[Mick Jarvis]

this movie would have to be the worst one i have ever seen.. i was thinking that something was going to happen and waited and waited and then nothing.

if you ever want a movie to watch as you kill yourself this is a perfect option.

i now use this movie to piss people off. i tell them "yeah its a great movie, one of the best i have seen. you really have to watch it cause at the end it where it all comes together" then the next time i see them they want to kill me!

Mick

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Mick Jarvis]

unfortunatly i was recommended the movie, thus why i now use it as a tool of annoyance

but the guy that told me about it still believes its good. when i questioned him he then admitted "well i was drunk and fell asleep half way through"



it was an experience

[Eugeny Davidov]

hi, everyone!
As regards the movie it's so boring i would not recommend anyone to watch. Art-house movie about vikings - nonsense!

[Ken Speed]

I was extremely disappointed with this movie. While I was watching it I kept thinking/hoping something would pull the last half of the movie together. As many of us now know, no such luck! It was almost like the night shift director and production crew punched in about the time the cast tried to sail to the Holy Land. It was like two different movies spliced together.

There were tons of problems with this movie, many of which I tried to overlook but others were just too much.

1. How do you get so badly lost that you sail west for days when you're trying to sail generally south either to France or to the Holy Land?

2. Why did these guys seem to lose all sense and any survival instinct when they landed on North America?

3.One Eye sacrificed himself to the natives, Why? For who? He's a junk yard dog of a human being, why would he just allow himself to be clubbed down like a steer?


I, too, am glad I watched this on Netflix, I'd have hated to have paid even a minimal admission price to see this movie! I wonder if there is such a thing as a negative four star rating?

[Artis Aboltins]

To tell the truth I think that lately it seems to be very fashionable to overload the movies with "gritty detail" - lots of dirt being flung about, blood splattered lavishly over everything, generally producing image of everyone being extremely cold, wet and miserable and that was exactly the feeling I got from this movie, also it was very noticeable how everything changed since they "set sail" - perhaps it is "genius" intention of the director, to show that those people are, generally, doomed, they are dead already, but it sure did not worked out in the way he intended if it was what he wanted to show. It seems that he had certain scenes burned in his mind that he wanted to show so he made the movie around them, and most of it is basically a filler-in to try and somehow connect totally disjoined scenes togeather. Plus the usual "in those old days they all were dirty and walked about in rags" adds to the generally bad "aftertaste" the movie left for me, and I am also glad I did not pay to watch it, would have been a total waste of money.

[Myles Mulkey]

Saw this last night on netflix.


Part I: Authenticity

I thought the glimpses of authentic Viking Age swords I caught at the beginning of the film were worth seeing. That was until the Scottish/Norse/Crusader people showed up. Whatever their swords were, they were not contemporary with eleventh century Viking Age stuff.

Part II: Movie

This was pretty hard to sit through. Mads Mikkelsen is one of my favorite Nordic actors (the great Von Sydow being my favorite), and the fact that he didn't say a word the whole movie made him look like a total badass. However, it also made for some boring. boring scenes. The scenery was good, but it felt like the adrift-at-sea portion took longer than any other part of the film. This section had no scenery, just fog. (And I realize that it probably wasn't the bulk of the movie, but it sure felt like it). To break up the boredom, they threw in lots of gore and mud and death and mayhem, but it seemed overdone to say the least.

Part III: Parts

I don't mind a long film having two parts with an intermission in between, but this film has many titled subsections (much like my post). They made the film seem choppy and the story could have been told without them.

Part IV: Hell

I actually liked how they handled the Native Americans. You knew they were there but never saw them until the very end, at which point there were suddenly fifty dudes with clubs standing around. Cool moment.

Part V: Conclusions

Don't pay for this one, but I'd say watch it for the hell of it. Might not be too bad if you were drinking with a few buddies. Lots of chances to talk in between moments of "Ah! Man! Did you see him tear that guys throat out! AAAAH! Awesome movi, man!"

[Eric Meulemans]

I seem in opposition to the majority here in that I liked this film. I did not feel that it was slow or unsatisfying, and would in fact watch it again (actually, I've seen it twice now). I wouldn't call it "enjoyable," but I prefer films that have something to say and may take some digging to figure out what that is, or perhaps only leave you questioning if there is anything to be said at all - and that's OK.

For those of you you think this is the worst film ever, I find that untenable given the number of brutally difficult-to watch pieces of Hollywood schlock purveying overwrought CG, obnoxious funny-men with the humour of a two-year-old, or stand-up-and-tell-you-the-plot ancillary characters who exist because the lead (and audience) are presumably too clueless to figure it out themselves.

[Matthew G.M. Korenkiewicz]

[Henrik Bjoern Boegh]

I saw the film after reading this thread... I really don't ken what to say. I liked it in a strange way at the same time that I found it to be incomprehensive....
What I didn't do after seeing it, that I've done every time I've seen Apocalypse Now was to sit in dark thoughts for an hour afterwards.

I really hope noone who sees it does in any way link this with history.

Cheers,
Henrik

[Tjarand Matre]

I liked it a lot. But then again I tend to enjoy movies that really don't tell a well defined story, it's up to the viewer to puzzle the images together. I enjoyed the photography, the color coded parts and the obvious Sergio Leone influences. But had I not known about those specific qualities before watching it I would have probably felt that my expectations had been somewhat let down. It's not an action movie, it does not have a linear, logical storyline, it's wildly historically inaccurate but I think it's well made. As for historical accuracy, the newest Robin Hood movie annoyed me more ...

