Hrafninn flýgur

This is for me a very memorable movie. First of all it has a good story with morale in it. It deals with vengeance which can probably be among the hardest things for a man to deal with. Which is greatly illustrated at the end of the movie (without revealing too much...).

Also the story with the lone crusader seeking vengeance for the slaying of his family is very strong. And the atmosphere of the movie really helps as well. The music is very good and helps the atmosphere as does the photo. It´s dirty, grey and cold just like it should be in a relentless, unforgiving, viking movie.

This is probably the best viking movie so far, not that it has too many contenders sadly enough. I recommend this movie to anyone wanting to see a very special movie with a special atmosphere and a few nice touches. And also, the movie is almost worth seeing only to hear the wonderful icelandic language!

I rate this 7/10, one extra star for originality!

I am confused by the magnanimous praise for this film. First of all, let me respect it for its unsensational style. It expressed the everyday unromantic experience of what it must have been like then. In this way, it avoided Hollywoodism, but when I consider how the film-makers could have incorporated vast vistas as a cinematic expression of the isolation of these communities I was dismayed. These people lived in immense isolation, but all we were given 90 percent of the time were tight shots, and landscapes were generally presented as one section of the pebbly beach with some stark rocky islands off shore. And let us consider the opening (of the version I saw). There was no attempt at establishing the historical context. Instead, we got close shots that could have been anywhere, and certainly shot in the style for 'straight to video". Come on! The script was clever, with the potential for a great dramatic experience, but the director must have been limited by a highly restrictive budget, because it ended up looking like 'made for TV'. The synthesized music was occasionally effective but surely deeper chords would have created an ominous atmosphere. The hero did not really have any tense challenges. He seemed to cruise through it all. While I sort of liked him, I never had a sense of his jeopardy. In short, there was no dramatic tension. In this sense, there was an echo of some of Clint Eastwood's movies, but without the stylishness. There was an assumption that we were on the protagonist's side, but why deprive us of his human vulnerability as he seeks revenge? I feel that the writers deserve a bigger budget to prove to us that they can create a truly cinematic experience rather than a small dimension TV drama. I have not seen the subsequent 2 parts of the trilogy.

My first reaction when I finished watching this movie for the first time was, "Woah, Irish ninjas versus vikings? What can be cooler than that?" Strictly, Gest isn't a ninja-- I'm being a bit facetious-- but the throwing knives, the steely resolve, and the silent lurking can make up for the cultural gap. In all respects, this is an excellent movie. The acting is great, the plot is more than a simple revenge story, and the ending is powerful. In reflection, even the unusual music fits the story well. If you can get ahold of this movie, watch it, especially if you're not Scandinavian and don't know much about Scandinavian history or culture. It was this movie that got a lot of people I know interested in learning more about that region and that era of history.

And if you're the type who likes throwing-knives, lurking, complex revenge plots, and barbarian swordplay, this is still the movie for you.

The only Icelandic film I've ever come across. This and it's two (disappointing) sequels, that is. And what an OUTSTANDING film. Wow. The viking film to end all viking films. None of the others made since (Trees Grow on the Stones Too, 13 Warrior, The Pathfinder *yikes!*, the sequels to this film) have been up to much.

Five VIRTUES of When The Raven Flies:

1. Design wise: The viking clichés of (horned) helmets, shiny swords, dragon headed longboats, and the odd galloping stallions are replaced with an authentic, down-to-earth design: Fur caps, black/rusty cleavers/knives, small ocean going merchant vessels, and those curious Icelandic ponies. It is quite odd seeing the characters ride them. The viking warriors feet almost touch the ground, and they ride in a weird trotting style.

Which help bring us closer to what life could have been like back then.

And did I mention how the director has chosen memorable, gritty faces in almost every role? No tall blond semi-gods here, just dirty survivors in a harsh country/island.

2. Plot wise: An Icelandic film about vikings? A chance to show off Icelandic courage, virtue and heroism, right? Wrong. The hero is from IRELAND, rather, and his story is about a viking victim getting back at the perpetrators.

The plot requires minimum knowledge about Icelandic/Norwegian history. It's set during the late 800s AD. While the political power in Norway is being consolidated around one king, Iceland is being colonized by settlers, hunters, traders, political refugees...and Irish slaves. Iceland was considered a loose and distant part of the young kingdom.

The intrigue be a little hard to follow a first. Relax - it will all make sense later on (as characters dwindle in number).

3. Style wise: This gruesome and captivating story of revenge is - yes- a SPAGHETTI WESTERN. Every trick in the Spaghetti-Western handbook. And I mean it as a compliment.This is on par with Sergio Leone on a good day. And how suitable for the material. Talking is kept to a macho minimum. Closeups of frowning faces and steely eyes trying to penetrate the minds of opponents. Quiet. Sudden violent outbursts. Bittersweet ending. The main character, "Guest", isn't even presented with a proper name. Clint's nameless character in the Dollar movies, anyone?

This is an Arctic homage to Sergio Leone. Bravo!

4. Endurance: 24 years on and the film is still standing strong. Some bloods'n gore effects are little on the silly side, some sophomore editing. Some synth music and ditto drums upsets the mood a little at times. My DVD version has no stereo/surround sound. The picture is laser disc fine, not DVD or HD fine.

And those were all the flaws. I mean ALL the flaws. The\is film is so frikkin' strong none of the above really matters.

5. The director still hasn't made anything nearly as impressive as this film. The 1988 sequel, In the Shadow of the Raven, had a bigger budget/production. But lacks the Leone-ish sense of urgency. See for yourself. The last film in his trilogy, Den Kvite Viking, had moments of inspired casting/design/mood etc (a talking wooden Jesus effigy stands out), but is totally overwhelmed by a slow and unconvincing plot. Shame. The more reason to love and revere the original!

See it before they cast Nicholas Cage in a remake!

I don't know if you've ever seen a movie about vikings, but as far as i know they are few. Of those I've seen this and it's predecessor are the only "true" viking movies.

This movie has pretty bad image and sound quality which is understandable since its old. But it wins my heart for it's story, it follows a kind of norm in viking tales, basically an eye for an eye.

I am no expert in vikings or history but i have read a lot about them and many sagas (if not all) from the "Edda", anyways i liked this movie because it feels natural and real.

Some warnings though:

1. It may not be so interesting for you if you're not interested in vikings.

2. They speak Icelandic and the one i saw had Swedish subtitles only, so beware, you may not understand a word.