Viking: La fureur des Dieux

I think it is enough said I have registered to document it. Maybe its production costs 23 $ or something. Really awful movie with around 10 actors .. can you imagine wars and battles done between 6 or 7 poor men. I do not know whose idea was this to have a big achievement in such failure. Maybe some actors was not too bad but still sharing in this miserable production. If you've got some extra boredom time but welling to spend some more boring time .. it is your choice then .>> if you have this decision make sure you are not suffering from heart diseases. I am suffering more now while spending time trying to help potential watchers figuring it out. from my heart I wish James Cooke, Hollie Burrows and Abbie Hirst .. please try to choose what you are doing .. you have a good seed .. do not kill it

I spent £4.49 on Virgin Media to watch this utter B rate of a movie. The acting and the script were atrocious. The "action" was totally boys own stuff and when the hero and heroine got on the "horse" it was absolutely laughable. They obviously couldn't afford a horse and they pretended to ride it, with only their shoulders seen and their hips moving, like something out of an old Errol Flynn movie. The part when the hero and his brother fought with their swords was laughable. It reminded me of a Monty Python sketch. I really don't know why producers and directors go to all the trouble of making these awful films, as after the first 20 minutes, I had to switch it over before I lost control and threw the telly out of the window!

I am so glad I only spent $1.50 on Renting this B movie from Redbox. The acting is horrible. The only reason why I watched the movie for 20 minutes was the leading actress is very cute. Other than that the nothing noteworthy. If you live in Siberia or Alaska stuck inside side 1/2 the year maybe this might be one of the last movies You watch.

This film sucks and no one should watch it. There really is no reason to make this film, release it or worst of, charge people for it.

When you spend $100 making a film and charge people a normal admission/DVD/BR/rental fee compared to a $100m film, there's something off.

I don't know what the budget of this film is, but it's probably nothing. If you're curious as to know what kind of production this is, watch the trailer, or look at Tornado Films' website.

The question remains - how do you make a medieval/viking film with no money? The answer is simple, you don't. You just don't. Questions like "how do you build a house for $800 or a car for $200" should be avoided.

If you want to make a film with no money, set it in 2016 where you already have tons of 2016 stuff like clothes, music, furniture, cars, etc. If you want to make a film in 816, it's gonna cost ya.

There are ways of doing it cheap(er), but not with almost no money. "Battles" with 6 people look ridiculous. Cheap looking costumes always give Halloween vibes.

There are medieval reenactment hobbyists that go to the park on Sunday that have a more professional looking setup.

I'm guessing these guys did this thing for fun, but they shouldn't be selling it as if it were a real film. Put it on Youtube or Vimeo. I didn't pay for it (friend had the Blu- ray) and I still felt that it was a waste of time.

I really wonder how they'll recoup the costs of this production, but considering how little they put into it, it might just take a few dozen rentals.

I applaud the courage to go out and make a film. Everyone wants to do it, but not anyone can do it. But not everyone should either and not every tiny idea should become a film.

Expectations admittedly were not high watching 'Viking Legacy'. It didn't look good and part of me was starting to grow tired of seeing so many idea wastes and poorly done low-budget films (believe it or not there are watchable and more ones out there which is why they still get checked out rather than avoided). Watched 'Viking Legacy' anyway out of curiosity and because the idea was not bad, Vikings can be interesting too.

You would not think that the idea was not bad, because the story execution certainly is that and that is putting it lightly. 'Viking Legacy' is so poorly done that it has put me off watching low-budget films out of curiosity and completest sake for the time being and being increasingly nervous about watching films with decent or more concepts going for them with so many seen recently executing them poorly.

'Viking Legacy' has nothing going for it. The lead actress is attractive and cute but the same cannot be said for her acting skills. Which is pretty much the same passionless and emotionless standard of the acting with no exceptions, except some fare worse than others. That the lead actress is one of the better performers and still be far from good says a lot about the low quality of the acting.

They do have to work, but make no effort to rise above the problems, with uncharismatic, wimpy and annoying characters and really toe-curling in the worst of ways dialogue. As well as non-existent direction.

Direction that fails to convey any urgency, tension, fun, suspense or emotion in the numerous scenes that need them. The action scenes are the complete anti-thesis of exciting, are poorly filmed and looks so awkward in the choreography. The whole story is just lifeless and on the wrong side of daft that it's insultingly ridiculous.

Moreover, it's yet another cheap-looking films, with an overuse of truly risible special effects that never gels with the setting or looks real, dizzying camera work and editing and shoe-string budget production and costume design. The music is the least bad asset, but that is not really an endorsement when it's very memorable and not always used appropriately.

Overall, not worth watching...by any stretch. 1/10 Bethany Cox