Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

huguespt I was excited to watch this movie form its description and it started really well. Well it was OK for me, as we move through the movie again it keeps you interested until ¾'s of the way through it and it starts to have parts from Jurassic Park and then also Anaconda and numerous b_ movies of similar ilk. It is hard to write as I do not want to give spoilers however it is defiantly not in the league of Jurassic Park but lovers of Anaconda and several copycat movies will like this even though there is not as much "anaconda Action. So I was disappointed as I believe the description led me to believe something else, which maybe is my fault but that said this is a B- grade movie at best unless you love anaconda. Each to his own I guess. I thought the actors all were quiet solid and performed well albeit predictably. A poor ending as well. I just wish they gave us more, even a ghost from the past or something.

keith-774 I liked this film. It was a solid 7 until the end. I'll get to that in a moment. As others have mentioned, the landscape is gorgeous, the CGI is better than average, and the acting was nowhere near as bad as the Nords think it is. It's a good popcorn movie. I especially liked the Soviet link. Where the story lost its imagination was first, the guide (who ended up a stock character) and second, the ending, where I saw very little Ragnarok and far too much Jurassic Park III. I almost subtracted another vote for calling the thief Allan, but I'm feeling generous (if you don't understand why, go watch Jurassic Park III). Regrettably, novelty and originality is often hard to find. Oh, well. I'd watch it again, though.

younngl I absolutely love Scandinavian cinema, and really this was a fun and entertaining film. Like everybody else said it is a family film, but I don't feel that it is something just directed at kids, either. That being said the most glaring issue I had was no real substantial resolution at the end. They build this entire mythos, based on Norse mythology, and surrounding this monster. However, once we get to the final battle the monster stares the protagonist down and then slithers away.Norse mythology is a fantastic jumping off point and is relatively neglected compared to Greek mythology. I really just wish the ending was more satisfying than it turned out to be. Still a decent movie to watch, and appears to take a more Hollywood approach in terms of style.

rstef1 I approached this movie with caution after reading a couple of the reviews here, and was pleasantly surprised. It is not a super violent or scary film - it is rated PG-13 after all - but it does have its fair share of tension and holds your interest throughout.The plot has been given in another review so I'll just give some highlights: The scenery is gorgeous and beautifully photographed. Norway and Finnmark have some breathtaking vistas and the cinematographer captures it all. It's a pleasure to watch a movie where a filmmaker will carefully compose a shot, use a tripod and deliver the cinematic awe one hopes for in a film as opposed to the innumerable, annoying shaky cam films we've been enduring for the last decade by second rate filmmakers.The CGI is top notch. The serpent actually feels solid and 3 dimensional in its interaction with the environment and actors. Compare this to the crap churned out by The Asylum and found in any SyFy original movie where the creatures look like cartoons badly superimposed on the film.The script is well thought out. Characters speak and behave in a way that you can recognize. They have real interactions that ring true; these people feel real. Again, compare this with the junk that passes for plot and characterization in many recent SyFy films which present cartoonish, cardboard cutout characters who just pose for the camera and get killed, usually while uttering pointless inanities. In Ragnarok, I actually cared about what was happening to the characters.And to adrianmurray45 who called the acting here bad - my friend, you need to watch a LOT more films. The acting here, apart from some sketchy moments with the young boy, was fine. You want bad acting? Check out any Uwe Boll film (yeah, I went there) and then get back to me, 'kay? You do not understand what bad acting is.It's not a great film, but a solidly entertaining PG-13 adventure.