Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

daviddaphneredding This United Artists movie, directed by Richard Fleischer, has breathtaking beauty since it was produced around the fjords and mountains of Norway; in fact, the fjords were very refreshing-looking. It is, essentially, a "Scandanavian western" with a lot of exciting action all the way through. The movie depicted so well the bitterness and bitter fighting between England and Norway during the Middle Ages. The cast was well-picked. Kirk Douglas was a mean Viking barbarian named Einar, and the blond-haired, blue-eyed prided himself on being so handsome. Ernest Borgnine was a mean man himself named Ragnar, the father of Einar. (In real life,their ages were very close to each other.) Tony Curtis, who was adept at playing either dramatic roles or comedic roles, did a serious turn as Eric, a slave, mistreated but very brave. Janet Leigh, Tony Curtis' wife, was very beautiful as Morgana. The excitement of the movie maintained almost perfectly my attention and thus alleviated any boredom. The love scene in which Einar spoke to Morgana (which was Curtis speaking to his wife) was touching. For many reasons it should be considered a superb classic, since it was that to be sure.

robertguttman Recently shown again for the first time in many years, "The Vikings" definitely holds up as a rattling-good, old-fashioned, action- adventure epic. You know exactly what you're in for right from the start when a movie begins with a brutal raid in which a Viking hacks to death the King of England and then rapes the Queen beside his mangled body. Hey, What's not to like?Let it be understood right from the outset that "The Vikings" is definitely not a "chick-flick". The story takes place in "The Dark Ages", which is another way of saying "The Good Old Days". In other words, the era before women became "empowered" by means of political correctness, daytime talk shows and court-issued protective orders. According to "The Vikings", the 9th Century Norwegians treated their women in about the same fashion as did the prehistoric Cave-Men, to whom the Vikings were apparently closely related. In one scene, in which the heroine is about to be brutally raped by a Viking, the best defense she can come up with is to say, "I'm not going to lift a finger to help you" (as if she believes he would care!). In another scene the Vikings administer an ingenious trial to determine whether or not a certain woman has committed adultery (as if any of them don't!). They stick her head through a wooden target, at which her drunken husband proceeds to throw battle-axes. If he manages to cut her braids, but miss her head, then her innocence is proved and she's allowed to go free. Sounds fair to me!The movie does have a plot, involving the rivalry of enemy half- brothers. who aren't actually aware that they are related, over a captive English princess. However, that is merely an excuse for the action, of which there is plenty. According to the filmmakers those old-time Scandinavians apparently spent most of their time getting drunk, screwing and killing people. There is a lot of the latter. Among other highlights there are eyes torn out by hunting falcons (they do love eyes!), limbs sadistically hacked off with swords, a guy chained up in the sea either to be drowned by the rising tide or eaten by crabs (whichever occurs first), and a guy thrown into a pit of ravenous wolves. But, after all, in the Middle Ages they didn't have any internet or television, so they had to make do with more primitive forms of entertainment. As for the quality of the production, "The Vikings" had an excellent cast and the production values were absolutely first-rate. It was filmed on location in Norway, which looks simply spectacular. In addition, the movie was made before the advent of blue screens or CGI special effects, so everything you see was actually done by somebody. In fact, some of the stunts look pretty dangerous, and one can only wonder how they were ever done at all.All in all, as epic film-making, "The Vikings" is about as good as it gets. This unaccountably and undeservedly neglected classic movie is definitely worth another look.

utgard14 Gotta say I wasn't overly impressed with this one. I mean, it looks great. It's got some cheesy appeal. But I really didn't like any of the characters in the story. I especially didn't like the so-called hero of the story, played by Tony Curtis. Also, I'm admittedly no expert on royalty but if a king is killed and his wife is raped and gives birth to a child from that, how is that child entitled to be next in the line of succession? As far as I'm aware, he's not, especially if the king still has blood relations living. Anyway, it's not a big deal I suppose but when you're not that into a movie you tend to mull over little details like that. It's a corny movie with some nice cinematography by Jack Cardiff. There are some laughs to be had at its expense. But if you're looking for a serious epic adventure story about Vikings with characters you can care about, I don't think you're going to find it here.

Leofwine_draca Hollywood has never managed to make a decent Viking film and THE VIKINGS doesn't alter that trend. Sure, THE VIKINGS is an entertaining enough movie in the finest old-fashioned sense, full of crowd-pleasing moments of pleasure like they used to do in the 1950s, but it's hardly authentic and at times descends into the kind of B-movie fantasy favoured by such fare as SIEGE OF THE SAXONS.I could go through and nitpick this movie for an age, but let's suffice to say that the Anglo-Saxons didn't build in stone, so watching the Vikings attacking a Norman-era castle build a couple of hundred years later is complete nonsense. Not to mention the silly intricacies of the plot, which presents the Vikings themselves as ambivalent at worse, if not the outright 'good guys', despite their reputation as bloodthirsty marauders.Inevitably, the fun aspects of the film are largely down to the actors. Headlining the cast is Kirk Douglas in one of his more memorable turns, and indeed Douglas is the reason to keep watching. He's the life and soul of the party, tackling each of his scenes with gusto and never flagging for a second. Tony Curtis is more sensitive and thoughtful, and nearly as effective, and Ernest Borgnine a treat.Despite a fairly lengthy running time, THE VIKINGS never really flags although there's a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in the plot. The battle sequences are well-staged and fun, although filled with plenty of silliness, particularly at the climax which asks the viewer to suspend their disbelief over and over again (and then some!). THE VIKINGS is pure Hollywood hokum, and as fun as it sounds, but a classic it isn't.