Hammer of the Gods (2013) User Reviews

No thunder...

[stefgrig · 3/10 · 2 June 2013]

I tried to like "Hammer of the gods", tried really hard. But it reminded me of a bad version of the excellent series Vikings, having none of what is good about it.

No character is developed enough, the action feels cheap and forced. Focus is lost constantly throughout the movie , and the story lacks cohesion. Violence serves no purpose, it is uninspired and dull , even disturbing at times. It is very disappointing to see a classic story and a chance for something good , wasted as much.

Acting is not so bad, I kinda liked Eliot Cowan (Hakan) and Clive Standen (Hagen) whose role is the same as in Vikings, and hes rather good at it. The rest felt direction-less and anemic.

They should have copied Vikings more.

Just another but just not as good

[f_agerskov · 4/10 · 6 June 2013]

To begin with I liked it, and i must admit, although I would prefer the protagonist's hair to not look like he was going to the club and rather like he was going to war, I think it was necessary because of the hectic filming during fight scenes. If there would have been one more guy with long hair, although you may base it on their weapons, I would have lost track of it.

During the movie I grew more fond of it because of the few "obvious" things that would happen, but never did. (like the woman they save, but end up killing because she bitchslaps Grim - or being drugged by a homosexual pedophile but not even getting raped?!)And the way the other characters in the companionship die is also kinda exciting. This made it seem like a "medieval" movie directed in a way I don't recall having seen before. But then came the ridiculous Saxons with their ridiculous masks and costumes and from then on I only think it got worse. The last third part of the movie is never really interesting enough to keep up with other parts of the movie, and I am fed up with the stereotypical view on British barbarians and their costumes. The fake dirt and leather is just too obvious and it also affected my view on the costumes in the rest of the movie, which I started to hate. In some way I wish I would have just stopped the movie 2/3 through... unfortunately I did not. I choose to give it four stars because of a fantastic scenography and the few surprises it also had in it. But not more because I have also seen King Arthur, Centurion and The Eagle, which i find better than this one, although knowing they have not had the same budget, the plot and especially the ending should have been better for me to give more stars. My wish for the next movie about ancient barbarians would be more realistic costumes and maybe researching their fashion as well. For example, historians know that Vikings were known to be very conscious about fashion and their haircut was typically long in the front covering their forehead, while short in the back. I hope Mel Gibson and Berserker might do this, thinking about Apocalypto in which Mel did a great job describing the Mayans.

Alright, if you like this stuff.

[jonnytheshirt · 5/10 · 13 June 2013]

I'm being generous with a 5 here. This is pretty much a movie for a fan of the genre, the actors aren't too bad and actually pop up in the superior Vikings TV show which is superior in not only looks, but acting, storyline and authenticity. If you liked that series then this is a mildly entertaining diversion. The actual movie kind of belies it's silly intro with characters names splashing across the screen like some kind of video game. It actually becomes a lot darker and issues such as religion and power crop up. This is why I ended up giving it a 5 because by the end of the movie I was quite surprised. the movie kind of grew in itself rather than falling flat.

Fabulous landscapes, horrible movie

[kovaha · 1/10 · 25 December 2014]

Unfortunately the most exciting views of the landscape is ruined by the participation of the actors and the history falsifying equipment.

Starting with a low-D whistle tune while the movie shows a penny whistle, actors, some with modern hair cuts running around in an incomprehensible story with bare armed biker leather outfits and round ringed unriveted or knitted and silver painted "chainmail", wielding fantasy weapons, screaming while performing most epic moves and spins in a very obvious fighting choreography.

Hahah, they even used that round ringed unriveted chain as a mosquito net.

Had they omitted all humans, this movie would have been worth watching.

