utgard14 Poor comedy from Monty Python's Terry Jones. The plot's about a disillusioned Viking named Erik (Tim Robbins) who goes on a quest to the Land of Hy-Brasil to end Ragnarok. Starts off giving you a few chuckles here and there. Within half an hour the laughs are gone. Robbins is OK and actually does better than most of his British costars, who ham it up with a smug satisfaction that they are in a surefire comedy classic. The sets and effects are a mixed bag. Sometimes I was impressed, sometimes not. The story is loosely based on a children's book Jones wrote called "The Saga of Erik the Viking." If you get the chance you should read the book as it's much better than this film.

david-sarkies The time is Ragnarok. Clouds block out the sun and the world has been plunged into an eternal winter. People fight, kill, and rape, simply because it is a jolly good thing to do. Then comes Eric, who accidentally kills the woman that he has fallen in love with and comes to realise that there must be more than this, so he takes the men of his village on a trek to find the gods and ask them to end Ragnarok.This is a cool little comedy movie done in the Monty Python style, though not exclusively Python, since only Terry Jones and John Cleese are in it. Even though, the bizarre comedy of Monty Python comes out of it, along with its mockery of the human attitude.I guess one thing is the antagonist, Hadron the Black, who wants to stop Eric simply because to him Ragnarok is pretty good for business. There is also Loki, who is the tempter trying to get the Blacksmith and Hadron to stop Eric's expedition because if he succeeds, it will be the end of the blacksmithing business. But it is not the Blacksmith that wants it, but rather the evil and nasty Loki.The nation of High Brazillia is quite interesting, especially when it is being destroyed. The story about this place is that it has been blessed by the gods, but if any blood is to be spilt on the ground then the land will sink beneath the waves. Such a thing happens (due to Loki's interference) and the island starts to sink, but in the face of disaster, the citizens of High Brazillia remain ignorant to it, and sink beneath the waves. It is the attitude of: if we ignore it then it will go away. It is hilarious in this film, but in a way we are laughing at ourselves, because in essence we solve our problems by trying to ignore it, as that is the easy way to deal with it. Ignore it and it might go away, but unfortunately that never happens.The other interesting thing is that the gods of Midgard are portrayed at children. In essence that is what they really are for anybody reading classical Greek literature will understand that the god's really do behave like this. I guess it is simply saying that all that we worship in the end is simply childish (though the Christian missionary is paid out quite a bit as well).In the end this is a jolly funny movie and most enjoyable to watch. Personally I would say that it is one of the classics from the eighties. And remember, you can't sit Sven next to Sven's dad: they'll argue all the time.

Stephen Alfieri "Eric the Viking" is an awful mess of a film. It is a not very funny, loud, disjointed and style starved film that has nothing going for it.It in no way resembles a "Monty Python" film or sketch. Most of the actors (including Tim Robbins and Mickey Rooney)act as if they thought they had been cast in another "...Holy Grail". Needless to say, the acting is awful.I came away from this movie learning one thing. Terry Jones was far less talented a director than Terry Gilliam. Gilliam's films have a style and quality to them that is both interesting and unique. "Eric the Viking" is flat, dull and you won't want to stick around to watch the whole thing. I didn't.2 out of 10

theowinthrop Terry Jones wonderful examination of the mess of Viking life and legend is a funny film - almost as good as MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL. His intelligence is at work here. Jones wrote a book version of the story first, and in it examined some of the odd concepts of that remarkable period of rapine and violence. Jones is an expert on the Middle Ages (he did a very amusing and informative multi-episode series on the people of the Middle Ages for the history channel). So his grasp on detail is marvelous.To date, this is the only film to look at the Vikings and their religious/spiritual beliefs. What was their idea of heaven and hell. Well, we finally see Valhalla for what it was supposed to be. And the fallacy of it is brought home in the conclusion when Erik and his crew realize what garbage their culture embraces.This is the only movie I know that also deals with the lost island of Hy-Brazil. Not to be confused with the huge country in South America, Hy-Brazil was one of many fictitious islands that were believed to be in the Atlantic Ocean in the Middle Ages - in some cases to the 19th Century. Hy-Brazil was supposed to sink every now and then, as it does in this film. But it sinks due to a violation of the moral purity of the island, for an act of violence occurs there that is against the state of the island. And the King of Hy-Brazil (Jones) is so self-centered that he can imagine that everything is fine, that he refuses to accept that the island is sinking and his subjects are drowning.The King is also one of the examples of the marvelous twisted logic of the film - he has gotten a piece of cloth that he is told makes the wearer invisible. Nobody else but the king believes this. Erik, caught in the rooms of the King's daughter, puts the cloth on him. The King comes in to see who is there, and can't see him, although everyone else can see him.There is a similar piece of logic at the end of the film, when the crew has reached Valhalla, and found it not as they wanted to find it. They are trapped there because their belief and religion makes them seek Valhalla. Only the one Christian among them (Freddie Jones, in a nice performance) can't see what they see - he is a Christian, not a Viking Pagan. So he is able to return to their boat and free the others because he is not trapped by their mindset.The performances are good, especially John Cleese as an expert in extortion and torture, who is treated like the benevolent laird of the manor (he willingly changes the dates of torments and tortures he schedules). Eartha Kitt as a priestess, and Mickey Rooney as a feisty grandfather of Erik, give good performances too. It is an interesting, odd, but successful period comedy.