to familiar themes: nobody can keep their mouth shut, times are tough, and everybody is out for themselves.

"With Friends Like These" has flaws. It doesn't have as many laughs as it should, and the 'feel-good' parts of the film don't come off quite right. There is some comedy here, and some drama, but the the two aren't integrated well. The characters are knowingly painted as self-absorbed, except for Amy Madigan's character, who has a penchant for charity work. What saves the film is a fairly good script, some good ensemble work by the cast, and a brisk tempo that keeps the film hopping along.

The film's second half is better than its first, and I enjoyed the end quite a bit. David Strathairn is one of the great underrated American actors, and he has a lot to do with the film gaining momentum. Elle MacPherson is good too, as she is given something to do besides just look ravishing. She always does that well, but it's nice to see her get a chance to act.

Other nice touches were Scorsese himself appearing in one of the pivotal final scenes, and some nice work between Strathairn and his girlfriend, played by Lauren Tom. This film isn't a classic, but it is about people rather than robots or a serial killer, and it doesn't insult the intelligence of people over 20 years old. Rating 7/10.


I just saw this film in its 2005 re-release. It's really a fun little film, with quite a few laughs and lots of great moments among a really amazing, well-chosen cast.

It's so much smarter than the average Hollywood film -- which may have been its problem when released?! Who knows why studios do what they do -- and apparently, they didn't do this film justice in 1998 (after all, it has an ensemble cast where -- gasp -- no one is under 30!)

As both a writer and an Italian-American, I got perhaps an extra kick out of the story, which is about survival in Hollywood for these four actor characters and their families -- but the film's humor and theme of friendship is truly universal.


It is so refreshing to watch a comedy with no slap-stick humor, only clever, funny dialogue. It was a joy to see from the beginning to end. The scriptwriter does not manipulate the audience, he draws them in with a great plot and many twists and turns. The scene in the library was a big surprise, and the ending is totally unexpected. I don't think anyone knew what would be in that suitcase. Bill Murray makes a wonderful appearance as Maurice in the party scene. I had a big chuckle watching him take home all that food! This movie takes you into the private world of struggling actors desperate enough to risk friendships in order to get that big break in their careers. Although it's all tongue in cheek I am willing to surmise the writing is based on true life experience. See it, you won't regret it!


If you have a good sense of humor -- sophisticated humor, not slap stick or farce -- you will enjoy this movie about character actors and their efforts to break out of their ruts. The premise is that four actors who have long been close friends, are all dissatisfied with the parts they have been lucky to get, if they are getting them at all. Johnny DiMartino, the short obese bald member of the quartet, is called by Theresa (Beverly D'Angelo), a casting director who is a friend of the quartet, for an audition about the title role in a Marty Scorcese (who plays himself) movie about Al Capone. Only he has to keep this very hush hush. The one predictable part of the film is that keeping a secret in Hollywood is not going to happen. The first half of the movie involves the comedy of how the secret gets spread (no, not by the actors' wives, but by actor envy and insecurity). The second half deals with their preparation for the auditions, and of course the climax.

An interesting piece of trivia is that actor Robert Costanzo who plays Johnny DiMartino, the actor Theresa selected to audition for the part of Al Capone, actually played that part in "Sizzle," a 1981 ABC TV movie featuring John Forsythe and Loni Anderson.


I first saw "With Friends Like These..." on video and assumed that it had gone straight to video. I should have known better than to think that! Portraying a circle of friends double-crossing each other with the aim of getting a part in Martin Scorsese's next picture, the movie pulls no punches. What can you expect in Hollywood?! A small movie, maybe, but a pretty neat one. I don't doubt that it offers a realistic look at things. And everyone does a good job in the roles. Starring Adam Arkin, David Strathairn, Robert Costanza, Amy Madigan, Bill Murray, Michael McKean...and yes, Marty himself in a brief appearance.

The role of Mussolini. Hmm...


For a comedy that got trashed in reviews and rediculed by movie-goers, I find this movie to be incredibly funny. The first time I saw the movie was in the theater at which time I laughed at the "obvious" laugh-parts, but it was not until I had seen it another two or three times before I picked up on the absolutely hysterical dialogue, terriffic comedy styles of the various supporting characters, and the sheer brilliance and irony the script presents. If you know anything about history, this movie becomes instantly funny. If you are a fan of almost Simpsons-style "random" humor, this film is instantly funny. Never be turned off by the first glance of this film. If you dismiss it as "poor comedy" you will be missing out.


