Viking Destiny

Seriously...Why did they make this film if they only had $10 in the budget? The few people floating around in each scene look more like Monty Python than a modern action/adventure. Did the producers say "let's see how low on the film experience scale we can go before the audience notices?" but i digress. . .

WITH THAT SAID, I thought the premise was intriguing and the acting by Anna Demetriou (Helle) was very good. I did not recognize Terence Stamp (Odin) since I have not seen him act in anything since his magnificent portrayal of General Zod in the original "Superman." I know its been 40 years but the guy looks nothing like he used to......anyway.....

Plot elements had to move along rather quickly (from sex scene to marriage in about 5 sec..hmmm) most likely due to budget constraints. The area itself was nice but looks more like England than somewhere farther north. I would have loved to get to know the characters better and seen a more complicated story line had it been in the budget. Overall worth watching if there's nothing else on TV at 2 am.

This film is what it is, low budget, the scenery is lovely, but it was boring, and it has a environmentally friendly angle to it, the problem is true Vikings were not environmentally friendly, the reason they invaded other lands is because they could not find more land to farm in in their own countries, so they invaded others, with the bonus of being able to plunder as they went, so I assume they included it in this film to attract the environmentally friendly audience. If they wanted it to look like a real viking world, they probably succeeded as true life is a lot more boring than a movie, even in Viking days.

The acting was not great but not awful, there are some good actors in this film, Terence Stamp stands out a mile as one of the best, it was just sort of placid. The big problem was the direction and editing, and the mystic angle (like someone else pointed out), with a better director and good editor I think this could have had the makings of a great film, I don't know if either are well rated but if they were they both had an off-day with this one. Also the music was not great, sort of a meandering dreary tone to it, if it had a more upbeat soundtrack similar to an earlier Viking film with Kirk Douglas in it, it would have improved it by about 50%. If someone better took the same story and actors, using the same locations I'm sure they could have made a cracking film.

I give it a 5 for the scenery and realism.

This movie would have been great if the stuntmen and women were the main actors as well. The main actors were not convincing but the main fighting scenes with the doubles were very well done and convincing.

The film looked staged with lack of proper acting and spoiled the show. Perhaps a matter of too many cooks spoil the broth as the number of production houses involved in this movie was over the top and caused the film to flop. Hence many reviewers' negative feedback.

Whoever said "don't believe the low reviews" must have watched a different movie. This isn't the worst movie you will ever have watched but it is still a bad movie. It reminded me of an episode of Star Trek the original series. Very low budget sets and costumes and a story that is as unbelievable as it is dull. Some of the fight scenes made you want to laugh out loud. It was like watching a mock Viking battle in the fields of York. I think most of the good reviews are from people who were swept away by the lead character. She was indeed a beauty and managed to stay looking perfect throughout the whole film, despite sleeping rough, running around the hills and forests and engaging in fights with men more than 3 times my size never mind hers!

There is a sex scene not suitable for watching with family