Cheap

[pwharris83 · 2/10 · 20 September 2013]

The cover for the movie and previews make it seem as if it will be along the lines of the cinematic view like the 300 and Spartacus but it is far from it. The acting is poor quality, the combat appears cheap and poorly acted out. If you are expecting large epic battles, be prepared for disappointment. It has small skirmishes as if they had a very low budget. Do not waste your time with this movie unless you are looking to throw away time. Graphics have a low quality feel to them as well as the acting. It is a movie that, if done well, would be worth someones time but it wasn't. I had to pause the movie multiple times from boredom. I wish I could get my $1.07 back from Redbox and my time back. Sum this movie up in one word...DISAPPOINTING!!!!

Utterly bad

[hognetennebo · 1/10 · 14 August 2013]

I'm actually offended by this horrible movie. A fantasy mix that blends Picts, Celts and Viking cultures into a weird soup. Weapons used got a span of 1500 years. Actors and director should be shameful. So many historical errors that I won't even start pointing them out. Horrible story. Extremely vague storyline. Producers should also rethink it all. Acting itself is decent.. Not worth the value of the plastic on the master tape. AVOID at all costs. Story in itself is dumb; some sort of Viking invasion gone wrong, king dying of septicemia and little cool Blondy gets sent off to save the day. The writer of this script should be prosecuted for being bad at his job because its horsedung!

Absolutely rubbish!

[rightwingisevil · 4 June 2013]

Don't even think this film worth writing a review. The whole movie is full of endless but clueless killings, weapons such as knives, swords, axes, daggers....except guns or machine guns are ridiculously used to create absolutely purposeless close combats. Clueless masks wearing by clueless foes, modern-day costumes, haircuts....whatever you want to see are here. The dialog also put you forward to modern time, because even the word 'logic' is used by Odin believers who use Greek philosophic reasoning. This film obviously is cashing in with the hot TV series 'Viking(s) to lure more viewers, only the main character has been replaced by a guy who doesn't have blue eyes, long braid and rarely sneering with a ironic cunning smile. But his best friend, his loyal brother-in-arms, who later was killed by his sword, is the same actor who played similar role in 'Vikings'. This pathetic adapted copy also clueless put a absolutely pointless female character in it. The only thing i appreciated very much is the scenery, the beautiful cinematography that shows us the amazing wildness of the mountains, high plateaus, lakes....the cloud, the mist...they are just beautiful (my 2 stars is for the cinematography only) until ruined by this endless killings, battles and close combats. My English grammar turned even worse just by writing this pointless review for a pointless film. I rest my case.

Horrendous

[MovieRaterNo1 · 1/10 · 14 August 2013]

After watching viking series, and thoroughly enjoying it, i thought id try and find other films revolving around vikings that are on par with it. I was sceptical even after only seeing the trailer but thought that i might as well try it, after all I've watched films with bad trailers before and seen them turn out good. This was not one of them. The first scene with a landing looked like it might lead onto a decent film, after all it was very vikingly and looked like a positive precursor towards the rest of the film. Then came the first fight scene, where it all went t*ts-up. The part whence you first find out the main groups name was soo awfully done it made me want to gag, the way in which they done it was so cheap and made it look they were giving the names to one of ben 10s monsters rather than a vicious viking, honestly terrible. Not to mention the fighting was sketchy as they kept jumping from character to character in the middle of a fight so you didn't see how poorly they often fought. Acting was passable at some points but most of the time its was god awful. Half of the vikings dressed in flowing coats and shining mail, rather than the dirty bear-skin draped giants we know them to be, what was up with that, the only ones who barely passed as vikings was the main group and even then they weren't half as well done as the TV series 'viking' managed. Picked up abit with some fight scenes, but overall id rather watch ben 10 than this, just crap, utter rubbish. If a king was ill and unable to lead he would have been succeeded by his son slitting his throat, not bowing to his every wish. Urgh it just wasn't for me, and those who are saying that its a good film have no idea what they are talking about and they clearly haven't paid attention when watching the film, otherwise they would have seen how awful it was, if you thinking about watching this film, don't. Not worth your time.

Only see this movie if you want to lose 90 minutes of your life.

[Takasu_ · 1/10 · 21 September 2013]

Welcome to the apex of non-sense, the meaning and philosophy existent among norse tribesmen on their fight with Christianity and introduced in past movies is swallowed among useless dialogues, silly camera-work, unworking vfx, meaningless characters and a shallow story.