I love this movie. I love movies with stupid humor in them, and this movie just cracks me up. How can you not laugh? Chris Farley's one of the greats. Him, Matthew Perry and especially the rest of the cast keep you laughing from beginning to end. It's hard for me to pick a favorite character. I really like Bidwell, his misadventures had me rolling on the floor in laughter, but the comedic genius of Farley had me going too. One of my most favorite parts had to be when they bring the boat ashore and meet the Native Americans, and they think the really tall one's the Chief, but it turns out he's not, his real name's Bent Twig and he's really mentally retarded. I laughed for almost 5 minutes straight on that part. This movie's definitely in my top 10.


This one is deliciously high concept--What if famed explorers Louis and Clark were plagued with a band of ridiculous, incompetent, bumbling ignoramus rivals?

Leslie Edwards (Matthew Perry) is the organizer of the alternate expedition, and seems the brightest of the bunch. At least until you realize that he thinks good choices for his team include Bartholomew Hunt (Chris Farley) as their wilderness-hardened guide with experience and Guy Fontenot (Eugene Levy) as the team's translator. Hunt is basically Farley playing himself, which is both hilariously funny and profoundly tragic at the same time, and Fontenot makes it clear that he doesn't know much about other languages. At first we give Edwards kudos for deselecting him, but when Fontenot lets it be known that he'll only join the expedition if his hot Indian woman (she's not a spouse or girlfriend to him, but property), Shaquinna (Lisa Barbuscia), can also come along, Edwards figures that they probably won't need a translator's services that badly anyway, so brings him on the journey.

Levy is great at playing an attractive dunderhead. But we already knew that. That's what he's been doing since his early days on "Second City TV" (SCTV) (1976). What's more surprising is that Perry can so effectively come across as a sophisticated halfwit. Perry's performance is so dryly funny that during his scenes it can be easy to mistake Almost Heroes for a much more serious endeavor than the Mel Brooks-styled farce that it is. Farley has no such subtle complexities in his performance, but he's none the worse for that. He just acts natural, aside from feigning idiocy, as an extremely self-indulgent, substance-abusing boor. That may not sound funny, but in the context of the film, it is--Farley was as good at this stuff as was his idol, John Belushi. It's only made tragic by the knowledge that similar behavior off-camera led to his premature death shortly after making this film. The rest of the cast tends to be just as funny, if a bit underused. For that matter, though, even Levy is a bit underused.

What brought my score for Almost Heroes down slightly was the fact that it may be a bit too episodic. The episodes are all like very good to excellent skits on "Saturday Night Live" (1975) or SCTV, but they didn't necessarily flow together as a film. Taken separately, many of the skits are worthy of a 10--the IMDb message boards are full of threads with viewers citing their favorite moments. Reading through those after watching the film, just thinking about many of them again made me laugh out loud. But as a whole, Almost Heroes seems a bit underdeveloped from what it might have been. This may not be Christopher Guest's best work as a director, but it's worth watching and definitely deserves a DVD release.


If I saw this movie with almost anyone else cast in Chris Farley's part I probably, well, would have never seen it in the first place, but if I did I would have given it a lousy review. OK, the movie itself was completely predictable and dumb (not like it was supposed to be intellectual). I think Matthew Perry had't made it to rehab yet because during certain scenes he looks too thin and pale. During others (did they toss both of the leads in rehab halfway through shooting, then continue when they were out?) he looks pretty good. In fact, if you have the hots for Perry, you should definitely see it because he was looking pretty good to me by the end of the movie, and I never thought he was all that hot before. I have a feeling the part of "Edwards" was originally meant for David Spade, but he pulled out.

We saw it opening weekend, Saturday night, and the theater had already split up the movie (and even cut the poster in half! Jerks) with another in the same part of the theater because no-one was showing up. The audience was us and maybe a dozen other Farley fans who sat silently when he wasn't onscreen, then you'd hear us all laugh at the top of our lungs scattered from various parts of the mostly empty auditorium (the laughs were scattered, not our lungs, sorry for the bad grammar) when he did or said something funny. This is not his best movie (he was obviously and sadly on his last legs, but doing his best to give his fans their money's worth)but not his worst. If you're a Farley fan, don't be scared away by the bad reviews, rent it or buy it! The scene where he has to go find an eagle's egg in the wilderness to cure his sick friend is priceless, and so is his comment when he finally brings it back and finds out which part of the egg they needed. Every single review in the media I read said something along the lines of "this is a sad legacy to be Farley's last movie, with this weak performance, blah blah" but I think he could have done a lot worse.

RIP big guy, your fans miss you.


Farley and Perry lead a team who are racing Lewis and Clark to blaze a trail to the Pacific coast of the newly settled America. Historically speaking, the setting of the film and costumes seem surprisingly accurate and I was totally convinced that I was looking at the early 1800's.

I watched it the first time and giggle a bit, I watched it the second time and laughed here and there, I watched it for the third time and laughed nearly all the way through! This film is like an acquired taste and just gets better with watching.


