Viking: L'Invasion des Francs

If you have watched any of Michael Hirst's "Vikings" series then you will probably find this to be a potted version of some of those stories condensed (though it doesn't always feel like it) into 2½ hours or so. Essentially our eponymous hero (Gijs Naber) is the Fresian lord who is constantly at war with "Pepijn" (Jonathan Banks) who is the king of the Franks and his sworn enemy. The narrative focuses on the weaponisation of Christianity by the latter as a means of subjugating - frequently quite brutally - all who do not accept the doctrines of the Papal legate who insists on baptising everyone - on pain of death. What ensues here isn't actually a bad film, it's just long and plodding with some mediocre acting and a script that uses ten words when two would have done. The action sequences look good and there are plenty of them as the battle ebbs and flows, the advantage constantly switches from North to South and the violent nature of the all conquering church is laid bare for us to appreciate - and that's quite a plausible exposure, too. If someone had taken a razor blade to it and shortened it by forty minutes to so, then we could have had a decent action adventure based on a rich seam of history and mythology, sadly it all takes just too long; there are too many unnecessary sub-plots and there is even a bit of romance to ensure the pace is well and truly nobbled. I like the genre and it's watchable enough, though just a bit disappointing.

Enjoyed Redsbad, but with s grain of salt. It seems that this genre of film (Vikings, The Last Kingdom, etc) insist on portraying the Nordic, Danish, Frisian, whomever) as superheros on the battlefield. As a student of history, I can acknowledge their prowess (even with the need to exaggerate the tiny percentage of women who actually engaged in battle or raids) within limits. It seems that Saxon warriors or Frankish troops are relegated to incompetent or unskilled (scene after scene of some Nordic warrior slaying 4-5 enemy combatants) in so many of these films. It must be remembered that they too where warrior cultures which eventually subjugated these invaders, a task which could not be accomplished without military acumen. The portrayal of the Christianization of pagan peoples also seems greatly exaggerated. Were there abuses and at times over jealous clerics and nobles, naturally, however to paint such a skewed portrait in a film attempting to convey historical events may lead the less scholarly viewer to accept this without question. The perspective in production after production of painting pagan, bellicose, raiding peoples as "noble savages" while casting Christianity in a negative light seems more a reflection of the producers and writers' agendas than fact. I look forward to these same film makers creating a series of films illustrationing the centuries of slaughter, slavery and forced conversations at the hands of Mohammed and his religious descendants, though they would likely be prevented for fear of the Muslim response.

I think some reviews here are very very very negative. It is an interesting story told by the movie, its somehwat unknown in the Netherlands because its has been partly erased from the history books. I can understand people who say the movie is too long, but that didnt annoy me. Redbad is underated in my opinion.

Had high expectations but the script ruined it. Acting wasn't too bad but because of the script it seemed funny some times. However the scenery and costumes were great.Overall a missed opportunity to make it a classic.

This movie could have been better with higher quality screenwriting. There's an excellent cast including some beautiful actresses. The costumes were okay, and locations were very good.

But some of the writing is absurd. The Frisians did not sacrifice young women to Freya, burning them alive (another people hundreds of years earlier, the Celts, did sacrifice perverts and criminals to the gods by burning them in wickers). The Friesians although pagan were somewhat more advanced than as shown.

Redbad's life was very different than shown in the movie - he was an older man when he won his victory over the Franks at Cologne, and the Friesians were allied with the Saxons not Danes at that time. Redbad had ruled the Frisians for at least 20 years before that battle. He had never been exiled or put out on a boat to die.

Charles Martel was a fierce warrior but not an evil man, he did not murder his little nephew as shown in the movie. And neither were Pepin nor Saint Willibrord as cruel and vile as shown in the movie. Although he is killed in the movie, in reality Willibrord died in 739, 20 years after Redbad's death in 719.

This could have been a great movie, if the much more interesting REAL history was shown instead of a silly storyline we've seen too many times in other movies.