Beauty and the Beast

A Viking-era retelling of the Beauty and the Beast storyline, with the pretty Jane March (STALKER) playing a character about 20 years younger than the actress is. This was retitled BLOOD OF THE VIKINGS in a bid to draw in a new audience, and I'm glad I wasn't misled by that new title.

In any case, this is rubbish. It's pantomime-level stuff with production values weaker than an average episode of XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS. The story sees a group of loyal Vikings taking a voyage abroad, where the king is killed and a woman's lover lost. Later they travel again, where they find a brutal monster capable of killing the most seasoned warriors. Could it be the woman's lover, trapped in a sinister curse?

Needless to say this is all complete nonsense, loaded with anachronisms and an almost entire lack of understanding of the era in which the story is set. It works best as a fantasy, but even then it's poor stuff indeed, with some of the most horrid action choreography you'll see. The hair extensions have to be seen to be believed. March, the most experienced actress in it, gives a poor performance equalled by the miscast Justin Whalin, who once starred in THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN but now has no career.

Jane March at age 30 is no Viking teenage princess.The hair was bad. the CG flames were bad. The speech was nowhere near Scandinavia. The end was less than completely satisfying. But I'm glad to have seen this film. Jane March is a beautiful actress, and some of her scenes were fine ("And yet you live!"). The rest of the cast, the Beast, the story...not superb, not amazing, not surprising. And yet, more than just satisfactory. The Beauty and the Beast story is a healthy perennial, and this has some interesting variations thereon. I got this as a Netflix rental, and I was pleased enough to share it with my family and watch it a second time. Worth watching, not a disgrace to the actors, directors, film-makers. Good costumes, not disgusting, a quirky production. Loved the musical score. Solid workmanship with some charm.

"Blood of Beasts", also known as "Beauty and the Beast" was definitely not what I expected by the end of the film in a positive way. I actually found this movie listed on IMDb quite by accident-- but at the time it was not yet released on DVD, so I eventually forgot about it until I saw the DVD on ebay just a few days ago. I am all for the underdogs of film, but since the DVD was going for so much on ebay, I went down to my local video store and was pleasantly surprised that they had it there. So I rented it!

The Bad Points: I will say that the cover of the DVD is going to throw viewers off immediately. The cover has a very "Lord of the Rings" feel to it, so many may rent the movie thinking this is going to be another great epic film. It definitely is not. This must have been a very low budget film for several reasons. One, almost every male in the movie wore a wig or some sort of fake hair, and the only reason why I am pointing this out is because it is THAT obvious. Second, there is virtually no accents in the film, perhaps they couldn't afford a speech or language coach. Third, the costumes were all wrong...very bad, actually (oh, and the weapons were very fake looking such as the swords and daggers). Fourth, the scenes where there is fire...well, I guess they couldn't afford MAKING fire or setting things on fire so they computer generated it-- again, the only reason why I mention it is because it is THAT obvious and detracts from the film. The only thing that I think they did well with as far as special effects is how they chose to portray the Beast. They obviously didn't have a lot of money to use high tech computer effects so instead they used some interesting makeup and an animal hide costume. That may not sound great, but I rather see that then a bad computer generated beast. Plus, this Beast somehow reminded me of the cannibalistic creatures from the movie "13th Warrior."

The Good Points: So now you are probably wondering why I scored it a 6 if it was that horrible. Well, the truth is, it wasn't THAT horrible. I base most movies on the actual story-- 65-75% story/acting and 25-35% special effects/physical attributes of the actual movie. I understood from the beginning that the movie was going to be low budget, and I was expecting the story to be basically the same old Beauty and the Beast tale that we are all used to. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the end of the movie-- it has a neat twist that I am of course not going to spoil for anyone. The story itself starts out a little typical, but by the time the movie progresses about halfway through the film, you sort of feel your heart strings pull at the actual love story and the Beast's hopeless position. And again, the ending was a tad bit unexpected, therefore I think it makes up for the horrible wigs, lack of accents, and bad costumes. It's a shame that they didn't have more money to put into the film; it definitely would have strengthened the story itself.

