Los vikingos

This film actually holds up very well in today's show-too-much and CGI blanding effect environment.

Douglas, Curtis and Borgnine run away with it all, and Janet Leigh is rather breathtaking.......

Combat scenes are coarse and brutal, not "300" level, but tough nonetheless. Stunt work is top notch.

The quality of the film, the color, the scope, the natural sets are worth purchasing the DVD for alone. The beautiful score is actually one of the most haunting melodies I have heard in my life.

The tension leading up to the assault on the English castle is dead-on....no music for the most part, just unrelenting marching, and the dread on the faces of the castle defenders.....very satisfying movie experience.

SPOILER: Many thanks to vaughn.birbeck for giving us the historical background of "The Vikings." It is great to know that the film has a basis in fact right down to the names of the main characters. I first saw "The Vikings" on a raw Saturday afternoon in February of 1959 with my brother and my best friend, Buddy. When the show was over, we ran home full of excitement. My brother and I burst into our house to find the Hall family was visiting. Catching our breath, we choked out, "We just saw the greatest movie of all time! It's The Vikings! It had Vikings and knights and they were sailing across the poison sea and attacking the castle and shooting arrows and throwing axes and chopping off hands with slashing swords......"

When Mr. Hall retorted, "Now don't you think it is unfortunate that people can't find other ways to settle their differences?" I felt, "Oh, boy! I hope I never get so old that I think like him and can't enjoy 'The Vikings'."

It was the thrill of my brother's life as an adult to ask Kirk Douglas on a New York studio talk show, "Did you actually jump across the moat to grab onto the axes in the drawbridge door, or did a stunt man do that?"

Kirk's answer was, "I wanted to do it but the insurance company wouldn't let me."

Even now I love the film but two things about it bother me. Great actor that he is, Kirk Douglas is just too nice of a guy and too good looking to be convincing as Ainar. Edison Marshall's book "The Viking" on which the film is based portrays him by the name of Hastings more like the character of Barnes as played by Tom Berringer in "Platoon." In "The Vikings", Ragnar introduces his son Ainar as someone who is "so vain of his beauty, he scrapes his face like an Englishman." Hastings is not charming or vain but tough and so cruel and even sadistic that after Eric's hawk tears up his entire face (not just his eye), Hastings delights in the horrifying effect his facial scars has on the victims he kills and rapes. The women scream, his facial scars dance as he laughs at their horror, the women scream even more in horror.... Hastings, like Barnes in "Platoon" clearly is a guy other Viking warriors hold in awe and whom Eric really wants to see dead. But in the film, Ainar is just a good looking, charismatic, fun guy we actually pity when after crossing the poison sea, storming the castle, jumping over the moat, climbing the tower, and crashing through the stain glass window to get to the love of his life, Morgana tells him he isn't her type.

The other thing that bothers me about "The Vikings" is the miscasting of blond, buxom Janet Leigh as the Welsh princess, Morgana. Eric and Hastings were used to having blond, buxom Scandinavian women around them all the time. It was the novelty of the cute, demure, petite, brunette Welsh Morgana that captivated them and motivated them to engage in an adventure that involved scores of ships sailing the Mediterranean before they finally engaged in their showdown at high noon with crossed swords.

I've always thought that this was a fun film to watch. Kirk Douglas with his impressive physique is well cast but I think Ernest Borgnine steals the show playing his father. A great role for him. Maybe Tony Curtis looks a little out of place among the vikings but he's always been a good enough actor to pull it off. Great sets and just beautiful cinematography. The film was shot on real locations in Norway. If you get a chance to see this just sit back and enjoy this fun adventure film.

When I was a boy of 11 years, I admired the reconstructed Viking ships near our cottage at the Hardanger fjord. It was the year 1957, when Kirk, Tony and Borgnine visited our country and participated in this beautiful movie... In a funny sort of way, the picture makes us Norwegians proud of that brutal past... I have seen it many times, and am struck by the surprisingly "right" atmosphere, touched by the landscape that I know so very well, and fascinated by the action. OK, so it's Hollywood, but somehow, I have the feeling they don't make movies like this any more. Pity! Well, maybe I'm getting old.

After reading many of the reviews here, I'd like to remind the younger folk that this is the way movies were, back in the 50's. We didn't mind "weak" (?) Tony Curtis being cast in that role, Ernest Borgnine as Ragnar, etc., all the blood and guts (What? There's more on cable TV today!), the "subservient" (?) women, etc. This was a great, swashbuckling movie, all real, no computer graphics anywhere, trying to portray life as it was in the Viking era. Essentially, a reflection of what we of the mid 20th century expected a Hollywood movie to be. Kudos to the great Kirk Douglas, may he Rest In Peace.