[Jean Thibodeau]

[J.D. Crawford]

As I've already said, I'm not sure if I liked it or not, and Jean has pin-pointed the reason.

The story line is so confusing (particularly from the sudden transition from Sutherland to the foggy boat) that one is highly tempted to come up with clever theories to explain it. It might be that this was intended by the filmakers, it might be that they had intended a particular interpretation that is pretty obscure, it might be that they simply did not care about story, it might be that they are playing games with the audience like David Lynch likes to do, or it might be that this film was just a mess. My problem is that every time I think of a good interpetation, I wonder if I am giving it more credit than it is due, or just making a fool of myself.

For example, realism actually starts to 'go South' (no pun intended) before the fog scene. It starts when one-eye and the boy run into the Christian Vikings/Scots (whatever they are). Its supposed to be year 1000 but most of those guys had Irish and Scottish weapons that would fit into the 15th century. And what the heck are they doing going on crusade to reclaim the holy land in the year 1000, nearly 100 years before the first crusdade. Did they think 10 guys could take the holy land, or were they joining a crusade? Moreover, later in the film it is said that the chief has already been to the holy land. Was he on pilgrimage (possible), or some crusade (what is sounds like)? The time line is out of whack.

So now one can be really clever, and say that one-eye was indeed a god and wandered with the boy for centuries or through some time warp, and then ran into some crusaders. Or you could conclude that the filmmakers either knew nothing or cared nothing about real history.

It's been said that when something can be explained by either incompetence of extreme cleverness (like a conspiracy) then 9 times out of 10 the incompetence theory is correct.