Most of the characters lack charisma, their actions seem meaningless, the expressions are empty and difficult to read, their texts are short and most of them do not contribute to the evolution and development of the story, the main character seems to be afflicted with a sort lack of cognition evident on many of his actions, most of the coadjuvants add nothing to the context and just seem to be empty characters with no reason to interact with the main character but fighting and arguing. All of them, including the main character, show no real emotions at all during the movie, and when you think that some emotions can be showed on a particular scene, the actors fail at doing it. Some scenes seem to lack any sense at all, the viewer is not able to filter the information that the director tries to show, and most of the time, it is hard to understand what most of the scenes show, there is no connection between most of the scenes and the story flows through disconnected and unrelated scenes, with only the failing action scenes to bind them through the 98 minutes.

The camera-work is terrible, most of the fast-paced action scenes lack proper vfx, and while they try to repair it while filming from different angles, these angles do not let the viewer know what's happening, at the end of the day, none of the movies action scenes show a "direct hit" coming full, all of them have the camera doing everything else like showing faces and expressions and the bad sound engineering helps a lot on making it harder to understand what is happening, the grunts and sounds that the characters let loose are badly engineered into the movie, and some of them are even unsynced, which makes you beg for the movie to end without any other fight scene to happen, because if it happens, it'll end up with the same no vfx, bad camera, bad sounds and grunts, and nothing to understand.

I'd say that this is a good movie if you want to completely waste 99 minutes of your life, if you mind wasting this time, then do not watch it.

Brutal Journey to Hell

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 7 December 2013]

In 870 AD, in Britain, the Vikings under the leadership of King Bagsecg (James Cosmo) are in war against the Saxons. When he is mortally wounded in a battle, he summons his younger son, Prince Steinar (Charlie Bewley), to meet his to other sons Harald (Finlay Robertson) and Vali (Theo Barklem-Biggs) at his death bed. King Bagsecg asks to Stainar to seek out his missing brother Hakan the Ferrocious (Elliot Cowan) to return with the next king of his people. Stainer travels with his friends Hagen (Clive Standen), Grim (Michael Jibson) and Jokul (Guy Flanagan) and his half-brother Vali to search the warrior Ivar (Ivan Kaye) that might know the whereabouts of Hakan. When they meet Ivar, he joins the group with his mate Agnes (Alexandra Dowling) in a brutal journey to hell.

"Hammer of the Gods" is a weird and violent movie about the quest of a young prince to find his older brother that has been expelled from the kingdom by his father. His unexpected discovery of the truth about his family changes his behavior. Unfortunately the movie is too brutal and the choreography of the gore battle scenes is very poor with successive cuts and very few warrior due to the low-budget. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Martelo dos Deuses" ("Hammer of the Gods")

Would have been better with orcs

[The-Sarkologist · 2/10 · 24 May 2018]

