We rented this movie for fun, and what a blast it was! The cover looks like Lord of the Rings, which is why it was rented. The acting was alright, some were worse than others. But that's to be expected in a movie like this. The sets were good, for the budget they were on. Costumes were not completely historically accurate, but they were alright. Sven's fringe braid thing was fugly, and I wanted to cut it off. The wigs though...the best damn thing in this movie. Who designed them I don't know, but damn, they were hideous. Fugly, fugly, fugly! Overall it's an okay movie, um maybe play a drinking game while you're watching so that it seems better than it really is? Though if you have a rule where you take a drink every time a bad wig is on the screen, you may die.
15 Reviews
A Barbie Hollywood retailing of Beauty and the Beast with Vikings.
Cynicialwonder20 October 2005
I happened upon this rare piece of cinematic art whilst looking for Batman Begins at Blockbuster. Batman was out and this was there. Which was unfortunate. From the opening scene where viking teenagers are swimming and we see that apparently the producers forgot ITS COLD in Norse lands. Also every one is young and pretty. It felt very much like watching an episode of Xena. I mean lets be honest this is a straight to video release for a reason. The acting is very bad. Of course the material wasn't any help at all. I will say that the production design team did a very good job. I am sure this was a very low budget film but they did a good job. The story line works to a certain degree. I mean it is beauty and the Beast retold. If your looking for Vicking movies I would stick with the 13th Warrior.
Odin has Cursed us with Chain Mail and Bad Wigs
kendallphoenix20 September 2007
Okay...truthfully, I knew this movie would not be a cinematic masterpiece. I knew it would be some low-budget, straight-to-video Lord of the Rings knock off. It was low-budget and it was straight-to-video. However, it wasn't a LOTR knockoff...which is unfortunate. The story was Beauty and the Beast all over again...only it was set it the days of the Vikings. This is a problem because the characters didn't act like Vikings, nor did they dress like Vikings. For God's sake they wear all wearing chain mail...CHAIN MAIL!!! Vikings were only a couple of centuries BEFORE chain mail. If this story had taken place on an imaginary world with imaginary tribes and people and such, it would have been much better. However, setting it in Viking era did nothing but fill the movie with historical inaccuracies.
Inaccuracies aside, let's talk hair. Most of the actor were wearing wigs and it was obvious. There was one in particular...I remember him vividly. He was only in the movie for a couple of seconds. You say him in the background on the boat. He had no lines and no name that was mentioned. He was obviously just an extra. His job was to just blend in. Unfortunately, he didn't. Why?? Because he was wearing this ridiculous 1980's Britney Fox wig. This thing was WAY too big for the actor's head. It was just so terrible. All of the actors had bad wigs, but this one was the worst. Also, William Gregory Lee had hair extensions, but, apparently, the budget wasn't big enough for him to get a full head of them, so the producers just gave him a few. You could see where they were attached to his head and...it was awful. Also, what the heck was up with that little twig over his forehead. That thing got on my nerves.
The acting was, by no means, great. It was like watching a high school play or an after school special (for those of you old enough to actually remember after school specials). Anything with Justin Whalin is destined to be crap...let me present Exhibit A: Dungeons & Dragons, Child's Play 3, Lois and Clark...you get the idea. However, he wasn't the worst actor...in fact, he did well. William Gregory Lee got on my nerves. Obviously, he wasn't really all that tough, because he seemed to be having trouble acting tough. Jane March was okay, but not great. David Dukas, who played the Beast/Agnar, was probably the best, but only whilst playing the Beast. He struggled through the three minutes that he played Agnar. Very strange. The other actors were nothing short of mildly mediocre.
