Le Sang des Vikings

I happened upon this rare piece of cinematic art whilst looking for Batman Begins at Blockbuster. Batman was out and this was there. Which was unfortunate. From the opening scene where viking teenagers are swimming and we see that apparently the producers forgot ITS COLD in Norse lands. Also every one is young and pretty. It felt very much like watching an episode of Xena. I mean lets be honest this is a straight to video release for a reason. The acting is very bad. Of course the material wasn't any help at all. I will say that the production design team did a very good job. I am sure this was a very low budget film but they did a good job. The story line works to a certain degree. I mean it is beauty and the Beast retold. If your looking for Vicking movies I would stick with the 13th Warrior.

The ambition was there but not carried out well. Wigs, modern dresses, and bad acting keep this from being an endearing tale though it doesn't prevent it from being watchable. What really weighs it down is the highly overdone trope of spirited princess being more courageous and brave than warriors, even calling them cowardly in righteous indignation. Many comments are made about not being a son, not being able to do what men do, but even in her dying breath, she will obey the laws of their people when Agnar challenges Sven for her hand. Historically, such gender expectancy was rare when seemingly pushed by men, as patriarchal systems put structure and roles on men, not women, and women of royalty pushed feminine culture with such expectancies for the women of their societies, more than men did, even having girls yearning to be able to marry up and be honored above others. This actually hasn't changed. The choice of Jane March as Freya, to world a sword and battle a beast, also made this less believable because she can barely lift a sword in real life with her frailty.

"Blood of Beasts", also known as "Beauty and the Beast" was definitely not what I expected by the end of the film in a positive way. I actually found this movie listed on IMDb quite by accident-- but at the time it was not yet released on DVD, so I eventually forgot about it until I saw the DVD on ebay just a few days ago. I am all for the underdogs of film, but since the DVD was going for so much on ebay, I went down to my local video store and was pleasantly surprised that they had it there. So I rented it!

The Bad Points: I will say that the cover of the DVD is going to throw viewers off immediately. The cover has a very "Lord of the Rings" feel to it, so many may rent the movie thinking this is going to be another great epic film. It definitely is not. This must have been a very low budget film for several reasons. One, almost every male in the movie wore a wig or some sort of fake hair, and the only reason why I am pointing this out is because it is THAT obvious. Second, there is virtually no accents in the film, perhaps they couldn't afford a speech or language coach. Third, the costumes were all wrong...very bad, actually (oh, and the weapons were very fake looking such as the swords and daggers). Fourth, the scenes where there is fire...well, I guess they couldn't afford MAKING fire or setting things on fire so they computer generated it-- again, the only reason why I mention it is because it is THAT obvious and detracts from the film. The only thing that I think they did well with as far as special effects is how they chose to portray the Beast. They obviously didn't have a lot of money to use high tech computer effects so instead they used some interesting makeup and an animal hide costume. That may not sound great, but I rather see that then a bad computer generated beast. Plus, this Beast somehow reminded me of the cannibalistic creatures from the movie "13th Warrior."

The Good Points: So now you are probably wondering why I scored it a 6 if it was that horrible. Well, the truth is, it wasn't THAT horrible. I base most movies on the actual story-- 65-75% story/acting and 25-35% special effects/physical attributes of the actual movie. I understood from the beginning that the movie was going to be low budget, and I was expecting the story to be basically the same old Beauty and the Beast tale that we are all used to. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the end of the movie-- it has a neat twist that I am of course not going to spoil for anyone. The story itself starts out a little typical, but by the time the movie progresses about halfway through the film, you sort of feel your heart strings pull at the actual love story and the Beast's hopeless position. And again, the ending was a tad bit unexpected, therefore I think it makes up for the horrible wigs, lack of accents, and bad costumes. It's a shame that they didn't have more money to put into the film; it definitely would have strengthened the story itself.

So in conclusion, I recommend the movie for the story, not the special effects or accuracy of the accents and costumes. If you find yourself board on a weeknight or weekend and you don't go into the movie expecting too much from it, I think it can be enjoyable. I hope this helps! May Odin guide you!

But at the same time I didn't find Blood of Beasts a good movie. It is far better than the 2010 Beauty and the Beast also directed by David Lister though. Blood of Beasts' flaws come from some hilariously fake wigs, costumes that are not very authentic, the substandard effects especially the fires and the man in a prosthetic suit for the Beast, stilted dialogue and some rather forced acting from William Gregory Lee. On the other hand, I did like the fantasy-adventure nature of the sets, the photography and editing are above average and the score was cool with some beautiful and atmospheric themes. The story may strike you as standard, but it didn't feel predictable, it held my attention and unlike Lister's later Beauty and the Beast film the romance was somewhat believable. The acting is also not too bad, Jane March exudes beauty and is commanding also. Overall, not good or bad, more average to me. 5/10 Bethany Cox

A Viking-era retelling of the Beauty and the Beast storyline, with the pretty Jane March (STALKER) playing a character about 20 years younger than the actress is. This was retitled BLOOD OF THE VIKINGS in a bid to draw in a new audience, and I'm glad I wasn't misled by that new title.

In any case, this is rubbish. It's pantomime-level stuff with production values weaker than an average episode of XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS. The story sees a group of loyal Vikings taking a voyage abroad, where the king is killed and a woman's lover lost. Later they travel again, where they find a brutal monster capable of killing the most seasoned warriors. Could it be the woman's lover, trapped in a sinister curse?

Needless to say this is all complete nonsense, loaded with anachronisms and an almost entire lack of understanding of the era in which the story is set. It works best as a fantasy, but even then it's poor stuff indeed, with some of the most horrid action choreography you'll see. The hair extensions have to be seen to be believed. March, the most experienced actress in it, gives a poor performance equalled by the miscast Justin Whalin, who once starred in THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN but now has no career.