Blood of Beasts

2005 "Rule your destiny!"
4.1| 1h29m| en| More Info
Released: 18 October 2005 Released
Producted By: Crimson Knight
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Timeless tale of Beauty and the Beast set in the period of the Vikings. Freya, a warrior and the beautiful daughter of a Viking king, is held prisoner on an island castle by a Beast whom has been cursed by his god Odin.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Crimson Knight

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Diagonaldi Very well executed
Clevercell Very disappointing...
Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever
SunnyHello Nice effects though.
Leofwine_draca A Viking-era retelling of the Beauty and the Beast storyline, with the pretty Jane March (STALKER) playing a character about 20 years younger than the actress is. This was retitled BLOOD OF THE VIKINGS in a bid to draw in a new audience, and I'm glad I wasn't misled by that new title.In any case, this is rubbish. It's pantomime-level stuff with production values weaker than an average episode of XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS. The story sees a group of loyal Vikings taking a voyage abroad, where the king is killed and a woman's lover lost. Later they travel again, where they find a brutal monster capable of killing the most seasoned warriors. Could it be the woman's lover, trapped in a sinister curse? Needless to say this is all complete nonsense, loaded with anachronisms and an almost entire lack of understanding of the era in which the story is set. It works best as a fantasy, but even then it's poor stuff indeed, with some of the most horrid action choreography you'll see. The hair extensions have to be seen to be believed. March, the most experienced actress in it, gives a poor performance equalled by the miscast Justin Whalin, who once starred in THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN but now has no career.
TheLittleSongbird But at the same time I didn't find Blood of Beasts a good movie. It is far better than the 2010 Beauty and the Beast also directed by David Lister though. Blood of Beasts' flaws come from some hilariously fake wigs, costumes that are not very authentic, the substandard effects especially the fires and the man in a prosthetic suit for the Beast, stilted dialogue and some rather forced acting from William Gregory Lee. On the other hand, I did like the fantasy-adventure nature of the sets, the photography and editing are above average and the score was cool with some beautiful and atmospheric themes. The story may strike you as standard, but it didn't feel predictable, it held my attention and unlike Lister's later Beauty and the Beast film the romance was somewhat believable. The acting is also not too bad, Jane March exudes beauty and is commanding also. Overall, not good or bad, more average to me. 5/10 Bethany Cox
jeeva_chik From the word Go, this was awful. Badly shot with what looked like a mobile phone camera and scenes set up without any hint of a lighting director in the vicinity it was still no warning for the sheer hilarity and obscurity of this B-Movie gem. Being fairly up on my European history made some of the glaring historical inaccuracies painfully obvious (CHAINMAIL for God's sake! CHAINMAIL! In pre-Christian Europe?! I don't think so!). But that added to it's car-crash charm!This isn't a spoiler but the best thing about the whole film is the sight of the world's most obvious hair extensions of the blonde guy. You have been warned!
Nenko Genov When you see the cover you already know that the movie isn't going to be one of your favorites, but it looks like worth watching. It's made directly for TV, so what do you expect after all?All in all the movie is good, enjoyable and nice. But far from great. The acting is like watching some fantasy adventure TV series. Jane March is enjoyable. The directing and the camera-work are about average. The sets are nice. The costumes are all right. The story is good.Five things that would made the movie better: -Why vikings? They'd better have used some imaginary tribe or something. In that case no one would complain about things like "vikings do thins", "vikings don't do that" and stuff. Indeed, the vikings from this movie are quite far from the vikings in the history books and documentaries. -Better fires. The burning island of the beast don't look well -Better make-up and costumes. The vikings should be a little bit dirty, shouldn't they? These here look a little bit tidy. And Freya's wedding dress... well -Watch out what you shoot! We all know it's not a big budget production, but be more careful! In several of the close ups you in the cages of the beast you can actually see where the metal was soldered. This makes bad impression and spoils the things.This is a simple modest fantasy tale movie. It's satisfactory,but could be much better with more efforts and imagination.

Similar Movies to Blood of Beasts