The SFX in this movie were...well...almost completely absent. The Beast was a guy in a prosthetic suit. And though it was a pretty cool idea, it really just looked like a guy in a bear skin rug. Also, the fires never looked real. Apparently, it was cheaper to make fake fire rather than actually set stuff on fire for real. The flames looked like those TV fireplace things and the smoke...well...there are no words to describe how bad the smoke looked. In the film's defense, though, this was a low-budget movie. That is something that must be taken into consideration. The weapons were obviously fake. They looked like wooden weapons that were spray-painted to look like metal only the producers hired some one-eyed imbreed from a Mississippi body shop to paint them.
In the end. This film was low-budget and watching it gave constant reminders of this fact. However, the low budget wasn't the real problem. The real problem was that the producers tried to pass it off as a Viking tale. They should have just gone ahead and made it a cheap knock-off of LOTR. It would have actually been a better film. 3/10.
Inaccuracies aside, let's talk hair. Most of the actor were wearing wigs and it was obvious. There was one in particular...I remember him vividly. He was only in the movie for a couple of seconds. You say him in the background on the boat. He had no lines and no name that was mentioned. He was obviously just an extra. His job was to just blend in. Unfortunately, he didn't. Why?? Because he was wearing this ridiculous 1980's Britney Fox wig. This thing was WAY too big for the actor's head. It was just so terrible. All of the actors had bad wigs, but this one was the worst. Also, William Gregory Lee had hair extensions, but, apparently, the budget wasn't big enough for him to get a full head of them, so the producers just gave him a few. You could see where they were attached to his head and...it was awful. Also, what the heck was up with that little twig over his forehead. That thing got on my nerves.
The acting was, by no means, great. It was like watching a high school play or an after school special (for those of you old enough to actually remember after school specials). Anything with Justin Whalin is destined to be crap...let me present Exhibit A: Dungeons & Dragons, Child's Play 3, Lois and Clark...you get the idea. However, he wasn't the worst actor...in fact, he did well. William Gregory Lee got on my nerves. Obviously, he wasn't really all that tough, because he seemed to be having trouble acting tough. Jane March was okay, but not great. David Dukas, who played the Beast/Agnar, was probably the best, but only whilst playing the Beast. He struggled through the three minutes that he played Agnar. Very strange. The other actors were nothing short of mildly mediocre.
The SFX in this movie were...well...almost completely absent. The Beast was a guy in a prosthetic suit. And though it was a pretty cool idea, it really just looked like a guy in a bear skin rug. Also, the fires never looked real. Apparently, it was cheaper to make fake fire rather than actually set stuff on fire for real. The flames looked like those TV fireplace things and the smoke...well...there are no words to describe how bad the smoke looked. In the film's defense, though, this was a low-budget movie. That is something that must be taken into consideration. The weapons were obviously fake. They looked like wooden weapons that were spray-painted to look like metal only the producers hired some one-eyed imbreed from a Mississippi body shop to paint them.
In the end. This film was low-budget and watching it gave constant reminders of this fact. However, the low budget wasn't the real problem. The real problem was that the producers tried to pass it off as a Viking tale. They should have just gone ahead and made it a cheap knock-off of LOTR. It would have actually been a better film. 3/10.
Sorry everyone, I liked it.
purpleducktwo30 May 2009
Once again I feel like odd man out, i read all the comments and wonder at all the would-be movie critics, with all the harsh comments, I cant help but wonder why there are not more people before the cameras for all their seeming knowledge of the acting profession and directors abilities. For myself, once again I just enjoyed the movie for its entertainment factor, and Jane March is still one of my favorites, my only disappointment was her death near the end, but thats just me, all I can say is to those who had such harsh feelings toward s the movie, why did you watch it all the way thru, then waste your time vomiting your comments in these columns? If you don't like a movie don't watch it, May I always enjoy what I watch and watch what I enjoy, tincancpo.....
Endearingly retarded
cogito4228 July 2007
Absolutely awful. Everything from the "acting" to the discount Renaissance Faire costumes is laughable. Nothing is period or even remotely historically accurate as far as Vikings go, but I'm not sure that was the intention of the "filmmakers," if we can call them as such. I can't help but imagine a prepubescent D&D nerd behind the camera.
