A Viking Saga: The Darkest Day (2013) User Reviews

The Lord of the Vikings - Return of the Rambo Monk

[DBLurker · 4/10 · 23 August 2013]

I think I know why this movie is getting such a bad rating.

1) WAY too much talking and walking: It's like, they took the walking and talking parts of the LOTR and forgot to do anything interesting with either of them. This isn't a exciting adventure. They are just going from Point-A to Point-B while in between them they meet like 1 viking and all other are just neutral NPC's.

2) The talking: I am all for character development and this movie does it well with the young monk.. sort of. But other than that, the rest of the dialog is between monk and random people talking about his book and word of POWER (or something like that). Seriously, they talk way too much about same thing over and over in the whole damn movie.

3) The action: It's terrible. Just awful. They try to jazz it up by throwing in slow-mo and of course, overused sound effects in post production. But the fact is, like 2 of the actors had threatening, warrior-like look and both were playing vikings. Rest are just comically bad, especially when they start fighting.

4) The Rambo Monk: Everyone saw it coming, and they finally turn him into one in the end. The kiddy monk goes crazy and takes on two vikings (and actually manages to kick ass of a trained viking soldier.. yeah) and then when close to death, is magically saved by 'his god'.. who apparently sends a pagan (yes, the same people 'his god' told to butcher) to save his arse in the end. Ironic and just.. lame.

5) The invincible knight: The Aragon, I mean, the knight with the monk.. I didn't care to remember his name.. thinks he is invincible. First he tells a pagan that her people should be butchered for worshiping OLD GODS, then he proceeds to ignore the fact she just saved his monks life and refuses her aid in healing his wounds. He heals magically by just sleeping, survives getting stabbed left and right. The power of Christ keeps him running like Duracell batteries, unlike Vikings, who get stabbed and die when sword goes inside their bodies.

In the end, the only reason I am giving it a 4 and not a 2, is because of cinematography.. which is good enough, not the best but OK. Also, some violence is pretty authentic (esp. the monk rape.. didn't see that coming) looking.

Should you watch it? If you have nothing else to watch (like I didn't), yeah. Else don't bother. Nothing new or interesting going on here.. except the monk rape. Which is funny and WTF moment, at the same time.

Sleepy, slow and talky

[reelswords · 3/10 · 3 October 2013]

For a film that had all the potential to be high paced and explore a wonderful bit of history, this sure fell flat on multiple fronts. The script was trite and slow, with many scenes of just trekking through woods or sitting on hillsides, repeating themes and plot points over and over again. This slowed the pace down to a point where I actually started to fall asleep in places. I understand low budget film making, but it really just felt like some friends got together and shot something quick over a few weekends. The fight choreography was painfully bad- that actors just looked really awkward and unsure... not sure if it was a result of lack of rehearsal time or poor instruction. In short, what could have been a delightful tale, turned out to be quite slow and anti-climactic. Oh and for the love of Odin, VIKING HELMETS NEVER HAD HORNS!!!

Nothing to get excited about

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 25 April 2018]

VIKINGS: THE DARKEST DAY is another cheap-as-chips Viking movie hoping to cash in on the modern trend for all things gritty and historical. The budget quickly becomes apparent in the limited outdoor locations and small cast, while the script is nothing to write home about. A monk called Hereward (couldn't they think of a more original name?) saves a priceless holy book from a Viking attack and is thereafter pursued by bloodthirsty pagans, until he finds a skilled protector to look after him. There's a fair bit of action and movement in the story, but the cast members are limited and the small-scale story is simply nothing to get excited about.

An Interesting Premise Which is Completely Wrong

[ToryCorner · 1/10 · 26 December 2019]

I understand all about film budgets and how the costs of locations play a large part in getting a film off the ground. That said, I've also spent a great deal of time on Lindisfarne (Holy Island, as it is now called) and I know its history as I've placed a story, a screenplay, and a magazine article there. The Lindisfarne raid by Vikings in 793 was a smash and grab affair sacking whatever riches were in place on the altar of the church. The Vikings' knowing anything about the illuminated book called the Lindisfarne Gospels is far-fetched to say the least and attaching the Vikings' concept of magical significance to that work of art is idiotic.

The opening sequence on the beach at Lindisfarne looks nothing at all like Lindisfarne. In fact, no filmed setting---especially those used by the History Channel for re-enactments or for their Vikings television program---has ever looked like the real Linsdisfarne.

