User reviews

When I heard there was going to be a Viking movie with Mads Mikkelson, and I saw the trailer for it, I was very very intrigued. I am of the opinion that a serious Viking drama has never been done well or respectfully, so I was really hoping that I might get that here.

Unfortunately, the plot of Vallhalla Rising is so shallow and near meaningless that I must admit that I'm still waiting.

That being said, if judged in terms of cinematic and visual experience, it was beautifully shot, and the much vaunted fights scenes (especially the ones in the beginning) were awesome in their brutality. The director sets great scenes in some awesome locations, so your eyes will be in for a treat... but don't expect riveting plot. Rather, think of this as an arts movie with a bit of brutal violence in it.

Hell, I just wished they named the movie better. The fact these characters are Norse is just about irrelevant... they could have plugged a number of different cultures into this story-line, change a few slight details and the difference to the core story would have been negligible. Way to name a movie Valhalla Rising' simply because otherwise the idea that there are Vikings in this movie is not reinforced heavily enough.

So, watch if you want a artsy visual experience... don't sit down with a bunch of friends expecting a action blockbuster. This is not it.

I saw it as a poem. Heavy, beautiful cinematography,Mads Mikkelsen as perfect option for One Eye, the Crusade theme and the visions as parts of ancient world source of meanigs, the lonely, silent man and the boy beautiful illustrated. Not comfortable images but fair illustration of a lost world spirit. So, admirable poem about life, options , answers and duty.

Damn! This was, like, the most frustrating kind of cinematic disappointment you can imagine. On one hand you expect a completely different and much more virulent kind of action movie, but on the other hand you totally can't claim that this was a terrible movie. Okay, admittedly, I expected non-stop swashbuckling, blood-dripping Viking spectacle and relentless violence from "Valhalla Rising", but can you blame me? The title and the awesome film poster, depicting a chained warrior with only one eye and war symbols painted on his muscular chest, alone were enough to make my mouth water. There are far too few genuine Viking movies out there, and since this is a local Scandinavian product, I honestly assumed it would have been a kick-ass movie. Instead, "Valhalla Rising" is a slowly unfolding and brooding epic with melancholic themes and unimaginably beautiful photography. Mads Mikkelsen, Denmark most talented actor even though he doesn't speak a single word in this film, stars as the charismatic and fierce warrior One-Eye (aptly baptized by his 10-year-old travel companion) who lives the miserable life in captivity. Viking tribes use him as their deadliest weapon in random gladiator games until, one day; he breaks his chains and regains freedom. Followed around by the one boy who treated him somewhat decently, One-Eye joins a clan of self-acclaimed crusaders intending to travel to Jerusalem with a vessel and re-conquer the holy land of God. The pacing is incredibly (at times even intolerably) slow and there's hardly any dialog in the film at all. More than once, "Valhalla Rising" actually reminded me of the legendary spaghetti westerns directed by Sergio Leone, and particularly "Once Upon A Time in the West". That movie – one of the greatest ones ever made, by the way – is also very slow and seemingly purposeless, but simultaneously boosts an atmosphere that is consistently ominous and unsettling. "Valhalla Rising" exists of multiple chapters, seven in total if I remember correctly, but nevertheless maintains a simple and chronological narrative. The crusade to Jerusalem is a marvelous symbolic criticism towards warfare in the name of religion; although I remain convinced the journey could have used action & bloodshed instead of hints at supernaturalism. Mikkelsen (the bad dude in Casino Royale) is terrific and it's remarkable how he must trained to get a body like that, but his character could have been so much more fascinating. Writer/director Nicolas Winding Refn ("Fear X", "Bronson") is definitely courageous and visionary, but I just hope that his film won't be misinterpreted or inaccurately promoted. If sold as a wildly exciting and blood-soaked Viking spectacle in Hollywood or so, "Valhalla Rising" is bound to become very unpopular.

The human nature is very strange.You see a movie still, an artwork, or whatever, and you think you know everything about a movie, you haven't even seen yet.Yes, like most of you, my expectations were at a very different level, but i was simply not prepared for what i saw.