Add alcohol or some other intoxicating substance, however, and the movie instantly becomes hilarious.
If you love to mock movies MST3K-style, then this is the movie for you. With a budget of approximately $50, the producers were able to whip up a tour de force of epic foolishness. It behaves like professional porn, but without plot or tolerable acting, and fails to deliver even one decent sex scene.
Watch this movie with a group of friends and plenty of beer goggles. It is not worth watching under any other circumstance.
Add alcohol or some other intoxicating substance, however, and the movie instantly becomes hilarious.
If you love to mock movies MST3K-style, then this is the movie for you. With a budget of approximately $50, the producers were able to whip up a tour de force of epic foolishness. It behaves like professional porn, but without plot or tolerable acting, and fails to deliver even one decent sex scene.
Watch this movie with a group of friends and plenty of beer goggles. It is not worth watching under any other circumstance.
Perfect viewing if you're in the mood for a laugh.
jeeva_chik3 February 2007
From the word Go, this was awful. Badly shot with what looked like a mobile phone camera and scenes set up without any hint of a lighting director in the vicinity it was still no warning for the sheer hilarity and obscurity of this B-Movie gem. Being fairly up on my European history made some of the glaring historical inaccuracies painfully obvious (CHAINMAIL for God's sake! CHAINMAIL! In pre-Christian Europe?! I don't think so!). But that added to it's car-crash charm!
This isn't a spoiler but the best thing about the whole film is the sight of the world's most obvious hair extensions of the blonde guy. You have been warned!
This isn't a spoiler but the best thing about the whole film is the sight of the world's most obvious hair extensions of the blonde guy. You have been warned!
Pantomime level nonsense
Leofwine_draca26 March 2015
A Viking-era retelling of the Beauty and the Beast storyline, with the pretty Jane March (STALKER) playing a character about 20 years younger than the actress is. This was retitled BLOOD OF THE VIKINGS in a bid to draw in a new audience, and I'm glad I wasn't misled by that new title.
In any case, this is rubbish. It's pantomime-level stuff with production values weaker than an average episode of XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS. The story sees a group of loyal Vikings taking a voyage abroad, where the king is killed and a woman's lover lost. Later they travel again, where they find a brutal monster capable of killing the most seasoned warriors. Could it be the woman's lover, trapped in a sinister curse?
Needless to say this is all complete nonsense, loaded with anachronisms and an almost entire lack of understanding of the era in which the story is set. It works best as a fantasy, but even then it's poor stuff indeed, with some of the most horrid action choreography you'll see. The hair extensions have to be seen to be believed. March, the most experienced actress in it, gives a poor performance equalled by the miscast Justin Whalin, who once starred in THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN but now has no career.
In any case, this is rubbish. It's pantomime-level stuff with production values weaker than an average episode of XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS. The story sees a group of loyal Vikings taking a voyage abroad, where the king is killed and a woman's lover lost. Later they travel again, where they find a brutal monster capable of killing the most seasoned warriors. Could it be the woman's lover, trapped in a sinister curse?
Needless to say this is all complete nonsense, loaded with anachronisms and an almost entire lack of understanding of the era in which the story is set. It works best as a fantasy, but even then it's poor stuff indeed, with some of the most horrid action choreography you'll see. The hair extensions have to be seen to be believed. March, the most experienced actress in it, gives a poor performance equalled by the miscast Justin Whalin, who once starred in THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN but now has no career.
Not as bad as I feared...