This movie was full of flat jokes and bad gags. Chris Farley tries but does not deliver very many laughs. Matthew Perry bringing his Chandler Bing character from Friends to the wilderness does not work. Even a few stabs at off the wall humor hardly produce a snicker. I kept waiting for this movie to get going but it just kept coming across like an over long comedy skit. Eugene Levy and Kevin Dunn were the only two characters that were funny. It was a shame there was not more for them to do. Making a comedy from a history lesson has it's possibilities but they blew any chance with this boring attempt. It was nothing more than SNL AND SCTV go to the woods.


this is a pretty obscure movie, so it may be hard to find. i couldn't get it at blockbuster but it was at the local library. its got some language and sexual content but its not really really dirty or any thing.

its about 2 explorers who are racing lewis and clark to the pacific. the main characters are supposed to be just like the people from the lewis and clark expedition. (lesie edwards is meriweather lewis, hunt is clark, etc.)

its really funny and it has some "chris farley getting hurt" in it. i saw it on comedy central and then i rented it and forced my family to watch it.


I read about half of the reviews and I think my opinion falls in line with about half of the crowd. This movie was one of the best Chris Farley physical style comedies that I had seen in awhile. If you don't like Chris Farley, of course you won't like the movie. If you try to take this movie too seriously, you won't like the movie. If you just want to sit back and get a few laughs, then you SHOULD like the movie.

I still laugh the most at the eagle scenes. That is just pure lame comedy at it's best. That scene and the rest of the movie never get old after watching it numerous times.


This is Chris Farley's single greatest achievement. Farley is non stop funny and so is the cast surrounding him. If you like any funny fat guy movies, you will love this movie as much as I do. Especially the story around the campfire.


Someone really should help Matthew Perry choosing better movie scripts or at least explain him that overacting and making a fool out of himself isn't exactly a guarantee for funny movies. In 'Friends' he was OK, probably only because there were enough characters to keep him out of the spotlights most of the time, but this time he's one of the main characters, so you'll see him more than is good for your (mental) health.

The movie is about a bunch of people who will try to reach the coast of the pacific ocean before Lewis and Clark. Of course the entire expedition consists of lunatics, idiots and fools, but that won't keep them from trying to win the race anyway.

The tag line already said everything you need to know: Almost History... Almost Legends... Mostly Ridiculous. I couldn't agree more or have you ever thought to see the conquistadors fighting some 19th century colonists? Neither did I, but here they are. 'Almost legends'? True, this movie is already legendary because of its stupidity and bad taste and 'mostly ridiculous', I don't even bother to explain that one.

I'm not saying that everything in the movie is bad, but it just tries to be too much and ends up being nothing at all. It is some kind of spoof, an adventure movie, a historical movie (although far from correct, but that's probably where the humor should be in),... all in one. I'm not saying that the combination has to be a guarantee for failure, but than you'll need much better direction and a better script. This time it isn't worth much. I give it a 4/10.


Answer the question in how this project ever became green-lighted and you to could be a big shot Hollywood producer! I only rented it because it was Chris Farley's last movie and I am a huge fan of his. Surprisingly enough he was still great in this flop but he was the only one. Unfortunately a lot of his lines were rehashed from previous performances but I liked him nonetheless as he always is a laugh-riot. His expressions including his reactions to pain are priceless and what a shame it is that he's no longer with us...he will always be missed! Matthew Perry is a horrible actor and his character was an exact replica of "Kids in the Hall" star Kevin McDonald...he had the accent down pat and the whole works but it just didn't work out for him. The Native American chick was hot but that's about it. Eugene Levy was heavily disguised and played an okay Frenchman but even he was disappointing...he can obviously do a lot better. Some of the characters were just stupid and I just tried to tune them out completely. Oh yea, what the heck was Bokeem Woodbine doing in here playing a servant. He should stick to action and urban films since that's what he's best at. What garbage this is...proves how untalented Christopher Guest really is!

Final Exploration:

Movies: Glad I didn't as it was one of the biggest flops in cinema history!

DVD Purchase: I doubt it'll ever be released for it to begin with.

Rental: Only for a final farewell salute to a comedy legend!


This movie is awesome. I love it when Hunt gets attacked by the eagle. And when Edwards eats the eagle egg shell medicine. Pretty much the whole movie is one laugh after another. This is comedy at its best. I give it a 10!