Yeah, this film was pretty bad. Okay, visually it was quite nice, but honestly, I really found it boring. In fact it came across as being one of those fantasy style adventures, and even pretty much ran as if it was a fantasy adventure, but it fell down badly in the sense that it was basically set in the real world, or at least England where the Vikings were fighting the Saxons. Okay, I'm sure things like this happened in the real world, but honestly, if the film is drawing on countless fantasy tropes, a part of me really would prefer the film to be set in a fantasy realm. As I mentioned, the film is set in during the time when the Vikings had invaded England, and things are going badly for the Viking king. So, he calls in reinforcements, and along comes his son. However, the king, who has been wounded in battle, decides that his son won't take his place, but instead go and search for his elder brother. Thus begins the quest, where our hero goes and searches for clues, encounters some trouble, and finally stumbles upon his brother who, not surprisingly, has joined a cult where he is basically the leader. So that is basically it, the typical fantasy trope tied around the typical quest narrative. Of course, the whole narrative is a coming of age story, and also toys with the idea of the savage Viking becoming somewhat calmer and more passive. However, that doesn't seem to last all that long because once he returns, the father decides that his son has proven himself and he proceeds to go and slaughter Saxons, except that in reality the Saxons won. This is probably the spot I struggled with in the film. Honestly, they probably should have switched the roles, however Vikings tend to be a lot more appealing than do Saxons. Yet this still really didn't work - why have a Viking as the hero, and have him go on a quest to prove himself, when ultimately it is all going to come to naught. Sure, this could be a metaphor of the futility of life, but honestly, this really wasn't one of those deep and philosophical films. No, rather it was just an adventure flick that in the end was really boring. Okay, maybe it is because of budget reasons that the creators decided to dispense with the fantasy elements, however I don't really feel that is the case here, However, there is more to a good movie, even a good adventure movie, than just fantasy elements. In the end this film falls down on so many levels - the characters were rather hollow, it really didn't know what it was or what it wanted to be, and the acting wasn't that intriguing either. Oh, and there was also the idea that they were trying to set this film up as if it was some form of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Well, that didn't work for me either. So, in the end, it is one of those films that I was really glad when it came to an end.

confused!

[nickmancyboy35 · 9/10 · 3 November 2014]

when did this film ever pretend to be any more than it is, a very watchable good adventure film with a good plot and cast. Is this now the world of highbrow film reviews well your watching the wrong movie. It is a good film for what it is, a fast paced adventure with a cast who pull it off well, anyone with an interest in Vikings will enjoy this why try to find more, it is exactly what it sets out to be..bloody good fun and well worth a watch....I like Vikings the TV series who don't! I presume you spotted Rollo, I think the lead in this film played it very well and he had that Raganar swagger and played it well.

stop bad mouthing this movie world its bloody good....

A Solid British Film No Less Historically Accurate than "Vikings".

[alan-51-111974 · 7/10 · 17 August 2013]

I'm Welsh, so forgive me if I fail the US spell-check.

Firstly I'm bewildered, amused and dismayed by many of the comments: "Funny British Accents" (they're English accents), followed up by "Would be OK in Trainspotting II" (which is a Scottish film with Scottish accents), yes there are three countries in Great Britain. It's not called Great because it's great, it's to distinguish it from Brittany in France, formerly known as Little Britain after some Britons fled the Saxons and colonised the area. There's a bit of history for you.

Then we get into the historical accuracy of it all... and "Vikings" is held up as a better example, when most of "Vikings" is historically wrong.

Unlike "Vikings" this is a fantasy, it's not supposed to represent history, it's also not a Hollywood film, it's a "British" (English) one, that's why everyone talks with a "Funny British Accent".

There's also a fair amount of Old English and a snippet of Old Welsh, I don't think I've heard those languages used on film before.

It's main flaws are in trying to pander to the U.S. market (make it simpler and dumber)... yet it has strong performances throughout, a great lead in Charlie Bewley, fantastic settings, a solid although somewhat bipolar score, solid cinematography and a half-decent script.

People lap this stuff up in Game of Thrones yet as soon as you fix something which is obviously a fantasy to a point in history it get's pulled apart?

It's a solid 7. I'd have given it a 6 yet I find my patriotism roused by indignation at ignorance.

If you want to find something that completely lacks historical accuracy, only happened a couple of hundred years ago yet is revered as a great film, please watch Lincoln.

Local pub customers make a movie.

[Pigeon_down · 1/10 · 10 March 2014]

Relaxing in front of the TV with nothing to do I came across this little movie that someone appears to have vomited into existence. The cinematography is actually pretty good, the score is OK in parts but a bit OTT in others, costumes are passable, even the script is OK. It all falls apart on the story and the acting.

1. Actors - Yep, a collection of guys from the pub with the barmaid thrown in all happy to give making a movie a punt.

The lead with his 2012 haircut consisting of perfectly clipper-ed sides, squared sideburns, layered top cut and hair gel - completely consistent with an 800AD Viking prince. He just cannot carry this part. Does not have the screen presence to make it seem credible. It looks acted. It looks like he's copying the clichés. You just don't get a feeling that he is this guy at all, he's just playing him the way other z movie actors have done.

