Edie Stock Okay, so it's low budget and yes, there's going to be limits to what you can do if you haven't got the cash but here's a good example of a film that needed to reign in it's scope and give over it's meager budget to a script writer who could perhaps deliver a character based story instead of this over extended film.The story is a stock one of a hero who as a child witnesses their village being slaughtered, they grow up and you can guess the rest. It'll be familiar in fact to anyone who's seen Hrafninn flýgur (When The Raven Flies, 1984) but with more badly acted childhood scenes than your nearest school nativity play. In fact most casual viewers are going to be put off the film in the first twenty minutes because of the poor acting from the children in it - all except one child extra though, who during a camp fire story can be seen yawning and fidgeting as much as the audience probably is.Then you have some really, really bad sound dubbing. Some dialogue sounds like it was re-done with a tape recorder in a church hall, complete with echo and background hiss, then dubbed back over. So it's a low budget film and the maker's have rather cleverly used viking re-enactors in scenes such as the establishing shots of Kiev and the final climactic battle at the end. Unfortunately the costumes of the re-enactors, with all the proper kit they've got, actually shows up how basic the principal character's costumes are. Then there's the cutting in of the film's principal actors into the previously recorded re-enactors battle scenes. They used to make post- World War II fighter ace films by cutting shots of the actors in a cockpit in with real footage of an actual dogfight. That's a trick they've tried to do here with a re-enactment battle but it's so obvious thanks to the different lighting, camera style, grade of film and background scenery that it's almost comical. You can see the main characters alone in a frame slashing at nothing because they were no where near the actual re-enactment battle in the first place!So all in all it's not a great movie, even for an independent low budget one. Put it this way, if you've seen Severed Ways: The Norse Discovery of America (2007) and managed to get to the end of it you'll probably make it to the end of this film. Just don't expect a great viking experience.

fhilO65 I saw this movie theatrically in Karup bio. it left a lasting impression. I think some of the negative reviews must come from people who took this movie far too seriously.it was filmed in 2 weeks only, from reading about this project. the producer performed nothing short of a miracle. a film takes months to do. So lets give them that credit. What we have here is good, old-fashioned film-making style--the actors knew it--the director knew it--so lighten up, and enjoy this exciting adventure. I'm sure that Gantzler and Vedsegaard realized that they were not going to win Oscars for this movie--but sometimes even the best actors like to do things that are fun !. Mr. Vedsegaard must have had a ball, wearing an outlandish wig, as they wore in the classic movie "the long ship". Movie buffs will see many familiar faces in this one, although--in a number of cases--they may not be so apparent at first. Terrific character actor, Erik Holmey , and beautiful belly dancers --. Anyway--for history scholars and lovers of authenticity--enjoy. this movie is for us who like pure entertainment, "an exciting voyage !

citrusf2008 I enjoyed this little indie film. from reading the boards opinions vary greatly, but thats the subjective thing about film/art.I enjoyed the story, and the subplots. The actors contributed well to the storyline although I would have liked to see a bit more close ups but thats besides the point.I enjoyed the editing techniques which toggle between present and past.its amazing that viking villages still exists. I really enjoyed the authenticity of those longhouses , viking boats and splendid viking battle combined with a vikingish montage. very artistic.its obviously a low budget ( less than 5 million dollars) but its still a nice little indie movie regardless of some of the less than commendable remarks made here. I think Im taking a trip to visit scandinavia next summer to visit this place.F.Citrush Jr.

maj-solo First of all the information war on IMDb, how can this movie get higher grade than pulp fiction?!? Get sane people!!! So that's about that you have to stop the inflation in scores.This movie is a what it says it is a "vikinga saga". The usual ingredients Love & Revenge.The movie itself is effects wise not great. What I did like though was the pacing and that the movie did not spend a lot of time trying to explain things to the "dumb" audience, but trusted our empathy/intelligence. And so I found myself with the feeling that I was "reading the best parts of a book".Then I also felt they've been looking at other major Hollywood pictures and stolen some tiny pieces of them like the movies Alexander, Memoirs Of a Geisha, and so on. If they would have dropped that and just trusted themselves the filming itself would have been even better.The movie is amateur-ish but the pacing and storytelling is so good, clean of rubbish, that I simply decided to turn off the critique when it comes to filming and effects and coordinated stunts and fight scenes and just totally focus on the story. I clearly felt it was higher than 5 in score but it had a dip in the middle, a short one, and then picked up again. At most I felt it deserved a 6. So where does my final verdict end up ..... hmmmm ..... avoid inflation in score .... 5.1 ... no .... yes .... no .... 5.1 ... yes 5.1 it is .Thank you for your time. Pretty good story.