This movie is epic, although the small proportions of it.And by proportions, i mean budget, scale, those things.The only thing i knew before seeing the movie, was an actor i have seen before-One Eye, or Mads Mikkelsen.He was great in Casino Royale and was one of the few things i liked about Clash of the Titans.So that's the main reason i went to see the movie.

But after all, i wasn't left disappointed, because the movie was good in a light, i haven't predicted.It was relentless, ruthless, brutal, but fascinating as well.It has a few underline stories, involving Christianity and faith in God, as well as paganism and disbelief.There are some Christian taboos as well.And according to Christianity "Valhalla" means hell not the place, where all warriors go.That's in the Scandinavian literature.

The story is pretty simple-a man is being kept as a prisoner, until he escapes with a boy.They meet some Vikings on their way to Jerusalem.They travel together, but next thing you know they find themselves on an isolated shore.The men start dying one by one, which forces them to think, they're in hell.They see the quiet One Eye as the man to blame.

The acting of One Eye was great-the thing, that caught my attention till the very end.He did an outstanding job, and if you want to hear him talk, see Titans or Casino Royale, instead.Because that is something very different.It is set on a smaller scale, and is gruesome and a little bit pointless at time, but that obviously was the point...

The thing i have against the movie, is the fact, it is too slow.It is creative, beautiful, masterful direction most of the time, but it is simply slow and even boring at moments.The dialogue is rare to be found.There was a scene, i didn't quite understood, because of the lack of dialogue.And the scene was important.If this was the idea, well, it wasn't transfered good to the audience.And if it wasn't, this means one thing-poor screen writing.But nevertheless, a good movie, not great, not terrible as well.It is hard to be explained.Maybe, "strange" is the word, i'm looking for.See it.Judge for yourself.

If you're waiting to see endless battles, that's not the movie for you.It has battles, but in a very small amount of time.If you're looking for a different take on Religion, movie-making and acting, see it.And, pointless at times, slow and boring-those are the things that can bother You.But if You overcome them, You'll probably like it a little bit more, because it builds intensity and mystery, sooner or later.

A movie, not from this decade, but a movie, that should have been made.A movie not for anyone.

My rate:6/10

Know this...if you saw the title of this movie and immediately imagined an epic battle between Thor and...ummm...someone, you were wrong. Oh boy, were you wrong. The fact of the matter is that this movie is much less Iron Man action flick and much more semi-pretentious art-house flick. It's slow. VERY slow. There's not much in the way of dialog or even plot. It's basically just a group of guys wandering around lost having very disjointed conversations. Seriously...that's about it. Oh...and one of the guys never talks so those conversations just got even more limited.

That being said, the movie isn't without it charms. The cinematography is excellent. Pretty much any wide shot or establishing shot is pretty damn beautiful (even if it's a green screen). Parts of the movie are intriguing, or at least just enough to make you (well...me at least) keep watching.

In the end, for me it kind of leaned towards being a bit boring. I mean...hardly anything happens. Take away all of those long wide shots, as good as they look, and take away all of the parts where people are just sitting around not saying anything and you've got a movie that's maybe 30 minutes long. So as much as I wanted to like it, there's not a whole lot of it to like in terms of plot and dialog. And much of what is there is kind of poorly put together or just plain confusing. All in all it's definitely a movie that would play well on an HDTV with a Blu Ray player for the great visuals, but aside from that kind of falls flat on it's face in most other respects.

"I am going to show them that a man of God has arrived."