In this film, for the two monks to have escaped the Viking raid on foot to the mainland of Northumberland from the island of Lindisfarne, they would have had to cross a treacherous stretch of mud flats and quicksand at low tide. The same would be true of Vikings following them. It couldn't have and wouldn't have taken place. What's more, the landscape of Northumberland is hardly grey as portrayed in this film but exceedingly green. Even if two monks were seeking refuge for their holy book, they would hardly try to cross the width of Britain to get to Iona but instead head down the coast to Bamburgh, scant miles from Lindisfarne and both a fortress and seat of power during and long before 793. The film's discussion of signal fires having been lit in order to seek the protection of guides for a journey across Britain never would have happened since there was no time for such nonsense because the raid most likely took place at dawn awakening the sleeping monastery.

The whole premise simply doesn't hold in this long-winded draggy mess in which even the local saint being discussed as associated with Northumberland is all wrong. Lindisfarne is strongly associated with Saints Aidan and Cuthbert. It would have been either or both of those who would have been talked about by the film's characters. The writer-director apparently did no homework at all for this project other than to cull the same old historical passages used at the beginning of this film and used ad nauseam (and without understanding) whenever Lindisfarne is mentioned in movies and television programs. The writer-director would have been much better off fictionalizing the places and the whole story, making it all much more visually interesting, and speeding up the storytelling. None of that would have impacted his budget in the least. And what's with that awful horned-helmet artwork on the poster?

A wasted opportunity

[tonyhennessey1 · 5/10 · 17 March 2014]

It may have been a low budget film but it would have cost nothing to get a few people around a table with the script before filming. Come on, how many film clichés do you have to put into one film. I nearly stopped watching at one point because it was getting so bad. After each scene (and there weren't that many) I found myself asking 'would this have actually happened?'. I answered each time, 'highly unlikely'. The ending was just too funny for words. The acting was OK but I would have preferred some attempt at a Norse/Danish accent from the Vikings. I was just grateful in the end that there weren't any Americans involved (nothing personal, but American actors should never be allowed near historical productions). Finally, Vikings wearing chain mail at that time period? I doubt it.

poor tasteless boring and not worth the time of your day

[kathyh326 · 1/10 · 14 August 2013]

My son won a free movie at Red box by buying a big mac sandwich at the local burger joint and so he chose this movie title A Viking Saga: The darkest day. I guess we thought it would be entertaining and have some merit but little did we know. We picked out another boring and worthless movie that came to us free but alas I will have to pay for the gas for my car to return it. Nothing said nothing gained. If you do get the opportunity to choose a movie free I suggest you pick out something different than this one. My son is usually a good critic and he said only one word summed up the name for this movie.. BORING VIKINGS nothing worse ... If only I had the opportunity to read this critique I would not have wasted my time driving to and from the Red box.

THE BRAVE WILL LIVE FOREVER

[nogodnomasters · 4/10 · 9 April 2019]

This story takes place in Great Britain in 793 AD and is based on true events, or so it claims. The Vikings have landed on the island and begin to pirate and plunder. Their king is obsessed with locating the "Holy Gospel of Lindisfarne." It is a powerful book which protects the island and will give the Vikings great power when they find it, although it really hasn't been helping Northumberland too much of late. Hereward, a young monk is tasked with saving the book in delivering it to Iona.

The movie is consumed by him walking through the woods with various people while being hunted by some Vikings. The characters aren't that strong. I enjoyed the language of the film, "Dragon ships carried upon black storm clouds"...seeking the "Power of the White Christ." For those who loved pseudo history film such as "Centurion" this is a low budget version of that type of film. It was a film that is consumed with dialog, that leaves any coded messages to the viewer. The action is relatively sparse for a Viking Saga. It is a film I kept waiting for it to start, and then it was over.

Parental Guide: 1 f-bomb, attempted rape, old male nudity with their junk a bit blurred.

Much better than I expected.

[isildur-422-110758 · 7/10 · 21 July 2013]

Solid acting performances and some riveting cinematography have gone under appreciated in this dark, gritty tale of medieval monks running for their lives.

Paul Jibson gave a really good performance but, sadly, we get to see to little of him in my opinion. I think he should have been cast in a longer lasting role.

Mark Lewis Jones gives a solid showing as the grizzled warrior trying his damnedest to save the monks from the vikings and their own stupidity.

Marc Pickering plays the coming of age monk trying to live as the monk amidst the reality of viking assaults. He commands a solid understanding of his role and leaves you wanting more.

Jibson, Jones, and Pickering really deliver and I look forward to seeing more of them in the future.

This good movie, while not perfect, is worthy of a watch if you are into medieval pieces.

