Viking: L'Invasion des Francs

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.

Set in an alternate universe where Frisians speak perfect Holland Dutch (Odd considering Frisian is a recognized language besides dutch), the Frankish speak English and the Danish speak English is well.

It tries to tie together historical events, figures and legends that took place in the same period but often not in the same place. Then there are the long list of things that simply do not belong in that time period as they belong to the later middle ages like the weapons and castles. Much of how the historical setting is displayed is fictional or belongs to different time periods or different people.

This extreme artistic liberty with history could have worked out pretty well if it had created an actual engaging story. Unfortunately the movie does fail in that aspect by using all the movie cliches spread out in such a way that the halfway through the film we were left wondering if it was actually building up to something and basically got bored.

It doesn't help that the action sequences often made little sense where often the Frisians fighting would be surrounded and spread out only to suddenly be grouped together and victorious after a camera angle change.

It really is a shame as the acting itself was good (except for Frisians speaking perfect dutch without an accent), the imagery pretty, etc. There really is a hint of a potentially good movie in there if they had been more critical towards the story.

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.

2015 saw the release of 'Michiel de Ruyter' (marketed as 'Admiral' in most foreign markets), which showed that director Roel Reiné could make the most out of a limited budget, with some really epic battle scenes as a result. Coupled with a decent cast and a nice historical narrative (allowing for some artistic impression, of course), it really made me curious to see how Reiné would do in his next project. 'Redbad' was announced sometime later, an epic about one of our lesser known heroes, as well as a call-out to everyone who wanted to participate as an extra in Medieval battle scenes (preferably with a horse). Sounded like a recipe for a Dutch Braveheart, but unfortunately, where Redbad is big in set-up, it fails in delivery because it wants to be too big for its own good.

MdR already made clear that 'subtlety' is not in Reiné's dictionary, but he got away with it because that movie was more of an engaging history lesson rather than a character drama anyway. Redbad, however, is the reverse. Despite a 160-minute running time, only a small portion of that is devoted to battles and action. This would be no problem if the remaining time would create a fascinating picture of its main hero and the people he deals with, but this is exactly where Redbad falls short.

The good news is that Reiné shows his craftsmanship again when it comes to visual style. There is breath-taking cinematography at times, with wide landscapes and lush art direction that made me wonder where they were all shot. Some have criticized the harsh and desaturated quality of the image, but I disagree; the early Middle Ages were harsh times, and there is no objection to seeing that grittiness reflected in the atmosphere, as long as things are not muddled. Some also complained that the battle scenes were impossible to follow due to camera and editing, and because you can't discern between the two armies. I don't share these objections either; if you're into paranoid symbolism, you could argue that the baddies dress in blue and have a coat of arms that resembles a Facebook logo, so they're easy to spot. The battle scenes are not exactly of Game of Thrones quality (they probably couldn't make one episode out of Redbad's entire budget), but they still look pretty good: slightly chaotic without looking too rehearsed. There is some shaky-cam and quick editing, but nothing too frenetic. Nowhere did I get the feeling that it was unnecessarily disorienting, or that I lost oversight of what was happening on the screen.

The bad news is that as a storyteller or actor's director, Reiné still has a lot to learn. Like in MdR, he has cast a lot of television actors and has them converse in modern Dutch. That was forgivable for MdR, but it doesn't work here. For some reason, the farther you go back in time, the more ridiculous it sounds to hear historic characters use terms that didn't exist then (especially using regional accents). I have no principle problems with actors from soap operas and comedies dressed as feral Friesians (except for some unnecessary cameos like Birgit Schuurman), but if you give them texts like "no, YOU look like sh#t", then I get taken out of the movie, and I see the soapie again, not the character. Granted, you don't want the characters speaking in ridiculously pretentious verses like in Troy ("I am Ajax, destroyer of rocks" always gets a good giggle from me), but it must be possible to give the dialogue some sense of historic solemnity and gravitas, like in Gladiator, without becoming pompous or completely unintelligible.

It is almost fascinating to see actors of all ages and walks of life struggling with the contrast between their appearance and their texts, and most seem to compensate for this by overacting as if they were doing Shakespeare in a school play, turning every phrase into an emphasized one-liner. Strangely enough, this affects mostly the more seasoned veterans like Derek de Lint, but even he doesn't reach the painful depths of Renée Soutendijk, Egbert-Jan Weber and especially Jack Wouterse (who was apparently under the mistaken impression that he was comic relief). Jonathan Banks as Pepijn was obviously cast to give the movie some international appeal, but at least his "Medieval Mike Ehrmantraut" performance is one of the few that doesn't feel too misplaced.

The screenplay, apart from the dialogues, is my second grief. Not so much is known about the historical Redbad, so it is completely acceptable that they made up several elements for dramatic purposes, as long as that makes for an engaging narrative. That the superior Frankish army looks like a pretty unimpressive group of soldiers isn't a big problem (again, Dutch budgets). But in a solid script, the presented elements at least make sense or are properly motivated and balanced. The Franks are depicted as murderous zealots, which makes them uninteresting one-dimensional villains, probably used as easy comparisons to ISIS and a contrast with the noble Friesians (who historically must have been just as cruel at times). Redbad himself is presented as the Dutch Braveheart, including a "they may take our lives but they will never take our freedom" speech. He is apparently bound to lead his people to victory, and everywhere he comes, people hail him as their savior, but we never get to see why he is such a good strategist, and how he acquired those skills. Gijs Naber is a fine actor and he is doing his best with the material that is handed to him, but he still feels ill-equipped for such a tough role.

There are more annoying holes in the story and presentation. Why do the Franks speak English, where French would seem more logical? Why do Friesian tribes in Denmark speak English, the same language as the Franks, instead of something sounding more Dutch (like Danish)? Why are the place name captions in English, whereas the opening and closing texts are in Dutch? And a dishonorable mention for the way in which two of the battles in the movie are resolved; one involving the sea, and the almost laughable skirmish at the climax involving a spear.

Finally, the nail in this biopic's coffin is that it is constantly overselling itself with bombastic music and unnecessary visual tricks. Reiné's constant need for slow-motion shots is one thing, but his imagery is drowned in an ever-so-present score from a guy who probably thinks he is Hans Zimmer, and constantly abuses the heavy strings and low-frequency bass. I am not necessarily a supporter of the 'less-is-more' dogma, but here, even calm dialogue scenes that would call for two instruments and a soft choir are smothered in obtrusively epic music. The lack of subtle musical motives starts to feel like being kept awake all night by a next-door house party.

I am not mad at this film, and I certainly didn't find it the piece of wreckage that some make it out to be. It had some moments of visual grandeur, but sadly, an unmotivated screenplay filled with holes prevents most scenes from having the visceral impact that they could have had. Watching it was like grading a school essay where you add comments in red ink, and nearly every paragraph needs correction. I guess you could call it an engaging movie in that sense, but for the wrong reasons.

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.