My fourth Nicolas Winding Refn film, Valhalla Rising, was as demanding as Only God Forgives in the sense that it has very little dialogue, but I enjoyed it much more. It has a very similar structure with extremely violent scenes and a lead character who doesn't utter one single word. The more films of Refn that I watch, the more convinced I am that he has a special fascination with violence. The way he exteriorizes it in his films is very different from most other directors. For example, Quentin Tarantino, another director who likes to depict violence in his films, has a completely different style where the characters are more carefully developed and always have a lot to say. Refn on the other hand doesn't care too much about developing his characters and we don't get much background about them, all we know is that they act on violent impulses. Refn always makes heavily stylized films that look gorgeous, and the Scottish mountain landscape is no exception here. The cinematography is truly breathtaking and there is something magnetic about Mads Mikkelsen's performance. The film begins with a lot of promise, although the pacing really slows down once the vikings show up. Still I was drawn to this character more than I was with Gosling in Only God Forgives. My first Refn film was Drive, which is more mainstream than the rest of his film, and I think having followed it up with Only God Forgives affected my appreciation of that film. Now that I am more familiar with his work I might be able to enjoy it more, but I can't pull myself together for a re-watch. I was convinced his films were more about style over substance, but now I'm beginning to appreciate what he does more and if you pay close attention you can come out of these films with some substance. He lets his audience interpret his work.

The film takes place somewhere around 1000 AD and we are quickly introduced to this mute warrior who they call One Eye (Mads Mikkelsen). He is a prisoner of a Chieftain (Alexander Morton) in the highlands where he is forced to fight to the death against other men. One Eye seems to have some sort of supernatural strength and also has visions of the future. A young boy (Maarten Stevenson) attends him bringing him food and water. One of the visions One Eye has allows him to find an arrowhead under the water which he eventually uses to escape. The young boy follows him and together they run into a group of Christian Vikings, who are on their way to Jerusalem. The leader of the group (Ewan Stewart) asks him to join them and convinces him that if he does he will be able to cleanse his soul and find peace. He agrees and together with the boy they embark on a vessel, but along the way they encounter an endless mist that doesn't allow them to know which direction they are headed. When the mist clears, they find themselves in a strange land with little possibilities of survival.

The film is divided in six chapters and each one is gorgeously shot. Refn always makes stylized films that are beautiful to look at, but when the violent scenes come you want to look away. The narrative isn't always easy to follow either considering there isn't much dialogue, but a lot is open to interpretation. There are also dream sequences that Refn paints in a deep colored red. It's deep and philosophical at times, so if you are expecting a heavy action film you will be disappointed because Refn takes his time to pace this movie and doesn't always explain what he's going for. The score in Valhalla Rising is a little more subtle than in his other films where a lot of electronic music is used. It's a difficult watch, but the images will stick with you.

"Valhalla Rising" is a strange movie that will split the audience into lovers and haters like you can see in the comments here. To me its these movies that are most interesting. If a movie goer sees a movie like this with breathtakingly beautiful and artistic cinematography on a low budget and still rates it with one or two stars, its either pure ignorance or something was struck that resonated in a negative way.

I already loved the previous movies of director Winding Refn but this one goes into a totally different direction. Its hard to explain the plot because most of it happens in the viewers head. What you see is mostly mythological and religious symbolism all revolving around the main character "One eye". A warrior who fights with a raw power of which we never know its human or not because he is mute and keeps the same empty expression in his face throughout the movie (only in some scenes it seems like hints of a smile shine through).

The movie starts with "One eye" held captive and has to fight battles to the death in which he always prevails. This first part of the movie has some raw violence in it and could be viewed as the "most entertaining" part because after this "Valhalla Rising" turns into a slow moving journey to an unknown place with barely any dialog and a droning ambient soundtrack.

Its hard to say what really happens in the several segments the movie is split into but the religious tone ("Hell", "Sacrifice") already show this is not a movie on a more existential level. And as I am still trying to piece the impressions of "Valhalla Rising" together I find that its a movie that sticks with you long after watching if you let yourself dive into the dense atmosphere. The imagery is stunning throughout, the most simple shots like a close up of knifes being washed in a river look like a beautiful painting and the constant difference between the beauty of the cinematography and the cold colors, raw violence and the dark droning soundtrack are as captivating as Mads MIkkelsen playing the cold expressionless "One Eye" like a force of nature.

