In this vaguely pre-medieval semi-epic, a Viking named Einar fights with his half-brother Eric for a frankly uninteresting dame called Janet Leigh - damn! - I mean Morgana. Eventually Eric, who for reasons not well explained happens to be a slave, escapes with Morgana, in what I can only assume was meant to be a Viking rowboat, to England, where for no good reason the wicked king executes Einar's father Ragnar. Eventually Einar catches up and there is a thrilling siege. The king gets his, and everyone not dead is happy.
The failing of this film isn't the plot, which ranges from so-so to fairly interesting - the problem is the utter lack of attention to historical detail. The Vikings are depicted as savage barbarians, clothed in furs. Which in itself isn't a bad thing, except that this movie is called "The Vikings" rather than "Conan the Barbarian." As the film wears on, it becomes obvious the filmmakers haven't the vaguest knowledge of the actual period, and haven't done research whatsoever. Even in the 50s, it was known to archaeologists that Vikings wore more than furs - how do you think they survived in the frigid North? And drinking-horns are known to have been only used ceremonially - most vessels were made of the greenish "forest glass" from Germany. And they've dreamed up the most bizarre things - like the horn they play when the Viking ship approaches. Where the *$&% would you find a horn like that? Did they hollow out dinosaur bones? And the jumping along oars - where did they get that? And why would the English king have a castle in the pre-Norman conquest era? And why do they have the Bayeux tapestry? That's not Viking art, that's Norman. And where on earth did they get the idea for Einar's helmet? What's up with the bizarre chin-piece? And why for the love of god does Einar during the film's climax wear a Crusader hauberk? And which king exactly did they feed to the wolves? What's their documentation? And lastly, where in the bloody blue blazes did they come up with the chastity test for the wife? Viking society was noted as being quite liberal towards women at the time - women could demand a divorce, or if their husband came home drunk they could lock him out of his home.
So, in conclusion, watch this only for an enjoyably silly film - not for any semblance of historical accuracy. Don't listen to KEVMC - he doesn't know what he's talking about. This film is as historically accurate as watching the linoleum curl is exciting. 4 stars out of 10.
The failing of this film isn't the plot, which ranges from so-so to fairly interesting - the problem is the utter lack of attention to historical detail. The Vikings are depicted as savage barbarians, clothed in furs. Which in itself isn't a bad thing, except that this movie is called "The Vikings" rather than "Conan the Barbarian." As the film wears on, it becomes obvious the filmmakers haven't the vaguest knowledge of the actual period, and haven't done research whatsoever. Even in the 50s, it was known to archaeologists that Vikings wore more than furs - how do you think they survived in the frigid North? And drinking-horns are known to have been only used ceremonially - most vessels were made of the greenish "forest glass" from Germany. And they've dreamed up the most bizarre things - like the horn they play when the Viking ship approaches. Where the *$&% would you find a horn like that? Did they hollow out dinosaur bones? And the jumping along oars - where did they get that? And why would the English king have a castle in the pre-Norman conquest era? And why do they have the Bayeux tapestry? That's not Viking art, that's Norman. And where on earth did they get the idea for Einar's helmet? What's up with the bizarre chin-piece? And why for the love of god does Einar during the film's climax wear a Crusader hauberk? And which king exactly did they feed to the wolves? What's their documentation? And lastly, where in the bloody blue blazes did they come up with the chastity test for the wife? Viking society was noted as being quite liberal towards women at the time - women could demand a divorce, or if their husband came home drunk they could lock him out of his home.
So, in conclusion, watch this only for an enjoyably silly film - not for any semblance of historical accuracy. Don't listen to KEVMC - he doesn't know what he's talking about. This film is as historically accurate as watching the linoleum curl is exciting. 4 stars out of 10.