Beowulf, the poem, ranks in my life as both a writer and as a reader, as probably the most important work I have ever encountered. I probably have re-read this work more than any other piece of fiction over the years. I also completely agree with the reccomendation for Heaney's translation, it is magical.
However, while I can see Mr. Sullivan's argument for why he is uncomfortable with the film's mucking about with the essence of the story, I disagree that this detracts from either work (the original poem, or this film). The relevant point I wish to make here is that one of the primary tensions of the film itself is the divsion between "History as record of events" and "History as narrative." Wiglaf is cast as the keeper of the tale as it comes down to us in the poem, Beowulf, Hrothgar, and the Monsters as the only characters who know the "truth."
The fact that the film-makers DIRECTLY address this division between source-material and presented-story (albeit chronologically inverted), for me anyway, gives the film a pass in regards to adaptations. The adaptations and alterations THEMSELVES are one of the major elements of the film-narrative, fully awknowledged, and in the open. After refusing to hear Beowulf's recounting of "actual" events throughout the film, preferring to only know the version of events that would eventually become poetry, Wiglaf is, in the film's enigmatic final moment, forced to choose between the these two "truths."
The magic, for me, is that REGARDLESS of what actually happened those millenia ago, the man (or men, or dream) who we know as "Beowulf" slipped the bonds of mortal reality and became an immortal legend. I think that is the real point the film makers were trying to make, and that truth IS in keeping with the poem.
Eric Donelson