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.
cogito42
Absolutely awful. Everything from the "acting" to the discount Renaissance Faire costumes is laughable. Nothing is period or even remotely historically accurate as far as Vikings go, but I'm not sure that was the intention of the "filmmakers," if we can call them as such. I can't help but imagine a prepubescent D&D nerd behind the camera.Add alcohol or some other intoxicating substance, however, and the movie instantly becomes hilarious.If you love to mock movies MST3K-style, then this is the movie for you. With a budget of approximately $50, the producers were able to whip up a tour de force of epic foolishness. It behaves like professional porn, but without plot or tolerable acting, and fails to deliver even one decent sex scene.Watch this movie with a group of friends and plenty of beer goggles. It is not worth watching under any other circumstance.
Kate Weston
***********May contain Spoilers*********** Okay. I have to say it was a good movie. Okay a really rushed and sometimes stupid. The men in the movie, to make it a little more realistic could have grown beards, since most Viking men believed beards represented they were men. The battle scenes were a bit unrealistic at parts. William Gregory Lee and Justin Whalin suited the Viking parts, but William could've not forced his acting in some parts. The overall story is a Beauty and The Beast remake only in the Viking era. I liked it, but at some parts it does seem really forced. Most Dungeon & Dragons fans will like this movie.Hope this helps...
Cynicialwonder
I happened upon this rare piece of cinematic art whilst looking for Batman Begins at Blockbuster. Batman was out and this was there. Which was unfortunate. From the opening scene where viking teenagers are swimming and we see that apparently the producers forgot ITS COLD in Norse lands. Also every one is young and pretty. It felt very much like watching an episode of Xena. I mean lets be honest this is a straight to video release for a reason. The acting is very bad. Of course the material wasn't any help at all. I will say that the production design team did a very good job. I am sure this was a very low budget film but they did a good job. The story line works to a certain degree. I mean it is beauty and the Beast retold. If your looking for Vicking movies I would stick with the 13th Warrior.
AD