TheLittleSongbird1 August 2012
But at the same time I didn't find Blood of Beasts a good movie. It is far better than the 2010 Beauty and the Beast also directed by David Lister though. Blood of Beasts' flaws come from some hilariously fake wigs, costumes that are not very authentic, the substandard effects especially the fires and the man in a prosthetic suit for the Beast, stilted dialogue and some rather forced acting from William Gregory Lee. On the other hand, I did like the fantasy-adventure nature of the sets, the photography and editing are above average and the score was cool with some beautiful and atmospheric themes. The story may strike you as standard, but it didn't feel predictable, it held my attention and unlike Lister's later Beauty and the Beast film the romance was somewhat believable. The acting is also not too bad, Jane March exudes beauty and is commanding also. Overall, not good or bad, more average to me. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Good Story vs. Low Budget Film-making
thedarkamulet19 November 2005
"Blood of Beasts", also known as "Beauty and the Beast" was definitely not what I expected by the end of the film in a positive way. I actually found this movie listed on IMDb quite by accident-- but at the time it was not yet released on DVD, so I eventually forgot about it until I saw the DVD on ebay just a few days ago. I am all for the underdogs of film, but since the DVD was going for so much on ebay, I went down to my local video store and was pleasantly surprised that they had it there. So I rented it!
The Bad Points: I will say that the cover of the DVD is going to throw viewers off immediately. The cover has a very "Lord of the Rings" feel to it, so many may rent the movie thinking this is going to be another great epic film. It definitely is not. This must have been a very low budget film for several reasons. One, almost every male in the movie wore a wig or some sort of fake hair, and the only reason why I am pointing this out is because it is THAT obvious. Second, there is virtually no accents in the film, perhaps they couldn't afford a speech or language coach. Third, the costumes were all wrong...very bad, actually (oh, and the weapons were very fake looking such as the swords and daggers). Fourth, the scenes where there is fire...well, I guess they couldn't afford MAKING fire or setting things on fire so they computer generated it-- again, the only reason why I mention it is because it is THAT obvious and detracts from the film. The only thing that I think they did well with as far as special effects is how they chose to portray the Beast. They obviously didn't have a lot of money to use high tech computer effects so instead they used some interesting makeup and an animal hide costume. That may not sound great, but I rather see that then a bad computer generated beast. Plus, this Beast somehow reminded me of the cannibalistic creatures from the movie "13th Warrior."
The Good Points: So now you are probably wondering why I scored it a 6 if it was that horrible. Well, the truth is, it wasn't THAT horrible. I base most movies on the actual story-- 65-75% story/acting and 25-35% special effects/physical attributes of the actual movie. I understood from the beginning that the movie was going to be low budget, and I was expecting the story to be basically the same old Beauty and the Beast tale that we are all used to. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the end of the movie-- it has a neat twist that I am of course not going to spoil for anyone. The story itself starts out a little typical, but by the time the movie progresses about halfway through the film, you sort of feel your heart strings pull at the actual love story and the Beast's hopeless position. And again, the ending was a tad bit unexpected, therefore I think it makes up for the horrible wigs, lack of accents, and bad costumes. It's a shame that they didn't have more money to put into the film; it definitely would have strengthened the story itself.
So in conclusion, I recommend the movie for the story, not the special effects or accuracy of the accents and costumes. If you find yourself board on a weeknight or weekend and you don't go into the movie expecting too much from it, I think it can be enjoyable. I hope this helps! May Odin guide you!
The Bad Points: I will say that the cover of the DVD is going to throw viewers off immediately. The cover has a very "Lord of the Rings" feel to it, so many may rent the movie thinking this is going to be another great epic film. It definitely is not. This must have been a very low budget film for several reasons. One, almost every male in the movie wore a wig or some sort of fake hair, and the only reason why I am pointing this out is because it is THAT obvious. Second, there is virtually no accents in the film, perhaps they couldn't afford a speech or language coach. Third, the costumes were all wrong...very bad, actually (oh, and the weapons were very fake looking such as the swords and daggers). Fourth, the scenes where there is fire...well, I guess they couldn't afford MAKING fire or setting things on fire so they computer generated it-- again, the only reason why I mention it is because it is THAT obvious and detracts from the film. The only thing that I think they did well with as far as special effects is how they chose to portray the Beast. They obviously didn't have a lot of money to use high tech computer effects so instead they used some interesting makeup and an animal hide costume. That may not sound great, but I rather see that then a bad computer generated beast. Plus, this Beast somehow reminded me of the cannibalistic creatures from the movie "13th Warrior."
