I also felt by the end that Cecile and her father were possibly doomed but I saw this as only due to my moral outlook. I felt that Cecile had been set up to be a sympathetic character and that actually she and her father will do just fine, the fact that to me their lives seem empty and shallow and their behaviour selfish and frivolous is perhaps just because I see it that way.

However, now that you have pointed it out and I have had a few days to reflect I think there may be some element of criticism by the author present at the end. I won’t re-read it just yet but maybe I’ll re-visit it at a later stage and let you know what I conclude!

Still, cars were thrown about, and people beaten with parking meters, so I’m happy.

Just to clear something up though. I didn’t make the statement about ‘poetry’ in the literal sense in terms of wanting to take things directly from the text. I just felt it was a film that lacked any poetic sense.

I just think some sharper dialogue and at least some nod to the beauty and impact of words would have been in order. There’s no need for them to use anything directly from the original but that’s no excuse for the whole ‘we’ve got a movie that’s stunning to look at so we don’t need much from words’ attitude.

I am reading the original and enjoying it. It does already differ a fair bit from the film. It was sketching out his ancestry and I was getting mightily confused.

Besides I am reading four other books at the same time. I go through phases like this where I just keep starting things and never finishing and I’m having one now. When I do finally get through it I’ll give you my thoughts.

I can understand why they may not have included the poetry. Anglo-Saxon poetry is very stylised and very different from modern forms of poetry or naturalistic speech. Adding Anglo-Saxon style alliteration and kennings would have undoubtably been very striking, but it would have sounded extremely odd to most people and I suspect it would have deterred as many viewers as it impressed. Indeed, it was very much marketed as an action film for teenage boys (hence Anglina Jolie…) and I think they were afraid of alienating a potentially huge market segment. In addition, the film does deviate from the original story quiet a lot, and there would have been large chunks without the poetry to cover them.

Besides, the whole piece was about the story behind the legend, rather than the legend itself, so they might have deliberately not wanted to use the language of the legend. So for example, while Shakespeare’s Henry V is full of fine and famous passages, if you were making a film about the reality of Henry V rather than the myth, you wouldn’t want to use Shakespeare’s language.

Do be warned, though: the original story is very different. It’s more straightforward heroics, and ends in a very different way. But it’s a fascinating look at what the Anglo-Saxons thought of heroism and kingship, and does contain some very evocative passages (I’ve always been fond of the bit about the guards of the treasure trove slowly aging and dying in their long duty. J R R Tolkein pinched huge chunks to portray Smaug and his horde in ‘The Hobbit’.). Despite being English, its world and values feels strange in a way that legends from more urban and ordered societies such as the Romans and Greeks do not (although it’s nothing like as trippy as the Mabinogion. Oh, those crazy Celts!). But like what little other Anglo-Saxon poetry I’ve read, such as ‘The Wayfarer’, there seems a real sense of sorrow and loss, and of the best days of the world being behind us.

As for the indestrucibility of Claire: it’s an interesting point. She can certainly be put out of action with something being stuck in her brain, but her regenerative powers work on her and Peter even after they’ve been dead for several hours, by which period (normally) irreversible brain damage and decay would have set it. Even being dead for a couple of minutes is enough to severely affect brain function, and after ten minutes or so you can’t even hope for any sort of resuscitation in any state. But as soon as the offending item is removed, they can heal again. Quite how dead she has to be before she can no longer regenerate is not clear: it’s even possible that Sylar slicing off the top of her head and eating her brains is enough to stop her (Actually, that’s a thought: when exactly did Sylar twig that he could steal people’s power by eating their brains [or whatever it is that he does with their grey matter]? It’s not the first thing that would have occurred to me to do.].

And I’d always thought the Magic Finger of Death was just part of Sylar’s telekinetic abilities, which certainly seem strong enough to rip someone’s skull apart (by the looks of the trailer, next episode he uses telekinesis to fling an armoured car about. Hurrah! At long bloody last, they’re finally chucking cars at each other, like proper superheroes). Pointing at something to demonstrate that you’re using telekinesis on it is an old tellly stand-by, as invisible thought rays are otherwise quite hard to portray.

Claire can be killed, as demonstrated by Sylar and his Magic Finger of Death. She’s apparently indestructible in most respects, but some superpowers can get her. Peter and Sylar both have the Magic Finger of Death, along with whatever other powers they’ve accumulated (glowing hands = cool), and will presumably need to use some power that can break through the invulnerability. But them squaring up with Duelling Magic Fingers of Death wouldn’t have been so cool