Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

frankfob About the best thing that can be said about this movie is that the cinematography is stunning, which is to be expected in a film made by an Oscar-nominated cinematographer like Michael Chapman. You get a real sense of how a rugged, towering country like that shown can turn out rugged, towering people. It's too bad you can't get that sense from the people themselves.Ralf Moeller, who was so impressive in "Gladiator", is much less so here. His stock in trade is his magnificently chiseled body, which was showcased to great effect in "Gladiator". Here, though, he doesn't even take off his shirt until almost halfway through the movie, which makes you wonder if the filmmakers hired him for his acting skills (he's earnest, but he makes Arnold Schwarzenegger look like Laurence Olivier) or his fighting skills (not in evidence at all, even after he's supposedly trained by "the best warrior of all the Vikings"), since they pretty much kept his physical attributes under wraps for much of the film. Not so with Ingibjorg Stefansdottir, Moeller's love interest, who kept very little under wraps (not that there's anything wrong with that). She has several somewhat gratuitous nude (well, topless anyway) and sex scenes, but other that that, she doesn't impress much, either. What's most unimpressive, however--and the most disappointing aspect of the film, IMO--are the "action" scenes. Another poster has described director Chapman as "clunky", and that word fits the battle scenes like a glove. They're listless--even though the participants shout, grimace and yell at each other a lot--and, frankly, badly done, with very little flair, panache or even excitement to them at all. There are scenes of various limbs and heads being lopped off among great spurts and rivers of very Karo-syrup-looking blood, but they're by-the-numbers and you can see them coming a mile away--there's no "gaaah!" factor (as in "gaaah! that guy just got his head split in half!") to them, as there was in, for example, "Braveheart". As for the story itself, well, the plot is your standard "he killed my father and I will avenge his death!" tale, but the film is so choppy, convoluted, badly put together and, in some cases, hard to understand that it's difficult to follow the plot even though you know exactly what it is and exactly how it's going to turn out.If you can't tell, I was really very disappointed in this film. The subject matter lends itself well to a sweeping, rugged spectacle, with snarling villains, gorgeous women in distress, ferocious battle scenes and everything you'd come to expect in a Viking picture. There was little of that here. I understand that the filmmakers wanted to be as accurate as possible in their portrayal of the Vikings of the time, but they didn't have to make it so, frankly, boring. Worth a watch, maybe, but it's not one that you'd want to see again any time soon.

Dave_Violence This film is GREAT. If you're a viking-phile, you'll love it. Lkewise if you simply appreciate gritty, realistic conflict on rugged scenery.Basic story: Medieval Iceland's ruling classes are in a bit of an uproar. They're also suffering the transition from warrior culture to a less violent, agrarian lifestyle (that includes fishing). The laws and democracy that rule the land are jeopardized by a possible coup. One man (played superbly by Ralf Moller) - sadly the son of a warrior-turned farmer - is prophesied to restore order. But he can't do it without first being taught the skills of battle by a middle- aged outlaw (played equally superbly by Sven Ole-Thorsen).Had this film been done in Iclelandic - and kept its original title "The Icelandic Sagas," it would've been shown at art-houses in all the big cities and possibly garnered an academy award for best foreign language film. In English, since all the actors have accents, it might appear as a barbarian free-for-all at first glance. It is nothing of the sort: The attention to costumes, weapons, makeup, dialog all come from the ancient tradition of epic Hollywood film-making. The acting is excellent. There's nothing tongue-in-cheek about the dialog, so everyone plays their parts seriously. Sven-Ole Thorsen is as if the producers found a time machine and simply went back to film an Icelandic feud between adjacent landowners. Ralf Moller proves himself once again a fine talent. Everyone, of course, remembers Sven and Ralf's performances in "Gladiator," right? Ingibjörg Stefánsdóttir - she, too, comes off as though the producers filmed her from the time machine.P.S.: It's sad what's said about the new film with Ralf Moeller, "Pathfinder." Apparently the actors playing "vikings" wore horned helmets (come on, already; they didn't in "Erik the Viking," why should they in a "serious" movie?) and shoulder pads. Shoulder pads? Come on! Ralf Moller and Clancy Brown don't need no stinkin' shoulder pads. "The Viking Sagas" wasn't filmed with shoulder pads! Sven-Ole Thorsen and Ralf Moller grew their own! See this film, it is art and well worth whatever you pay to see it.

kveldulf1 One of the few films to actually try to be faitfhul to the actual Icelandic sagas, this film is a treat for those actually interested in such tales. That it is filmed in the relevant locales, with appropriate numbers (a local chief's following of 7-10 men, not thousands) and so forth all lend extra verisimilitude to the film. It is true that the melding of the elements from various sagas is a might uneven, as is the acting, and the viewer must pay attention to keep the storyline straight (unless they also have a grounding in the source material). But still it is a welcome entry in the filmography of the Norseman, with just about the only half-way accurate portrayal of these people, as well as correcting the filmmaking community's neglect of these rousing tales.

frojavigdis I disagree with the people who consider this movie "worthless." It is the only historically approximate depictions of life in medieval Iceland (or, "viking age" life at all!) that I have ever seen. While their actions may seem "silly" to most viewers, the characters in this movie act appropriately to the ethics and customs of the time. In a nutshell, the movie is realistic, well-acted, and has gorgeous Icelandic landscapes. The film even uses mostly Icelandic and Norwegian actors who *look* like the characters would have. A viewer used to trashy Hollywood-churned movies may not appreciate this film.