The Good Points: So now you are probably wondering why I scored it a 6 if it was that horrible. Well, the truth is, it wasn't THAT horrible. I base most movies on the actual story-- 65-75% story/acting and 25-35% special effects/physical attributes of the actual movie. I understood from the beginning that the movie was going to be low budget, and I was expecting the story to be basically the same old Beauty and the Beast tale that we are all used to. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the end of the movie-- it has a neat twist that I am of course not going to spoil for anyone. The story itself starts out a little typical, but by the time the movie progresses about halfway through the film, you sort of feel your heart strings pull at the actual love story and the Beast's hopeless position. And again, the ending was a tad bit unexpected, therefore I think it makes up for the horrible wigs, lack of accents, and bad costumes. It's a shame that they didn't have more money to put into the film; it definitely would have strengthened the story itself.
So in conclusion, I recommend the movie for the story, not the special effects or accuracy of the accents and costumes. If you find yourself board on a weeknight or weekend and you don't go into the movie expecting too much from it, I think it can be enjoyable. I hope this helps! May Odin guide you!
Enjoyable little film
beastwarsfan13 January 2006
When you see the cover you already know that the movie isn't going to be one of your favorites, but it looks like worth watching. It's made directly for TV, so what do you expect after all?
All in all the movie is good, enjoyable and nice. But far from great. The acting is like watching some fantasy adventure TV series. Jane March is enjoyable. The directing and the camera-work are about average. The sets are nice. The costumes are all right. The story is good.
Five things that would made the movie better: -Why vikings? They'd better have used some imaginary tribe or something. In that case no one would complain about things like "vikings do thins", "vikings don't do that" and stuff. Indeed, the vikings from this movie are quite far from the vikings in the history books and documentaries. -Better fires. The burning island of the beast don't look well -Better make-up and costumes. The vikings should be a little bit dirty, shouldn't they? These here look a little bit tidy. And Freya's wedding dress... well -Watch out what you shoot! We all know it's not a big budget production, but be more careful! In several of the close ups you in the cages of the beast you can actually see where the metal was soldered. This makes bad impression and spoils the things.
This is a simple modest fantasy tale movie. It's satisfactory,but could be much better with more efforts and imagination.
All in all the movie is good, enjoyable and nice. But far from great. The acting is like watching some fantasy adventure TV series. Jane March is enjoyable. The directing and the camera-work are about average. The sets are nice. The costumes are all right. The story is good.
Five things that would made the movie better: -Why vikings? They'd better have used some imaginary tribe or something. In that case no one would complain about things like "vikings do thins", "vikings don't do that" and stuff. Indeed, the vikings from this movie are quite far from the vikings in the history books and documentaries. -Better fires. The burning island of the beast don't look well -Better make-up and costumes. The vikings should be a little bit dirty, shouldn't they? These here look a little bit tidy. And Freya's wedding dress... well -Watch out what you shoot! We all know it's not a big budget production, but be more careful! In several of the close ups you in the cages of the beast you can actually see where the metal was soldered. This makes bad impression and spoils the things.
This is a simple modest fantasy tale movie. It's satisfactory,but could be much better with more efforts and imagination.
Not as bad as it first appears.
harbeau19 September 2006
This movie is not great, by any stretch. It is the story of Beauty and the Beast retold from a vaguely new perspective.
Having said that, its not as bad as it first appears. Sure, the costumes suck...it is obvious that this is a film with a very low budget.
But the acting is decent, and there were even a few that stood out. The writing is decent. And the directing was obviously quite good. He/she did quite a bit with very little money spent. Even the production was decent. Not spectacular, by any means. But certainly could have been worse.