First off, Chris Farley is hysterical in any movie and can make even the weakest material work. At some points in this movie, that is exactly what he did. However, the story wasn't a complete mess, it was actually quite good in parts. Especially when they encounter all the pitfalls throughout their journey, the script is very sharp and funny. Other parts drag quite a bit, and Eugene Levy's character was just completely unnecessary and unfunny. Matthew Perry had only a couple funny scenes, the rest of the movie he just served as straight man for Farley, who honestly didn't need him--- he could've made this movie work on his own without Perry's help. Better editing could've made the film seem less strung-out and I think it ran a little too long for a comedy. I also wish Franklin Cover's character could've been featured more extensively, I really enjoyed his scene in the film. All in all, a decent comedy adventure. 7/10.


I first caught this movie when it aired on CW a few months ago. It's a real thrill that's full of amusing moments. The basis of this 19th century story is that two explorers named Bartholomew Hunt (Chris Farley) and Leslie Edwards (Matthew Perry), among and along with several, other allies go on an expedition and they're in a competition of sorts against Lewis and Clark. Which make both duos counterparts and rivals to each other. This is a fun spin on what could've nearly been historically had the former duo's group beaten the latter's to the punch. The meeting between comedy and history makes for a much more engaging and compelling subject matter. It's a fine outing as the grand finale of the late, former SNL alumnus Farley's film performances. One of the highlights for me and among my favorite parts is when Bart gets carried away by the eagle before falling into the ocean (or was it the sand dune/beach? I'm not sure). Hopefully, for those who aren't very into crude humor, it's few and far between, so y'all should be able to get past those moments and check it out, if y'all haven't already. I think I've seen some or most of Farley's films and I still haven't even settled on a favorite (most and least) yet. And he did it again, having another hit with this one. I'm with those who disagree with the others who could be known as the haters of this movie, it's as great, if not better, than the other movies in one of the lead actors' filmographies. This comical adventure flick is a rollicking, grand old time y'all will neither regret nor forget.


Despite it's bad reputation, this comedy about fancy-pants Army officer Matthew Perry and rowdy mountain man Chris Farley's attempt to upstage Lewis and Clark by beating them to the Pacific Ocean is amiable and a whole lot of fun for fans of Farley and Perry's well worn comedic alter-egos.

Not all of the jokes hit their mark but enough of them do and the story is a fairly interesting one.

It's sad to say that Farley's hard-living ways really shows through in his performance, especially during his blustery outbursts.

Certainly this is the strangest film ever to come out of executive producer Ted Turner's fascination with American history, unless you count the Turner Home Video distributed Civil War horror tale, Ghost Brigade.


This was a huge flop when it was released (if memory serves correctly, it is in the Box Office Failures Hall of Fame). Chris Farley had died five months before its release, there were bad screenings, negative sneak preview reviews, etc... and when they finally put it out, the film tanked.

I've never found Farley funny but this movie is okay. It's got some funny scenes. It's original and has some clever puns on the whole Lewis and Clark adventure - it's essentially about two guys (Matthew Perry and Farley) who decide to "beat" Lewis and Clark by "getting there first." Christopher Guest receives directorial credit, which is surprising considering this isn't a "mockumentary." The direction overall isn't too great and I would never guess it was one of his films if I didn't know any better.

Farley is annoying as usual, and Perry is doing his Chandler routine - could he BE any more predictable? (Wink, wink.) There's a lot of crude humor and some stupid childish gags that embarrass rather than entertain (such as Farley's fight with the eagle).

To be perfectly honest this isn't a "terrible" film. I've seen worse, and at least it made me laugh, which is more than can be said for Farley's other film, "Beverly Hills Ninja." But at the end of the day it's still just okay and not good enough to warrant a good review.


OK, I'm an avid DVD watcher like probably so many of you all out there, 3 nights ago I was watching Tommy Boy, a marvelous piece of comedy film, that's both full of laughs and full of heart. After watching it I jumped on IMDb to get some info and ideas for my next movie. Looking through Chris Farley movie's I came across Almost Heroes, have seen most of Farley's (all the pre Happy Gilmore films with Sandler and Spade) I thought why not, and directed by Chris Guest, I love his mockumentary's like Spinal Tap and Mighty Wind I really thought it would be a combo that couldn't let me down. Yet sitting through this film really surprised me how you can have so many greats working on such a dull film. Perry is just shocking, and I don't know about you but is permanently type cast in my eye as Chandler from friends. I don't like him, I wont ever like him. But yet he isn't something to fear away from the movie because of. No he's just the icing on the cake to a pretty shonky movie all round. The script was dull, the jokes were slow, there was no real solid comedy timing used. Most of all I'm just shocked and amazed that Guest would allow something just so flat get made. I mean Farley is his usual standard, hes as good as the actors around him. You cant help that. But Guest has written some real clever comedy over the years. Some that has made me laugh so hard that I've had to pull my self back onto the chair and go, "Hey, Wha Happened?" The jokes used in this film must of been his leftovers. Its the only logical reason. The last Farley film, probably the one he could of done without.