Bleak look at the beginning of the Viking Age

[siderite · 8/10 · 10 July 2013]

I also have to express dismay at the low rating this film has on IMDb. It seemed a well done, decently acted movie with a story that is neither ridiculous nor simplistic. I honestly believe it is deserving of an above average rating. Probably what annoyed a lot of people is the poster, which has nothing to do with the movie at all. It is not a film about glorious deaths in violent battles.

The Viking raid on Lindisfarne monastery is a real event that is considered by historians to be the beginning of the so called Viking Age. As with the TV show Vikings, the event is used to inspire the storyline in The Darkest Day, without much concern for historical accuracy, but this film has it a bit closer to reality.

The plot is seen through the eyes of a young monk, one of two escaping from the Lindisfarne's raid and carrying the Lindisfarne's Gospels, a beautifully crafted book that holds "the word of God" and without which the monks believe the Angles country is lost. The book is a real artifact that you can read about. The monks run away from a bunch of Vikings that want the book, believing it holds "the power of the white Christ" and can be used to rule the land. Their escape shows you glimpses of the wild and poor way of living in those times (around 800 AD) in the British Isles. Helped by an old warrior, they meet Christian sectarians and a Pict woman they rescue from bondage and try to fend off the raiders.

I've watched a few Viking related movies lately, something spurned by the TV show Vikings, and this is by far one of the best. It is a low budget English and Welsh film with almost completely unknown actors in a small cast, but they each play their roles well and the bleak and violent trek through ancient England feels realistic and raw. The name of the young monk, Hereward, is an ironic hint of the end of the movie. Again: a clearly above average film, especially if you are in a Viking mood.

Anglo-Saxon believers vs. Viking "devils" in the haunting woods of Britain

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 6 October 2018]

The Viking era lasted roughly 300 years from about 790 to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. The word 'Viking' comes from the Old English wicing, meaning pirate. The Vikings were Norse plunderers from what is modern-day Norway and Denmark who preferred to prey upon undefended rich monasteries in Britain and nearby regions. Their speedy longships gave them terrifying mobility. By the time an army was raised against them they had moved on to other raids.

I bring this up to point out that the supposedly mighty Vikings were not noble warriors, but rather lowly brigands who preferred weak, defenseless victims. "A Viking Saga: Decision Day" (2013) drives this home and details a Viking raid on a monastery (mostly off-screen) and the subsequent pursuit through the haunting grey woods as the Viking chieftain seeks a priceless holy book in the possession of two monks who escaped the monastery.

The sluggish, grim tone is akin to that of "Valhalla Rising" (2009), but I slightly prefer this one due to the potent theme, which addresses the folly of absolute pacifism vs. the wisdom of limited pacifism. The former stupefying-ly refuses to resort to physical violence under any conditions whereas the latter resorts to violence only when necessary and justified. The young simpering monk in the movie, Hereward (Marc Pickering), represents the view of absolute pacifism while the noble warrior, Aethelwulf (Mark Lewis Jones), represents limited pacifism.

The monks adhered to the gross misunderstanding that revolves around Christ' teaching to "turn the cheek." The Messiah was referring to a backhanded slap to the face, which was an insult in that culture. In other words, we could all save ourselves a lot of trouble in life if we learn to ignore the antagonism of various morons who would like to divert our focus and ruin our day. The Old Testament teaches this as well: "A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult" (Proverbs 12:16). So Christ was talking about giving an antagonist a break for the sake of peace in situations of personal offense; he was NOT referring to cases of criminal atrocities, which is what Viking raiders were guilty of committing. After all, why else do you think Christ allowed his disciples to carry swords, as chronicled in the Gospels?

The bible says that governments are "God's servants" for good in the sense that they protect citizens from criminals and their military protects the people from foreign attack; in short, they "bear the sword," meaning that they possess the power to punish and even execute criminals or foreign raiders when justified (see Romans 13:1-6). Relating this to the movie, the monks were the government of their area and they in essence "bore the sword." As such, they would be perfectly justified in annihilating the Norse thugs from the face of the earth. It's a lesson Hereward needs to learn IF he and his remaining loved ones are to survive.

One last thing: Someone commented on how the Vikings are effectively depicted as diabolical fiends, which is true to a point. They're also portrayed as mere men, who can be slain as easily as any other. This was a good call by the director in light of how Vikings are often depicted in a mythical super-heroic manner, which is light-years from the truth. They were wretched human pillagers, brutal murderers and sadistic rapists who deserved slain on sight. Speaking of which, the movie poster (and DVD cover) is thoroughly misleading and the clueless producer(s) responsible should be shot (not literally).