I can't put my finger on what sucked me into this movie but "Valhalla Rising" is an experience open minded movie fans should not miss and I am looking forward to future projects from this promising director.

Valhalla Rising is a slow-paced and atmospheric film that explores themes of violence, spirituality, and mythology. The film's unique blend of historical and fantastical elements create a world that is both fascinating and terrifying. However, the film's almost total lack of dialogue and minimal plot can make it difficult to follow and engage with, and some viewers may find it overly bleak and confusing. It is surely a very divisive film that will appeal to viewers who appreciate experimental and unconventional storytelling, but may not be suitable for those who prefer more straightforward and traditional narratives.

"The Big Sleep" with Humphrey Bogart is famous for being more about the parts themselves than the sum. Valhalla rising in my opinion is very similar. The cinematography and the sound editing trump all the other aspects of the film. It does indeed deal heavily in ambiguous symbolism and I am sure one could draw parallels with a number of sources. The story is really not as complicated as has been made out on these message boards. There is no clear answer to this film but at the same time you will not feel robbed by the this, there is a definite beginning, middle and end. It's best just to sit back and enjoy the menace that permeates the entire film, even having known the ending from some careless commentator I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of watching this. I would not however have enjoyed 3 hours of it, but it is only 90 minutes long so is perfect. The violence is really not that bad, there are so many worse films for this...'irreversible, brave-heart and any gore porn movie doing the rounds.' Go see this film, enjoy for it's stunningly visuals, startling audio and general intensity. Oh, and I did not enjoy his previous film 'Bronson' art house British movies just look horrible, this is beautiful. Similar to the thin red line but not as long and tedious.

Nicolas Winding Refn has enjoyed enormous popularity in his home country Denmark and - I must admit as well - his pushers-bleeders-drivers are at least good, if not great. As for the film in question, he apparently wanted to create something spiritual for a change - and going back to the roots of his nation. The result, however, is an artistic film usually praised by critics and skipped by audiences: long nature scenes, long scenes without talking, stills, narrative chapter composition etc. Or in other words, you can valuate the visions of the director, cameramen and producers, but the story has limited number of twists and hollow ending; it was not annoying thanks to short duration only (less than 1,5 hours).

As for the cast, most of them originated from Scotland (where the film was shot as well), but they were ordinary, uninviting to me. Mads Mikkelsen is great as usual (even though he plays a silent character, One-Eye), the other actor I liked was Maarten Stevenson as The Boy. And women were shown for around 10 seconds for the whole film...

As if Tarkovsky meets Malick for something pretentious... Recommended in the event of forward-function available and/or in the male company.

Well, I'm not sure how to put this.

This isn't the movie you would expect. This is a raw and gritty movie, a festival for your eyes, a rare piece of art that dispenses with dialogue, plot and laws of logic for the sake of great cinematography/photography, gripping ambiance and mythology. VALHALLA RISING rendered me speechless. I can't even tell you if it's good - I just want to tell you that it's worth watching. Every minute of it. It is an experience.

We do not learn much of our (anti-)hero: a warrior-slave, Mads Mikkelsen, is freed from captivity and bands with a group of crusaders who intend on heading to the Holy Land, yet end up, well, in their own little hell.

There isn't much more to say to the plot, for it hardly matters - mythology matters here, the grand sceneries matter, and the underlying message matters. It aims at showing us how superfluous the Christian God seems in a world of violence; life as a farce in the face of intangible evil. Will you desert your (Christian) God when the time has come? Here lies its main agenda: in a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. He is indeed, he ties us to the elemental powers, and rises above.

A piece of art. Take your time, be patient, and you will enjoy it like no movie before.

This was a strange film. It was some kind of arty flick with a lot slo-mo shots, a lot of wide angle shots and a lot of color grading. There isn't much spoken words in it. Sometimes the music is excellent and then there isn't sound for a few minutes. And still you keep watching. The story is simple, some Christians are out to search for the Holy land. Once there they will Christian the pagans. End of story. But they have someone strange with them, one eye, a kind of slave with fighting skills. It even is sometimes really bloody, with smashing skulls and fights but overall, it's all about the art of filming. At the end you may ask yourself, what the hell did I just see, there wasn't much going on, but again, it's the way of filming, acting, language and score that makes it worth watching.

