A Viking Saga: The Darkest Day

I understand all about film budgets and how the costs of locations play a large part in getting a film off the ground. That said, I've also spent a great deal of time on Lindisfarne (Holy Island, as it is now called) and I know its history as I've placed a story, a screenplay, and a magazine article there. The Lindisfarne raid by Vikings in 793 was a smash and grab affair sacking whatever riches were in place on the altar of the church. The Vikings' knowing anything about the illuminated book called the Lindisfarne Gospels is far-fetched to say the least and attaching the Vikings' concept of magical significance to that work of art is idiotic.

The opening sequence on the beach at Lindisfarne looks nothing at all like Lindisfarne. In fact, no filmed setting---especially those used by the History Channel for re-enactments or for their Vikings television program---has ever looked like the real Linsdisfarne.

In this film, for the two monks to have escaped the Viking raid on foot to the mainland of Northumberland from the island of Lindisfarne, they would have had to cross a treacherous stretch of mud flats and quicksand at low tide. The same would be true of Vikings following them. It couldn't have and wouldn't have taken place. What's more, the landscape of Northumberland is hardly grey as portrayed in this film but exceedingly green. Even if two monks were seeking refuge for their holy book, they would hardly try to cross the width of Britain to get to Iona but instead head down the coast to Bamburgh, scant miles from Lindisfarne and both a fortress and seat of power during and long before 793. The film's discussion of signal fires having been lit in order to seek the protection of guides for a journey across Britain never would have happened since there was no time for such nonsense because the raid most likely took place at dawn awakening the sleeping monastery.

The whole premise simply doesn't hold in this long-winded draggy mess in which even the local saint being discussed as associated with Northumberland is all wrong. Lindisfarne is strongly associated with Saints Aidan and Cuthbert. It would have been either or both of those who would have been talked about by the film's characters. The writer-director apparently did no homework at all for this project other than to cull the same old historical passages used at the beginning of this film and used ad nauseam (and without understanding) whenever Lindisfarne is mentioned in movies and television programs. The writer-director would have been much better off fictionalizing the places and the whole story, making it all much more visually interesting, and speeding up the storytelling. None of that would have impacted his budget in the least. And what's with that awful horned-helmet artwork on the poster?

I also have to express dismay at the low rating this film has on IMDb. It seemed a well done, decently acted movie with a story that is neither ridiculous nor simplistic. I honestly believe it is deserving of an above average rating. Probably what annoyed a lot of people is the poster, which has nothing to do with the movie at all. It is not a film about glorious deaths in violent battles.

The Viking raid on Lindisfarne monastery is a real event that is considered by historians to be the beginning of the so called Viking Age. As with the TV show Vikings, the event is used to inspire the storyline in The Darkest Day, without much concern for historical accuracy, but this film has it a bit closer to reality.

The plot is seen through the eyes of a young monk, one of two escaping from the Lindisfarne's raid and carrying the Lindisfarne's Gospels, a beautifully crafted book that holds "the word of God" and without which the monks believe the Angles country is lost. The book is a real artifact that you can read about. The monks run away from a bunch of Vikings that want the book, believing it holds "the power of the white Christ" and can be used to rule the land. Their escape shows you glimpses of the wild and poor way of living in those times (around 800 AD) in the British Isles. Helped by an old warrior, they meet Christian sectarians and a Pict woman they rescue from bondage and try to fend off the raiders.

I've watched a few Viking related movies lately, something spurned by the TV show Vikings, and this is by far one of the best. It is a low budget English and Welsh film with almost completely unknown actors in a small cast, but they each play their roles well and the bleak and violent trek through ancient England feels realistic and raw. The name of the young monk, Hereward, is an ironic hint of the end of the movie. Again: a clearly above average film, especially if you are in a Viking mood.

The Viking era lasted roughly 300 years from about 790 to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. The word 'Viking' comes from the Old English wicing, meaning pirate. The Vikings were Norse plunderers from what is modern-day Norway and Denmark who preferred to prey upon undefended rich monasteries in Britain and nearby regions. Their speedy longships gave them terrifying mobility. By the time an army was raised against them they had moved on to other raids.

I bring this up to point out that the supposedly mighty Vikings were not noble warriors, but rather lowly brigands who preferred weak, defenseless victims. "A Viking Saga: Decision Day" (2013) drives this home and details a Viking raid on a monastery (mostly off-screen) and the subsequent pursuit through the haunting grey woods as the Viking chieftain seeks a priceless holy book in the possession of two monks who escaped the monastery.