Grim - Yes that is the name of this character. You might perhaps have seen a comparable performance on the football terraces at Milwall. Short stumpy guy with an axe, screaming and hacking at people, charging into fights like a yob, just gives no sense of the reality of 800AD warfare. No character development, just one of the pub crowd playing a Viking as a football thug. I was glad when this character died.

As for the rest, Hagan was pretty good (infact he seemed the most credible of all the cast), the rest very forgettable.

2. The story - well, lets just say its a bit silly. There isn't much of a story. Prince goes looking for his brother as king lays dying. Cue chance to see the pub acting team go wandering across what looks like Wales having a Viking slaughter fest every few minutes.

Right from the get go it is cliché. Vikings coming out of the mist. They meet a band of Saxons and kill all of them without losing any of their own. Cue shots of the main characters chopping down, one, then two, then three of the throw away Saxon non entities. Cool, we've established that these Viking guys from the pub can sort of swing a sword and that they are fighting the local blind, drunk, deaf crowd from the nearby hospice that only attack one by one.

With the hospice Saxons now dead, the pub Vikings can growl and make silly smiles then head off to find the wounded king.

Gosh, I can't say much more but this movie other than for the cast to put this on your CV/resume probably has the same career potential of a skid mark down the page.

Could be the Viking version of Showgirls Funny

[sbjalr0812-745-637907 · 1/10 · 13 August 2013]

Or like I kind of imagine that it might be that someone decided that they would make the movie the Monty Python guys were making fun of when they made the Holy Grail, you know, the Knight that kept fighting and saying that Author was a coward even as he got all of his limbs cut off you know, the John M Character - Or maybe Michale P character - I Seriously hate mentioning them as they are people I respect because of there work and this movie is not up to par in any way shape or form. Those guys are brilliant and they should, even though they are in there seventies, come back and make fun of all the stuff that's starting to come out of England trying to bank out on the Game of Thrones Phenom, I think this movie is part of a wave of that kind of incontinence. Let's just cut off someones head and hope that people don't notice that It's just a little too much violence even for violence enthusiasts.

won't hold a candle to viking heritage

[davish_wulf-1 · 1/10 · 3 June 2013]

Quite surprised to see at least 2 actors from the TV show "Vikings" in here (Clive Standen & Ivan Kaye), the comparison is unavoidable and this doesn't old a candle to that show quality or to any viking movie made until now.

First, the main actor can't act, has an unpleasant aura to him that makes him unlikeable from the beginning & looks like a misplaced "David Beckham" in the woods.

I have no idea how Clive Standen got into this, since he is clearly the best actor for the main role but the movie is so damn awful in lack of plot, meaning & pace that this was completely avoidable in his career.

What they paid to the great James Cosmo for entering this is a big question mark, since the man made more Epic movies (and good ones) than anyone around here.

Action scenes are a mess - terrible fight sequences shot in a portable cam style (the old trick to disguise the mess of it all), story is poor, badly written & lacks direction.

Wardrobe is a mess and you practically don't see any real viking building around (the ridiculous tents they used were hilarious to say the least).

I get the feeling they tried to make a "Centurion" style of movie, with "vikings" in the middle.... but failed entirely to catch my attention from the beginning.

At several points in the movie the constant shouting becomes annoying and was a torture seeing it to the end.

I'm glad the Viking period is finally getting some attention in movies, series & good documentaries, but this movie is a total mess.

Want a good viking movie? Try Vikings with Kirk Douglas, or 13th Warrior, "Beowulf & Grendel" or the great "Vikings" TV series who's series 1 just ended, but avoid this like the plague.

Lets hope Mel Gibson gives "Berserker" a shot, now there's a director worth of the word "Epic" & able to put some sense, feeling & great fight sequences in a movie.

Viking era in Britain is being wrongly displayed

[charliewilson73 · 3/10 · 4 June 2013]

The main sense that I drew from the film from that start was how forced it all felt. Nothing seemed to really flow together correctly.