I went into this movie not knowing what to expect. I like Mads Mikkelsen, I like Viking-Era movies, even to the point that I enjoy some B-Movie fantasy-ish stuff. I went into this movie wanting to like it. Well that didn't work out.

Don´t get me wrong, I´d be OK with arthouse atmospheric. I don´t need to watch an action movie, nor was I expecting one. But whatever the expectations might have been, this did not meet any.

The whole script could fit on a single A4 and I feel like every line is delivered in an unnatural forced overdramatized way. The historical accuracy is laughable. The mythology references are misguided. Having watched some behind the scenes stuff made me think that the director doesn´t care about either the history or the mythology of the subject he is making a movie about which just makes me hate the execution of it even more. If at least there were anything to be gained in return, but no. I really don´t get the point of this movie or what is it trying to accomplish. The only redeeming quality are some nice shots of the scenery, but I'd watch National Geographic if I wanted that. So there, at least one extra point for the cinematography.

I guess the movie did stir some emotions in me and perhaps I am just too simple to get it. The movies of Robert Eggers are not your regular consumable fun movies either, there I can see the intention of the filmmaker and appreciate the execution. This just felt pretentious as if an edgy hipster were making an art movie just for the sake of self-indulgence and viewer torture. Don´t worry, people who don´t know better either will give high marks just to seem insightful. I heard that perhaps some of the cinematography holds meaning in the aspect ratios and composition, but I´ve already gave the cinematography it's due praise and I will not pretend the movie as a whole is better for it.

I would argue that what I saw was indeed 'art', but I hated it much like I'd hate a "painting" of a single dot in a white field. I really have some stronger words about this movie that would better capture my feelings towards it, but then I couldn´t publish the review.

As far as bizarre and uncomfortable art films go, Nicolas Winding Refn's Valhalla Rising is pretty tame. In fact, it is so comparatively tame that the film's marketers felt they could serve it up as an action-packed Viking film—a terrible decision that caused the film to be a horrendous flop; because after all, this is a bizarre and uncomfortable art film. When I say "tame," of course, I do not mean it does not have an explicit evisceration scene—because it does—I mean it has a relatively discernible plot and characters with names.

The protagonist, One Eye (Mads Mikkelsen in a stark, fearsome performance), does not say a single word in the entire film. The other characters do a lousy job of filling in the silence, for I think I counted somewhere in the vicinity of twenty-four lines in total.

In addition to long periods of silence, the film also features clay-covered voodoo rock men, inverted dream sequences (I think), and a lot of existential symbolism—making it, without a doubt, a very bizarre and uncomfortable art film.

(Disclaimer: The film features starkly beautiful cinematography and brilliant performances. Certainly worth watching)

The 2009 Danish film 'Valhalla Rising' raised my curiosity first of all because it's directed by Nicolas Winding Refn whose next film, 'Drive' made in 2011 was a blockbuster staring Ryan Gosling in one of his best roles. The topic is also very interesting, dealing with the time when the Vikings populated the North of Europe and England, a period in history that was once the subject of interest of the big historical super-productions and is now back in the focus with TV series. Yet, the commercial approach of these movies did not allow for anything but a spectacular but superficial understanding of those remote times in history. The most obvious thing that can be said about 'Valhalla Rising' is that this is a very different kind of movie than previous ones with similar topics and setting.

The story is told in six chapters, each starting with an illustrative name. Story telling is linear, although the main hero, a prisoner warrior with one eye and no name, kept as a fighting slave by the pagan Vikings, seems to have some premonitory powers which are illustrated by blood-colored flash forwards that do not last more than 1-2 seconds. Blood is actually spilled generously, as the hero fights his way to freedom, and than joins the ranks of a group of Christians planning to sail to join the Crusades to free Jerusalem. It's just that destiny or lack of navigation skills takes them over the Atlantic to the American continent, yet to be discovered by Europeans. His companion in the trip is a teen Viking, whose adventure turns to become a bloody initiation journey.