The sluggish, grim tone is akin to that of "Valhalla Rising" (2009), but I slightly prefer this one due to the potent theme, which addresses the folly of absolute pacifism vs. the wisdom of limited pacifism. The former stupefying-ly refuses to resort to physical violence under any conditions whereas the latter resorts to violence only when necessary and justified. The young simpering monk in the movie, Hereward (Marc Pickering), represents the view of absolute pacifism while the noble warrior, Aethelwulf (Mark Lewis Jones), represents limited pacifism.

The monks adhered to the gross misunderstanding that revolves around Christ' teaching to "turn the cheek." The Messiah was referring to a backhanded slap to the face, which was an insult in that culture. In other words, we could all save ourselves a lot of trouble in life if we learn to ignore the antagonism of various morons who would like to divert our focus and ruin our day. The Old Testament teaches this as well: "A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult" (Proverbs 12:16). So Christ was talking about giving an antagonist a break for the sake of peace in situations of personal offense; he was NOT referring to cases of criminal atrocities, which is what Viking raiders were guilty of committing. After all, why else do you think Christ allowed his disciples to carry swords, as chronicled in the Gospels?

The bible says that governments are "God's servants" for good in the sense that they protect citizens from criminals and their military protects the people from foreign attack; in short, they "bear the sword," meaning that they possess the power to punish and even execute criminals or foreign raiders when justified (see Romans 13:1-6). Relating this to the movie, the monks were the government of their area and they in essence "bore the sword." As such, they would be perfectly justified in annihilating the Norse thugs from the face of the earth. It's a lesson Hereward needs to learn IF he and his remaining loved ones are to survive.

One last thing: Someone commented on how the Vikings are effectively depicted as diabolical fiends, which is true to a point. They're also portrayed as mere men, who can be slain as easily as any other. This was a good call by the director in light of how Vikings are often depicted in a mythical super-heroic manner, which is light-years from the truth. They were wretched human pillagers, brutal murderers and sadistic rapists who deserved slain on sight. Speaking of which, the movie poster (and DVD cover) is thoroughly misleading and the clueless producer(s) responsible should be shot (not literally).

The movie runs 1 hour, 28 minutes and was shot in Neath Port Talbot area in South Wales, Britain. The UK production reportedly only cost around $132,000, but you wouldn't know that from viewing the movie; it looks more like a $2 million production.

GRADE: B/B-

Based on a noted event, the Anglo-Saxon Abbey on Lindisfarne Is. off the coast of Northumbria, England is attacked and ransacked by Scandinavian marauders. It reflects the Norse transition from the Vendel era to the Viking era. The case cover depicts a horned helmeted, leather strapped, bulked up warrior -- none of that is actually true.

The cinematography is really quite good, the period dress and appearances quite accurate, and the absence of any real bling for modern viewers is understandable in a film where realism is intended. Real Vikings, after long ocean voyages, were quite filthy with mostly poor diets and just not always the clean blondes people have been raised to expect.

A point that another mentioned is doubt the Vikings wore chain-mail as depicted but actually they did, even before the Viking era, and it's always been a point of contention between historians as to how that came to be. Possibilities including contact with remote people like the Romans or Sarmatians who were already wearing it.

The film is more of a human interest story as we follow the few actors almost like a documentary. I don't recall hardly any special effects and the military action people might expect from the cover is limited.

Before you view or purchase perhaps have a look at some of the trailers on YouTube. As a history nut I really enjoyed it

I gave it a higher rating then it deserves but this is to offset the lower ratings for which it does not deserve. A tale of vikings raiding saxon territory, and the viking leader seeking a book which is supposed to be a holy relic of Christ as he feels it has power which he can use for his own advantage. The story follows the young monk who is the only survivor of a monastery where the book was kept, and his flight from the vikings. He is aided by a British warrior nobleman, and later on another (I leave unnoted so as to not spoil).

There are a few moments where it plods a touch, but overall I thought it well done. It is brutal in parts, but back in 733AD (when this takes place - part of the dark ages) it was brutal times. I thought the acting was good, the cinematography very good and it had gripping moments. Most of what happens is I think fairly predictable, but how many movies are not? There are always flaws in movies, but I think the ones in the movie can be overlooked plot wise. I have watched a thousand movies rated 5-6 that were not as good as this one at it current 3.5 rating, so I have no idea what the panning is about.

Just be advised, this is not a movie for children. There are brutal scenes of violence (and more) in the movie - entirely keeping within the character of the times and setting but stark just the same.

The published plot line indicates this movie is based upon a true story, or at least some sort of folklore. I have no idea of the accuracy or merit of that contention, and it seems to me it really does not matter.