Viking Siege

A medieval romp with a posse of vengeful women (from a statistically unlikely village that contains only gorgeous females) planning to kill the monks who enslaved their relatives. Throw in the local Lord in the wrong place at the wrong time, Kung Foo and some double hard Vikings with a mysterious secret and you have the ingredients of a belter of a movie. The effects are average but its a humorous and well paced film able to keep you engrossed throughout. Its not thought provoking, have a subtle script or give strong characterisation but its does not mean to. Its provides enjoyable escapism and it would be pretentious to compare it to some art house play. People who value this sort of film will have fun and those who do not shouldn't watch. Its not great but with a bigger budget it might have been and it is most certainly not a waste of time.

!BUYER BEWARE!

This is NOT a serious film, DO NOT believe the marketing into thinking this movie is about vikings or the famous siege of Paris in 845, this film is pure fictional and quite frankly bananas!

Luckily I do like a low budget movie from time to time, 'Viking Siege' must be one of the cheapest produced movies out there! I do believe this perhaps to be intentional by the developers among with the sheer amounts of ham passed around the actors, super cheap special effects which boils down to ketchup 'everywhere' with surprisingly a half decent soundtrack.

SO why is this film called Viking Siege? Where is the sieging?

I did enjoy it to be fair, some odd pacing issues toward the middle but I had fun with it. Leave your expectations at the door and you should be able to get through this, this is not for the serious of heart out there, I repeat this film does NOT take itself seriously.

5/10 Oodles that could be improved but a forgivable attempt for a first time director. Less ham next time, ok?

Seen far worse film's. But in the end I was a fast forward through the weak 'story'! Until something happened. I have given it two points 1. for the hot women and 2. the gore effect ...... Which were better than usual film of this budget. (Although they do become very repetitive) ......acting wasn't that terrible. But I'd say avoid by keep an eye out for the woman who did all the effects in the film. Potential. (no.......she's not my wife ha ha)

Really enjoyed the pulpy nature of the film, it's just a shame that the branding didn't reflect that, like the old artwork on their website.

Definitely worth a watch if you're into B movie style features.

This story of supernatural tree shaped men attacking a motley group of people in the middle ages has the look of a story with too many cooks spoiling the broth.

There were just too many characters who had superiority complexes, and the ones who would have the superiority complexes had the opposite.

The monks are depicted as ridiculous middle ages version of Frank Burns, and the other characters are just as one dimensional.

On the bright side, as contrived as it is, there is a bit of non contrived fates. A bit of "let the cards fall where they fall" look, instead of a deliberated goal appearance.

The biggest problem is "character". These characters all look like they were written by or for certain actors, which was probably the intention, but it looks too obvious. Way too many are too Hollywood, and few make sense for the era. For instance, the monks are depicted as cowardly weak mercenaries, when in fact the monks of the era could either be weak or mercenary, but couldn't be both.

There were too many Hollywood characters for the movie, too. Had it been a mini series, maybe it would work, although the characters were so standard and Hollywood that it would only work for the geekiest people.

More ridiculous was the woman who never ran out of arrows. I don't know where the arrows all were. They just appeared out of the air. I guess they dropped from the ceiling. Probably from an elaborate mechanism she devised that dropped three arrows every ten minutes.