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Carl W.]

I turned it off ~10 minutes after got to the new world, as deja vu. Folks who liked this one can enjoyably spend 2 more hours watching Aguirre, the Wrath of God :-)

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Martin Whalen]

Warning, spoilersz, do not read if you do not like spoilerz.

I enjoyed it.

I'm a little surprised so many here didn't like it, but then again my tastes in films aren't common.

You have to have a sort of serious personality to like it I think, and I'm almost as serious as they come. I'm also a Pagan, which I think helps a bit in liking this movie. So few films have European Pagan themes, it was refreshing.

It is artsy, but not overly so, really. The only truly artsy things I can remember would be the fog (which is either magical or a metaphor, not sure which), and the fact that One Eye (Odin) doesn't talk, the rest of the film is a fairly straightforward warrior epic. Men of war meet, men of war face troubles, men of war meet their end, be it good or bad.

Yes, I'll agree the kits could have been better, but really guys, you can't expect much better. You really can't.

At least nobody was using a kopis, rapier, or longsword.

It is an odd film, but I liked it.

My main problem with it is why did One Eye let himself die like that? Was he sacrificing himself to the still un-Christian Amerindians so he wouldn't die at the hands of Christians in the rapidly dying Pagan lands? Was he letting them kill him because he thought his resisting would cause the death of the child? What was the child? Odd ending, but then again, what ending could they possibly have? Him making a ship and sailing back to Europe? No, that would make less sense.

I don't know, odd ending. But if you're in the mood for a very atmospheric film, watch it.

[Ken Speed]

OK, several guys have said they liked the movie and I think that is great. Now we can have a discussion because some of us liked it and some of us didn't. In an earlier post I asked questions about the movie; I would really appreciate it if any of you who liked the movie could answer them.

How could they get so brutally lost that they sailed West rather than South?

Why did they seem to lose all self confidence, group cohesion and survival instinct when they landed in North America?

Why did they stay where they were being killed?

Why did One Eye allow the natives to kill him? Who was he sacrificing himself for?

[David Teague]

"Why did One Eye allow the natives to kill him? Who was he sacrificing himself for?"

The young boy.

Like slavery in the New World was going to be a bed of roses...

As for the other questions... because the writer wrote it that way

[Jean Thibodeau]

Well, if the character is Odin AKA One Eye and this is Valhalla then every day he dies in battle and is reborn the next day to fight again: Vikings like fighting, being able to come back each day to fight after a night of heavy drinking and wenching would be their idea of Paradise. ( Well going from memory here and I could have the details wrong, but there is also the Valkiries who chose the ones who died bravely to take them to Valhalla where they can play war with Odin ).

The whole film after the fog, like I said in a very early post, is like a dream and they are probably already dead.

Odin letting himself get killed is just his way of taking a break going to lunch before coming back the next day, so why bother fighting ...... sort of game over/turn off X-Box and go eat, if he kept on fighting killing everyone around he wouldn't be able to:

" QUIT GAME are you sure, YES/NO, you will lose all progress since the last SAVE POINT.


Actually watching the film I was waiting for One Eye to reveal himself more explicitly as being Odin.

[Ken Speed]

[David Teague wrote in answer to my question, "]"Why did One Eye allow the natives to kill him? Who was he sacrificing himself for?"

The young boy.

Like slavery in the New World was going to be a bed of roses...

As for the other questions... because the writer wrote it that way "

So One Eye made a deal with the natives to save the boy's life? I must have dozed off when that happened. He thinks the natives are going to be good to the boy because he's dead? This idea makes sense to you?!? Paraphrasing your answer you said he allowed himself to be killed because slavery to the natives would be harsh. So being kept caged, in chains, and forced to fight and kill men in a mudhole wasn't harsh? Really?

"because the writer wrote it that way" brings nothing to the discussion.

The Europeans were supposed to be tough, hard men, fighters and killers every one but something happened to them on the ocean and I don't understand what. Its like they lost their minds. They behaved like feckless children wandering around in the woods allowing themselves to be picked off one by one. I don't get it! I can see that they would know that they wouldn't be able to survive against the natives but you'd think they'd want to go down fighting.

[Johan Gemvik]

Amazing set of props, great locations, Mads Miekelsen who's one of the very best actors around today doing his thing and even making the mute thing work, lots of raw and ultrarealistically brutal fight scenes and gore. With all this, it had the potential to be a great movie. And then it isn't.
It makes me a little sad, with these resources they could have made an amazing movie about the settlement of Lace Aux Meadows or something instead.

The movie should be cut different, that might make it from being just pointless, weird and tedious to a great movie. I can buy that the main character is supposed to be an enigma so sure, leave it like that because it actually works with an actor like Mads, but the supporting characters then need to be fleshed out much more. Everyone going over the top insane at the end instead of adding much needed character depth just confuses things.

If you want a great looking movie with top notch historical costumes, also great swords and some vikings, watch Pope Anna. A bit slow at times but very interesting and this one actually makes sense.

The best I can say is that I really liked Mads in the movie. He's great. The rest could have been just as arty and still be made better. More supporting character depth, more background and less pointlessness.