The setup is good. A Norse boy is stranded in the New World and
adopted by a tribe that had been attacked by Vikings. He is raised
by them and comes to view himself as a member of their tribe. 15
years later, the Vikings return and he fights against them. Yes,
there are great possibilities here. However, that brief description
is much better than the movie proves to be.
First, the movie was purged of almost any color. Lush forests are a dirty washed out green. Where there should be color, there are dingy browns or shades of gray. It is almost a black and white movie.
Here is a cold lifeless land that you would think the locals would gladly give to the Vikings. One supposes this is because the blood and gore would have been too graphic otherwise.
Our hero, Ghost, was about 10 when he was adopted by the tribe but he had a Viking sword which he retained to adulthood. Of course, it is a vital tool when he must fight Vikings. However, how is it that he is a better swordsman than every Viking he meets? Was his training up to the age of 10 that good? Though I like Karl Urban, I think the makers would have been wise to cast a blond in the role.
There was little effort to research Vikings. Contrary to popular belief, Vikings did not have horns on their helmets. Nor did they have lines of spikes like a stegosaurus. Nor did they have visors. The best Viking armor was usually a chain mail coat, not a plate cuirass (chest plate) and metal spaulders (shoulder guards). These Vikings are wearing armor that isn't found in Northern Europe for hundreds of years. Typically, the only armor a Viking would wear would be his shield. Also, we saw many Vikings with a mace & chain which isn't used until the 13th century (our story is in the 10th century). Vikings are noted for their axes which, sadly, are not to be seen here. No, like the mace & chain, they have a much later version of axe which is quite obviously not of Norse manufacture. Though Vikings did use bows, they were primarily used for hunting, not for war. However, arrows whizzing by our hero as he flees adds to the excitement, if not to the verisimilitude. The Viking ship that we see in the opening has far too much draught. The Viking long ship sat low in the water and had very little in the way of a hold; imagine a very large rowboat. Vikings kept plunder in the shallow holds but certainly not chained slaves. Vikings were also known for being blond giants. These Vikings are certainly giant but none of them seems to be blond.
The Viking modus operandi was to land their shallow draught vessel as close to the target as they could, rush in before a defense could be organized, pillage & plunder, then set sail before a counterattack could be made. As such, there was little call for horses. And yet, the Vikings in the film have lots of horses. But it was the Spanish who brought the horse to North America (500 years later), not the Norse. Again, our hero proves to be an accomplished horseman, better than any he faces who have presumably spent more time in the saddle.
The Vikings who came to North America were too few to attempt to subjugate the local peoples. The successful Norse settlements in Greenland had extensive trade with the Eskimos further north. The unsuccessful settlement in New Foundland was abandoned on account of hostile natives. That is not to say the Vikings didn't plunder the natives but the genocidal Vikings of this movie are a myth.
Okay, so it is a disaster as far as historical fiction, but is it at least entertaining? No, it is equally disastrous. The movie is horribly edited. Once the action starts, it is a bunch of vignettes that are tenuously bound to each other. The tension is never allowed to build. There is an immediate danger, the protagonist deals with it, and then we have a brief calm before the next immediate danger. This rapid fire action – lull – action – lull gets old very quickly. Add to this that some of these are stitched together in incomprehensible ways. Why are the characters in this cave or what brought them to this swamp? I suspect the director would explain that that is where the next action sequence takes place so we have to be there. No further explanation required.
One complaint I heard from a friend was that they appeared to be in the Rocky Mountains, which is pretty far afield when they should be on the east coast. However, the story probably takes place in Labrador and the mountains in question might be the Torngat Mountains. However, the movie was filmed in British Columbia and the mountains probably were the Rockies.
I have long been fascinated by Vikings so I am always eager to see any movie that has Vikings. Unfortunately, they are almost universally bad. This one is no exception.
First, the movie was purged of almost any color. Lush forests are a dirty washed out green. Where there should be color, there are dingy browns or shades of gray. It is almost a black and white movie.
Here is a cold lifeless land that you would think the locals would gladly give to the Vikings. One supposes this is because the blood and gore would have been too graphic otherwise.
Our hero, Ghost, was about 10 when he was adopted by the tribe but he had a Viking sword which he retained to adulthood. Of course, it is a vital tool when he must fight Vikings. However, how is it that he is a better swordsman than every Viking he meets? Was his training up to the age of 10 that good? Though I like Karl Urban, I think the makers would have been wise to cast a blond in the role.
There was little effort to research Vikings. Contrary to popular belief, Vikings did not have horns on their helmets. Nor did they have lines of spikes like a stegosaurus. Nor did they have visors. The best Viking armor was usually a chain mail coat, not a plate cuirass (chest plate) and metal spaulders (shoulder guards). These Vikings are wearing armor that isn't found in Northern Europe for hundreds of years. Typically, the only armor a Viking would wear would be his shield. Also, we saw many Vikings with a mace & chain which isn't used until the 13th century (our story is in the 10th century). Vikings are noted for their axes which, sadly, are not to be seen here. No, like the mace & chain, they have a much later version of axe which is quite obviously not of Norse manufacture. Though Vikings did use bows, they were primarily used for hunting, not for war. However, arrows whizzing by our hero as he flees adds to the excitement, if not to the verisimilitude. The Viking ship that we see in the opening has far too much draught. The Viking long ship sat low in the water and had very little in the way of a hold; imagine a very large rowboat. Vikings kept plunder in the shallow holds but certainly not chained slaves. Vikings were also known for being blond giants. These Vikings are certainly giant but none of them seems to be blond.
The Viking modus operandi was to land their shallow draught vessel as close to the target as they could, rush in before a defense could be organized, pillage & plunder, then set sail before a counterattack could be made. As such, there was little call for horses. And yet, the Vikings in the film have lots of horses. But it was the Spanish who brought the horse to North America (500 years later), not the Norse. Again, our hero proves to be an accomplished horseman, better than any he faces who have presumably spent more time in the saddle.
The Vikings who came to North America were too few to attempt to subjugate the local peoples. The successful Norse settlements in Greenland had extensive trade with the Eskimos further north. The unsuccessful settlement in New Foundland was abandoned on account of hostile natives. That is not to say the Vikings didn't plunder the natives but the genocidal Vikings of this movie are a myth.
Okay, so it is a disaster as far as historical fiction, but is it at least entertaining? No, it is equally disastrous. The movie is horribly edited. Once the action starts, it is a bunch of vignettes that are tenuously bound to each other. The tension is never allowed to build. There is an immediate danger, the protagonist deals with it, and then we have a brief calm before the next immediate danger. This rapid fire action – lull – action – lull gets old very quickly. Add to this that some of these are stitched together in incomprehensible ways. Why are the characters in this cave or what brought them to this swamp? I suspect the director would explain that that is where the next action sequence takes place so we have to be there. No further explanation required.
One complaint I heard from a friend was that they appeared to be in the Rocky Mountains, which is pretty far afield when they should be on the east coast. However, the story probably takes place in Labrador and the mountains in question might be the Torngat Mountains. However, the movie was filmed in British Columbia and the mountains probably were the Rockies.
I have long been fascinated by Vikings so I am always eager to see any movie that has Vikings. Unfortunately, they are almost universally bad. This one is no exception.
Also of note, Clancy Brown played Gunnar, the lead Viking. Ralf Moeller was another of the Vikings. Oddly enough, Moon Bloodgood (love that name!) proved to be the titular Pathfinder.
No comments:
Post a Comment