Drakkar

I gave it a higher rating then it deserves but this is to offset the lower ratings for which it does not deserve. A tale of vikings raiding saxon territory, and the viking leader seeking a book which is supposed to be a holy relic of Christ as he feels it has power which he can use for his own advantage. The story follows the young monk who is the only survivor of a monastery where the book was kept, and his flight from the vikings. He is aided by a British warrior nobleman, and later on another (I leave unnoted so as to not spoil).

There are a few moments where it plods a touch, but overall I thought it well done. It is brutal in parts, but back in 733AD (when this takes place - part of the dark ages) it was brutal times. I thought the acting was good, the cinematography very good and it had gripping moments. Most of what happens is I think fairly predictable, but how many movies are not? There are always flaws in movies, but I think the ones in the movie can be overlooked plot wise. I have watched a thousand movies rated 5-6 that were not as good as this one at it current 3.5 rating, so I have no idea what the panning is about.

Just be advised, this is not a movie for children. There are brutal scenes of violence (and more) in the movie - entirely keeping within the character of the times and setting but stark just the same.

The published plot line indicates this movie is based upon a true story, or at least some sort of folklore. I have no idea of the accuracy or merit of that contention, and it seems to me it really does not matter.

Based on a noted event, the Anglo-Saxon Abbey on Lindisfarne Is. off the coast of Northumbria, England is attacked and ransacked by Scandinavian marauders. It reflects the Norse transition from the Vendel era to the Viking era. The case cover depicts a horned helmeted, leather strapped, bulked up warrior -- none of that is actually true.

The cinematography is really quite good, the period dress and appearances quite accurate, and the absence of any real bling for modern viewers is understandable in a film where realism is intended. Real Vikings, after long ocean voyages, were quite filthy with mostly poor diets and just not always the clean blondes people have been raised to expect.

A point that another mentioned is doubt the Vikings wore chain-mail as depicted but actually they did, even before the Viking era, and it's always been a point of contention between historians as to how that came to be. Possibilities including contact with remote people like the Romans or Sarmatians who were already wearing it.

The film is more of a human interest story as we follow the few actors almost like a documentary. I don't recall hardly any special effects and the military action people might expect from the cover is limited.

Before you view or purchase perhaps have a look at some of the trailers on YouTube. As a history nut I really enjoyed it

The Viking era lasted roughly 300 years from about 790 to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. The word 'Viking' comes from the Old English wicing, meaning pirate. The Vikings were Norse plunderers from what is modern-day Norway and Denmark who preferred to prey upon undefended rich monasteries in Britain and nearby regions. Their speedy longships gave them terrifying mobility. By the time an army was raised against them they had moved on to other raids.

I bring this up to point out that the supposedly mighty Vikings were not noble warriors, but rather lowly brigands who preferred weak, defenseless victims. "A Viking Saga: Decision Day" (2013) drives this home and details a Viking raid on a monastery (mostly off-screen) and the subsequent pursuit through the haunting grey woods as the Viking chieftain seeks a priceless holy book in the possession of two monks who escaped the monastery.

The sluggish, grim tone is akin to that of "Valhalla Rising" (2009), but I slightly prefer this one due to the potent theme, which addresses the folly of absolute pacifism vs. the wisdom of limited pacifism. The former stupefying-ly refuses to resort to physical violence under any conditions whereas the latter resorts to violence only when necessary and justified. The young simpering monk in the movie, Hereward (Marc Pickering), represents the view of absolute pacifism while the noble warrior, Aethelwulf (Mark Lewis Jones), represents limited pacifism.

The monks adhered to the gross misunderstanding that revolves around Christ' teaching to "turn the cheek." The Messiah was referring to a backhanded slap to the face, which was an insult in that culture. In other words, we could all save ourselves a lot of trouble in life if we learn to ignore the antagonism of various morons who would like to divert our focus and ruin our day. The Old Testament teaches this as well: "A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult" (Proverbs 12:16). So Christ was talking about giving an antagonist a break for the sake of peace in situations of personal offense; he was NOT referring to cases of criminal atrocities, which is what Viking raiders were guilty of committing. After all, why else do you think Christ allowed his disciples to carry swords, as chronicled in the Gospels?

The bible says that governments are "God's servants" for good in the sense that they protect citizens from criminals and their military protects the people from foreign attack; in short, they "bear the sword," meaning that they possess the power to punish and even execute criminals or foreign raiders when justified (see Romans 13:1-6). Relating this to the movie, the monks were the government of their area and they in essence "bore the sword." As such, they would be perfectly justified in annihilating the Norse thugs from the face of the earth. It's a lesson Hereward needs to learn IF he and his remaining loved ones are to survive.

One last thing: Someone commented on how the Vikings are effectively depicted as diabolical fiends, which is true to a point. They're also portrayed as mere men, who can be slain as easily as any other. This was a good call by the director in light of how Vikings are often depicted in a mythical super-heroic manner, which is light-years from the truth. They were wretched human pillagers, brutal murderers and sadistic rapists who deserved slain on sight. Speaking of which, the movie poster (and DVD cover) is thoroughly misleading and the clueless producer(s) responsible should be shot (not literally).

The movie runs 1 hour, 28 minutes and was shot in Neath Port Talbot area in South Wales, Britain. The UK production reportedly only cost around $132,000, but you wouldn't know that from viewing the movie; it looks more like a $2 million production.

GRADE: B/B-

After seeing this movie on DVD tonight i am amazed that its IMDb rating is so low. I was absolutely impressed by it. The acting is great, the historic setting and scenery is convincing and beautifully shot and the movie has an interesting story line, going much further and deeper than the raw violence that is suggested by the poster. Yes there is violence in it, because it is a realistic movie, but it is not dominating. The main characters are developed in an interesting way and the viewer is drawn into the movie because he can identify with them. The music is also very nice and fits well to create an atmosphere that makes the 8th century England come alive

It may have been a low budget film but it would have cost nothing to get a few people around a table with the script before filming. Come on, how many film clichés do you have to put into one film. I nearly stopped watching at one point because it was getting so bad. After each scene (and there weren't that many) I found myself asking 'would this have actually happened?'. I answered each time, 'highly unlikely'. The ending was just too funny for words. The acting was OK but I would have preferred some attempt at a Norse/Danish accent from the Vikings. I was just grateful in the end that there weren't any Americans involved (nothing personal, but American actors should never be allowed near historical productions). Finally, Vikings wearing chain mail at that time period? I doubt it.