If the theme and the setting may remind other historical productions, film making places 'Valhalla Rising' in a very different category, some place at the intersection of the violent and naturalistic style of Mel Gibson (as film director) in 'The Passion of the Christ' and especially in 'Apocalypto' and Ingmar Bergman's early historical and symbolic movies. The potential story of the missionary zealous trip ending in failure may remind Roland Joffé 's magnificent 'The Mission'. As in that fabulous movie nature plays a central role, with the virgin landscape of the New World, the seas and the fogs of the North soon taking over and prevailing over the Faith that the characters bring with them in their tentative to change the ways of that part of the world. 'Valhalla Rising' does not however have a Robert De Niro or Jeremy Irons in the cast, and although its actors do a decent job they do not have enough time to develop the characters and the story. Despite some spectacular moments of art cinema, 'Valhalla Rising' remains just a sketch of a more complex film that could have been made and a proof of the incontestable talent of film director Nicolas Winding Refn.

I couldn't finish this movie last night, so I was interested in what other IMDb reviewers thought. Imagine my surprise upon reading positive review after positive review. I didn't finish them all, so there may be negative reviews out there. Since I am going to write a negative review, here are my credentials: M.A. in anthropology, graduate level courses in Old Norse language and saga literature, paper on Victor Turner and his misuse of sagas to analyze symbolic anthropology, archaeologist, practical knowledge in viking weapons and armor, both crafting them for sale and fighting in them in SCA-style combat (Society for Creative Anachronisms). My people come from Norway and Sweden and have been farmers for the last 400 years (as far back as I can trace). I also understand the berserker mindset intimately.

To start off, slaves were too highly prized to be slaughtered for entertainment. Horsefighting was the preferred Old Norse analog to gladiatorial entertainment. Real men used real swords and hacked each other to death for purposes of law, or revenge, or real wealth changing hands. Shields were just as important as swords in these duels. The overall level of filth was not only unhygienic and would have led to death, but also unlikely because the Norse were often quite vain and bathed a lot. Around 1000 AD, the ladies at the English court preferred Norse warriors to the Anglo-Saxons because they bathed regularly.

There doesn't seem to be any settlements around and the idea you could maintain a trained fighter in a wind-blown cage on a diet of gruel and no daily exercise is ludicrous. The ridiculously small boat with low gunnels could never have gone anywhere besides along a coast, much less a deep sea voyage to Canada. That boat would have never made it to the Orkneys! As for the location, one of the Christians mentions they are in Sutherland, which locates them in Scotland. I have done several bike tours in Scotland and the terrain is right, but the adaptations to the environment are all wrong. It really does take a community working together to make a living in such a land.

The upshot is that the director was probably limited in his budget, but the level of detail has an important role in making a movie. The introduction of Chrisianity into Scandinavia around 1000 AD was based on cold-blooded calculation of wealth and domination. It was not a bunch of half-starved groaty cast-offs wandering around trying to save their souls or mitigate some sort of existential psychological pain inside their heads. Any Old Norse warrior would laugh or be insulted by such a characterization (or both!).

If this was supposed to be some sort of oblique view of what modern soldiers are going through in their psychological difficulties with incipient PTSD, it fails miserably. There is more than a little bureaucracy in any structured warrior grouping and certainly in the Viking Age. Read a little about the Jomsvikings if you don't believe me. This movie was all about fantasies - fantasies driven by very little knowledge of what life was like back then or what life is like now. If you want a REAL look at combat and the mindset of the vikings, go to the sagas first, and then do a little more digging into the mythology and skaldic verse. I suggest Njals Saga, Egils Saga or Grettirs Saga as good places to start. Njals Saga especially has a good look at the introduction of Christianity into Iceland.

As I have said many times before, "No anthropologists were harmed in the making of this film."