The movie runs 1 hour, 28 minutes and was shot in Neath Port Talbot area in South Wales, Britain. The UK production reportedly only cost around $132,000, but you wouldn't know that from viewing the movie; it looks more like a $2 million production.

GRADE: B/B-

Pretty good actually

[damiun-68509 · 7/10 · 23 March 2017]

**Warning spoilers ahead**

I was totally going to give it nine stars up until the last 25min, then it just got a little to cheesy. As far as production and action goes I give it an A but the acting at times could be a little corny. And as far as the ending goes they really could have done something to make it a little more believable. I mean come on, he just picks up a sword and starts swinging it around like he has been doing this his whole life. I would have like to had seen something a little more original when it came time for the "saving the day" part. And am I the only person that noticed the angle of the arrow that went through his neck?? Didn't know arrows could fly at 33degree angles. Well at the end of the day did it keep me entertained and would I suggest it to friends and the answer to both of those is a solid yes. For a lazy Wed afternoon it definitely kept me interested.

A nice little gem

[je2643 · 9/10 · 22 June 2013]

I gave it a higher rating then it deserves but this is to offset the lower ratings for which it does not deserve. A tale of vikings raiding saxon territory, and the viking leader seeking a book which is supposed to be a holy relic of Christ as he feels it has power which he can use for his own advantage. The story follows the young monk who is the only survivor of a monastery where the book was kept, and his flight from the vikings. He is aided by a British warrior nobleman, and later on another (I leave unnoted so as to not spoil).

There are a few moments where it plods a touch, but overall I thought it well done. It is brutal in parts, but back in 733AD (when this takes place - part of the dark ages) it was brutal times. I thought the acting was good, the cinematography very good and it had gripping moments. Most of what happens is I think fairly predictable, but how many movies are not? There are always flaws in movies, but I think the ones in the movie can be overlooked plot wise. I have watched a thousand movies rated 5-6 that were not as good as this one at it current 3.5 rating, so I have no idea what the panning is about.

Just be advised, this is not a movie for children. There are brutal scenes of violence (and more) in the movie - entirely keeping within the character of the times and setting but stark just the same.

The published plot line indicates this movie is based upon a true story, or at least some sort of folklore. I have no idea of the accuracy or merit of that contention, and it seems to me it really does not matter.

The most atypical viking film you'll probably ever see

[daniel-mannouch · 6/10 · 14 April 2019]

The Darkest Day is a moody, atmospheric filmed play at times with some bizarre bits thrown in to differentiate it from a TV movie. The focus here is dirt, despair and oddly poetic dialogue. This is a Viking film that is as dry as they come. A deconstruction of sorts of the more romanticised depictions from other films of the cycle, yet the film itself displays many tropes, visual and audible. Lots of damp woods, hills that look like they were freezing to shoot in, and dialogue that bounces between modern and olde English liberally. However, it is these anachronisms i find that give the viking film cycle it's charm, especially when entires take themselves as seriously as this one does.

It does have clout though. The production value is immense for the budget and there is a solid earthy look to this film. The cinematography is stoic, yet off balance at enough times to not let the picture sink into an idyllic, melancholy feel, and it's well graded also. Costume design is dynamic with each party involved in this little quest given a lot of personality through their wear. But also, the cast is a mixed bag of theatrical and robotic and there's too much talky talky to aggravate this.

Overall, is as straight laced a viking film as they come. As drab and cold as the island it is set on. If you like you're historical drama to have an emphasis on the savagery and the suffering side, then The Darkest Day is for you.

Not what you might expect.

[halcyonbear · 7/10 · 28 May 2020]

There are a lot of low rated reviews on here. I understand why. The poster artwork and indeed the title make it look as if this film is going to be very much like an episode of Vikings with lots of epic battle scenes. If that is what you are expecting, you will be disappointed. The story is a slow burner with more dialogue than action. However for me, this was no bad thing. A big theme in the film is that of religious belief and how it can make some behave, at best, unwisely. The violence of the warband isn't glamourised, but equally the idealism of the monks is shown as foolish. Both sides risk their lives for a book. A very beautiful book, but a book nonetheless, and faith is more than ink and parchment. We see also that both Christians and pagans misunderstood one another. It's only when the characters talk about belief that there can be better understanding. The main character is ultimately forced to questions how he approaches his beliefs, the final act having become something akin to a tale of revenge, something that would have been at odds with his training as a novice monk. Does he ultimately win if he has had to compromise his beliefs so much that he will kill? This film owes a slight debt at least to Brian Bates' wonderful book The Way of Wyrd, another story that examines belief in England at a time when Christianity and paganism overlapped. The cinematography is very muted; almost monochrome at times, but this only added to the bleak aspects of the story. I very much enjoy Vikings and The Last Kingdom but this is a different beast entirely; smaller budget, smaller cast, slower and grounded in what the characters say, rather than what they do. This is not the film for you if you just want action, but if you want something that will make you think about how raids impacted upon the people of Dark Ages England, this relatively short film is worth 90 minutes of your time. I plan on watching it again.