So, does it top my A list? Not a chance. But if you are looking for a movie that is a pleasant diversion, this may be the ticket.
Having said that, its not as bad as it first appears. Sure, the costumes suck...it is obvious that this is a film with a very low budget.
But the acting is decent, and there were even a few that stood out. The writing is decent. And the directing was obviously quite good. He/she did quite a bit with very little money spent. Even the production was decent. Not spectacular, by any means. But certainly could have been worse.
So, does it top my A list? Not a chance. But if you are looking for a movie that is a pleasant diversion, this may be the ticket.
Small budget used well
elliotff2 February 2007
Jane March at age 30 is no Viking teenage princess.The hair was bad. the CG flames were bad. The speech was nowhere near Scandinavia. The end was less than completely satisfying. But I'm glad to have seen this film. Jane March is a beautiful actress, and some of her scenes were fine ("And yet you live!"). The rest of the cast, the Beast, the story...not superb, not amazing, not surprising. And yet, more than just satisfactory. The Beauty and the Beast story is a healthy perennial, and this has some interesting variations thereon. I got this as a Netflix rental, and I was pleased enough to share it with my family and watch it a second time. Worth watching, not a disgrace to the actors, directors, film-makers. Good costumes, not disgusting, a quirky production. Loved the musical score. Solid workmanship with some charm.
A Wild That Subverts Expectations
evrpiece7 January 2021
Me and my two sisters went into this movie expecting a fabulous disaster of a movie. What we got instead was a grainy film with subpart acting, atrocious wigs, and wildly inaccurate costumes! But we also got an empowering female lead, competent camera work, surprisingly good writing, and an ending that subverted all of our expectations.
If you want a wild ride with lots laughs that genuinely surprises you, this movie is for your next watch!!
(a star off for costume and hair, and a star off for poor character building at a crucial part)
If you want a wild ride with lots laughs that genuinely surprises you, this movie is for your next watch!!
(a star off for costume and hair, and a star off for poor character building at a crucial part)
I agree, not as bad as your think
uOpt25 November 2006
I agree with the previous comment: this movie is better than you think, it's pretty nice and obviously the core crew put as much effort into it as they could given budget.
The things that I don't like differ from the previous opinion, though.
I think the costumes and sets are actually pretty good, in my opinion the main problem is some lousy acting. Not by Jane March but by the bad guy and some others.
Quite obviously, somebody had an idea for a movie and got a good team together and then had to hire actors that lack a certain spirit.
But in the end it is enjoyable enough and hey, Brad Pitt can't act either so there.
The things that I don't like differ from the previous opinion, though.
I think the costumes and sets are actually pretty good, in my opinion the main problem is some lousy acting. Not by Jane March but by the bad guy and some others.
Quite obviously, somebody had an idea for a movie and got a good team together and then had to hire actors that lack a certain spirit.
But in the end it is enjoyable enough and hey, Brad Pitt can't act either so there.
What More Need Be Said
saxon_princess30 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
***********May contain Spoilers*********** Okay. I have to say it was a good movie. Okay a really rushed and sometimes stupid. The men in the movie, to make it a little more realistic could have grown beards, since most Viking men believed beards represented they were men. The battle scenes were a bit unrealistic at parts.
William Gregory Lee and Justin Whalin suited the Viking parts, but William could've not forced his acting in some parts. The overall story is a Beauty and The Beast remake only in the Viking era. I liked it, but at some parts it does seem really forced. Most Dungeon & Dragons fans will like this movie.
Hope this helps...
William Gregory Lee and Justin Whalin suited the Viking parts, but William could've not forced his acting in some parts. The overall story is a Beauty and The Beast remake only in the Viking era. I liked it, but at some parts it does seem really forced. Most Dungeon & Dragons fans will like this movie.
Hope this helps...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