This all stems from the fact that, with this time period being underused in films, it never gives an accurate representation of what it was actually like.

The combat was obviously all Hollywood with no correct fighting styles. the clothing that they were are completely impractical with all the sleeveless tops in freezing weather.

The one relieving factor in the whole movie would have to be James Cosmos who I feel is a great actor.

Pure rubbish

[theredtank · 1/10 · 4 June 2013]

If Bart Simpson and Milhouse Van Houten had made up this story in Barts tree house I would've been disappointed by the end result. For this to be made be real human beings that actually got paid makes me shake my head in sorrow. The movies only saving grace is the scenery, which you soon realise was used before in the fellowship as our heroes walk along on their quest, (not New Zealand) but still beautiful. As the movie continues you can see time and time again where they have taken parts of other movies, I kid you not, from king Arthur, Centurion, The Eagle even close to an imitation of colonel Kutz from Apocalypse now.

Our heroes set out on their quest with 4 horses which had to be returned to Blackpool beach after the 8 hours of hire had expired. So it's then on foot and into battle. The battle scenes reminded me of children playing toy fights, hiding behind trees before jumping out on their friends and rolling around in the grass laughing, while our combatants were swinging away with swords others were in the background doing the actions of the Joker, and the Penguins henchmen, moving their arms about but not knowing why. I kept waiting for a big KER-POW, BIFF or KER-SPLAT sign to come on the screen, but alas that never happened. At my lowest point of depression a lady's boobs came on screen that took my mind from the dullness of this horrendous movie, but then the same lady had her breast on the screen a lot more times than needed to be. The ending was a mixture between Conan and Riddick, while the end scene was a Braveheart rip-off. I understand that children write silly stories, but please do not put them on the big screen, think of our sanity!

Historically inaccurate Hollowood Cliché, but without the budget.

[ged_b · 2/10 · 19 August 2013]

If the historic connections had not have been made and instead the film was merely a barbarian fantasy, then I would have given more likely a 7/10. As it is, the thing fails to hold up beyond 4 minutes.

From the off the film lacked credibility. Vikings landing on a foreign shore from a long ship without shields? No no no no no. The Hustrwic website states: "The use of shields was nearly universal in Viking combat. Someone without a shield would be, quite literally, defenseless, and would likely be cut down very quickly. So, most every fighting man had a shield." and it is common knowledge among any historians of the period (even amateurs like me) that Danes who went Viking most often took more than one shield each with servants or slaves to carry them.

As an international film, I'd say this is something of a disappointment, even without the historic howlers, and is lacking what British films normally would bring to the theatre - authenticity and quality of flow, acting and character development - instead wading into the mire of Hollowood (deliberate spelling) cliché but without the advantage of the MASSIVE budget which the California moguls can throw at such films.

Sad effort spoiled what is an excellent storyline with immense potential.

Better than I thought it would be after reading these reviews!

[steeledan · 6/10 · 1 July 2013]

I don't understand the rating this movie has on here right now! This movie is as good as sooo many movies in this genre with much better scores. (i.e. Kingdom of Heaven, King Arthur, Robin Hood, etc...)

Yes, okay, the casting choices weren't great (the main actors were great, although unknown, but the female roles were all poorly cast)and the story was, a little, thin, but this movie gains points from me for it's atheist message.

It was also shot very cool and the soundtrack was AWESOME. I hope the success of this film encourages more independent style period pieces in a market dominated by the big companies.