True Christianity Uplifted & Defended

[twelvehousetwelve · 10/10 · 1 June 2017]

This film is really a hidden gem. The writer and director drive home their point that Christianity reigns supreme over all the old gods (demons) once worshiped in Angleland (England). 'Become my wrath' says Jesus in a vision to the monk protagonist, and here we see God infusing his authority in those who have been specifically called to maintain peace through the use of force. A beautiful, subtle scene is when a Pictish girl from Northumbria reveals to the monk that she and her people had accepted Christ before the heathen Vikings came and wiped out her village, she alone remaining and taken as a sex slave. The themes in this film are as relevant for our own day as they were for some of our ancestors then. I deeply recommend this film to all Christians, and then to any person who may want to know about our desire to uphold the power of the Gospels as the Light for our dark world. Christ has risen from the dead; and through death he trampled upon death, then granting life to we who lived in the tombs. This film is a glimmering beacon of hope in a great sea of terrible story lines which come at us all the time like bloodthirsty Vikings.

Excellent presentation, shows our savage past... for nothing

[cowboyerik · 8/10 · 23 February 2015]

This title should be better that's it's under 5 rating. I think it's well done. Very well done. It deals with a narrow subject, in a narrow time, a savage time really. A small cast, and little no set production and only minimal costume design, this things are made up for with excellent photography, camera work, sound, acting and script, the hallmarks of talent and skill combined to make a low budget epic that will build it's own reputation and appreciated in time. It is worth seeing and is not terribly long. It's length is correct and could have been expanding upon with longer beginning and longer ending frankly. I think it was shortened for cinema.

Great Movie

[Yadasampati · 9/10 · 17 July 2015]

After seeing this movie on DVD tonight i am amazed that its IMDb rating is so low. I was absolutely impressed by it. The acting is great, the historic setting and scenery is convincing and beautifully shot and the movie has an interesting story line, going much further and deeper than the raw violence that is suggested by the poster. Yes there is violence in it, because it is a realistic movie, but it is not dominating. The main characters are developed in an interesting way and the viewer is drawn into the movie because he can identify with them. The music is also very nice and fits well to create an atmosphere that makes the 8th century England come alive

Well Done - Not for Everyone

[westyrcp · 9/10 · 5 June 2019]

Based on a noted event, the Anglo-Saxon Abbey on Lindisfarne Is. off the coast of Northumbria, England is attacked and ransacked by Scandinavian marauders. It reflects the Norse transition from the Vendel era to the Viking era. The case cover depicts a horned helmeted, leather strapped, bulked up warrior -- none of that is actually true.

The cinematography is really quite good, the period dress and appearances quite accurate, and the absence of any real bling for modern viewers is understandable in a film where realism is intended. Real Vikings, after long ocean voyages, were quite filthy with mostly poor diets and just not always the clean blondes people have been raised to expect.

A point that another mentioned is doubt the Vikings wore chain-mail as depicted but actually they did, even before the Viking era, and it's always been a point of contention between historians as to how that came to be. Possibilities including contact with remote people like the Romans or Sarmatians who were already wearing it.

The film is more of a human interest story as we follow the few actors almost like a documentary. I don't recall hardly any special effects and the military action people might expect from the cover is limited.

Before you view or purchase perhaps have a look at some of the trailers on YouTube. As a history nut I really enjoyed it

Compelling story

[jgueripel · 9/10 · 6 August 2023]

I really enjoyed this film. Similar story to the one in the movie Pilgrimage where the least expected character has to rise to the challenge. Acting was good, the filming in subdued tones gave grit to the film, the story was very good, reflecting the dangers of the era. So many marauders of all sorts back then, walking through the woods, there was always a risk that you would come face to face with enemy tribes and other dangerous people. It also describes very well the fervour for religion that existed in those days and the dangers monks were faced with. If you enjoy historical type films, you will enjoy this.