So in conclusion, I recommend the movie for the story, not the special effects or accuracy of the accents and costumes. If you find yourself board on a weeknight or weekend and you don't go into the movie expecting too much from it, I think it can be enjoyable. I hope this helps! May Odin guide you!

Once again I feel like odd man out, i read all the comments and wonder at all the would-be movie critics, with all the harsh comments, I cant help but wonder why there are not more people before the cameras for all their seeming knowledge of the acting profession and directors abilities. For myself, once again I just enjoyed the movie for its entertainment factor, and Jane March is still one of my favorites, my only disappointment was her death near the end, but thats just me, all I can say is to those who had such harsh feelings toward s the movie, why did you watch it all the way thru, then waste your time vomiting your comments in these columns? If you don't like a movie don't watch it, May I always enjoy what I watch and watch what I enjoy, tincancpo.....

Okay...truthfully, I knew this movie would not be a cinematic masterpiece. I knew it would be some low-budget, straight-to-video Lord of the Rings knock off. It was low-budget and it was straight-to-video. However, it wasn't a LOTR knockoff...which is unfortunate. The story was Beauty and the Beast all over again...only it was set it the days of the Vikings. This is a problem because the characters didn't act like Vikings, nor did they dress like Vikings. For God's sake they wear all wearing chain mail...CHAIN MAIL!!! Vikings were only a couple of centuries BEFORE chain mail. If this story had taken place on an imaginary world with imaginary tribes and people and such, it would have been much better. However, setting it in Viking era did nothing but fill the movie with historical inaccuracies.

Inaccuracies aside, let's talk hair. Most of the actor were wearing wigs and it was obvious. There was one in particular...I remember him vividly. He was only in the movie for a couple of seconds. You say him in the background on the boat. He had no lines and no name that was mentioned. He was obviously just an extra. His job was to just blend in. Unfortunately, he didn't. Why?? Because he was wearing this ridiculous 1980's Britney Fox wig. This thing was WAY too big for the actor's head. It was just so terrible. All of the actors had bad wigs, but this one was the worst. Also, William Gregory Lee had hair extensions, but, apparently, the budget wasn't big enough for him to get a full head of them, so the producers just gave him a few. You could see where they were attached to his head and...it was awful. Also, what the heck was up with that little twig over his forehead. That thing got on my nerves.

The acting was, by no means, great. It was like watching a high school play or an after school special (for those of you old enough to actually remember after school specials). Anything with Justin Whalin is destined to be crap...let me present Exhibit A: Dungeons & Dragons, Child's Play 3, Lois and Clark...you get the idea. However, he wasn't the worst actor...in fact, he did well. William Gregory Lee got on my nerves. Obviously, he wasn't really all that tough, because he seemed to be having trouble acting tough. Jane March was okay, but not great. David Dukas, who played the Beast/Agnar, was probably the best, but only whilst playing the Beast. He struggled through the three minutes that he played Agnar. Very strange. The other actors were nothing short of mildly mediocre.

The SFX in this movie were...well...almost completely absent. The Beast was a guy in a prosthetic suit. And though it was a pretty cool idea, it really just looked like a guy in a bear skin rug. Also, the fires never looked real. Apparently, it was cheaper to make fake fire rather than actually set stuff on fire for real. The flames looked like those TV fireplace things and the smoke...well...there are no words to describe how bad the smoke looked. In the film's defense, though, this was a low-budget movie. That is something that must be taken into consideration. The weapons were obviously fake. They looked like wooden weapons that were spray-painted to look like metal only the producers hired some one-eyed imbreed from a Mississippi body shop to paint them.

In the end. This film was low-budget and watching it gave constant reminders of this fact. However, the low budget wasn't the real problem. The real problem was that the producers tried to pass it off as a Viking tale. They should have just gone ahead and made it a cheap knock-off of LOTR. It would have actually been a better film. 3/10.