Just meh

[stuartdonovan24 · 1/10 · 27 April 2014]

This is so woeful I was praying to the gods for the end. This is a worry. Directed by Farren Blackburn who has direction of Doctor Who episode recently passed and Luther episodes to come you can just tell from the off that this is from Nick Love's Vertigo. It has Love's prints all over it. It tells the story of Steinar(Bewley), a viking son, who is send on a quest to find his long lost brother by his dying Father King Bagsecg with the intention of him becoming King. Steinar searches for Hakan(Cowan) around the middle land of Britain. The opening sequence introducing the main protagonists could have been straight out of Football Factory and the same could be said of the soundtrack throughout. It's incredibly out of place. There are some strong cast members but Barber & Cowan only feature towards the climax. The film just feels like a low budget Lord Of The Rings, lots of walking or travelling. There is the odd bloody battle thrown in here and there. It's just so boring and unconvincing it beggars belief. I considered switching it off but I stuck with it. Poor film, substandard acting, low budget, dull story and misplaced music sum this up.

Why so many negative reviews?

[wogelberg · 8/10 · 3 June 2013]

I liked it. It is not a Hollywood movie, it is a story of one guys rise as a warrior/becoming a psychopath. And what is all this about the characters doesn't develop, its a one man show. The rest of the cast are pretty much there to die. (Ok, except for the protagonist, there is one character that doesn't die.) Its a viking movie... They are not going to hug and develop as human being. It's decent acting, decent budget, and the protagonist has a character development into insanity that is believable. You want man crying and big battles, go watch some Braveheart. I need another line, so the movie didn't explain well who is brother/half brother with who. And who is their mothers. Yes, the ending becomes more or less disturbing depending on how they are related..:)

A gritty Viking quest story, only failing to entertain

[siderite · 6/10 · 2 June 2013]

The film started well with a bunch of Vikings coming to reinforce their military presence in Britain. Immediately, though, they learn that the king is dying, hence the quest. The actors were a bit weird, but I thought it lent veracity to the whole misfit Viking group concept. There were some intrigues and possible betrayals, beautiful scenery, actual Viking behaviour (haven't met any, but I could believe this was something they did) and high production values. It was all set for greatness.

And then it faltered. I don't know exactly when it did, but it did and the rather brutal finale did almost nothing to shake the feeling that something is terribly off. Perhaps the different pieces of the puzzle that didn't fit together was the problem. Indeed, looking back, almost none of the perils through which the group passes are actually leading the story. It feels like a bad horror movie where people die one by one for no real reason other than to leave the guy and the girl alone in the end.

Bottom line: too bad that from something that could have easily become a cult hit, like The 13th Warrior, it went to a sub par film. And the ending was abysmal.

dire script, performances and historical accuracy

[Freyaj25 · 1/10 · 11 March 2014]

The dark ages are no longer dark, so there's no excuse for this sad portrayal of fury booted vikings with inaccurate dress, dodgy armour, black leather and nefarious animal hides, wrong period swords, axes etc.

The script consists of amble about kill people and amble about some more, swear a lot to a background of drumbeats and lightening flashes. Additionally so very odd scripting choices where the roaming band save a woman tied to a standing stone, to immediately kill her as she slaughters one of her captors ? pardon ?

Brits are renowned for their acting capacity and capability what a shame there is such a lack of it in this film, the only saving grace are the lovely locations and nice horses.

I wasted my time watching this.

[jdat_1990 · 3/10 · 15 September 2013]

Okay. I have just watched this movie and, by all Gods, I will forget it. The first place that this movie went wrong was that it tried to follow too many plots at the same time. If they had managed to follow these plots, or at least explain why they were presented, this film would have been made into something great. Unfortunately, they do not. They bring in characters, and, with a teaser of a presentation, they are discarded and never heard from again. The action scenes are average at best, and the movie seems to spend more time looking over the impressiveness of the set rather than developing the characters. In the end, you are left frustrated and with a giant question mark over your head. What happened here? Who is he? Why did he do that? Apparently this movie needs no explaining, and they just pass right over that without telling us what on earth we just saw.

To it's credit, there are a few castings that are pretty good, and the last fight scene is pretty visceral and brutal, and pretty fun to watch, if it might have a bit too much MMA mixed in, but it's still pretty good.

Overall, a very sub-par movie that had great potential, and with good build-up and good planning, could have been a classic. But as it was, poorly produced and poorly presented, it will be a movie that these actors will be asking to be destroyed and never seen again in the next millennium.