After reading many of the reviews here, I'd like to remind the younger folk that this is the way movies were, back in the 50's. We didn't mind "weak" (?) Tony Curtis being cast in that role, Ernest Borgnine as Ragnar, etc., all the blood and guts (What? There's more on cable TV today!), the "subservient" (?) women, etc. This was a great, swashbuckling movie, all real, no computer graphics anywhere, trying to portray life as it was in the Viking era. Essentially, a reflection of what we of the mid 20th century expected a Hollywood movie to be. Kudos to the great Kirk Douglas, may he Rest In Peace.
147 Reviews
Sweeping Fifties Epic.
jpdoherty18 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
United Artists THE VIKINGS (1958) is one of the great epics of the fifties. Based on the book "The Vikings" by Edison Marshall it was produced by Jerry Brasler for Bryna Productions (Kirk Douglas' own company which he named after his mother).Beautifully photographed in Technirama and Technicolor by ace British cinematographer Jack Cardiff more than 4000 multinational performers and technicians worked on the giant production. Filmed on actual locations in the mountains and fjords of Norway the picture is well remembered for its scenic beauty and authentic sets. The splendid screenplay was put together by Dale Wasserman and Calder Willingham and Richard Fleischer directed with a deft hand an all star cast. The picture is also notable for the fine polished narration spoken by an uncredited Orson Welles.
Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine) is the savage Viking chieftain who with his Viking horde rape and pillage along the English coast. On one such raid he rapes an English Queen who later gives birth to a boy they call Eric (Tony Curtis). But his existing son Einar (Kirk Douglas) is unaware he has a half brother and grows to hate Eric especially after the Vikings attack an English ship and abduct the princess Morgana (Janet Leigh) whom both sons desire. Sometime later Eric rescues the princess from the Viking camp and in a small boat makes a dash for England with Ragnar and Einar in hot pursuit. During the chase Ragnar's ship goes aground in the fog but Eric saves him, pulls him aboard and takes him to England as well where the treacherous king Aella sentences Ragnar to die in the dog pit. Later Eric returns to Norway to muster Einer and his men to attack the English castle where Morgana is being held and to avenge Ragnar's death. The picture ends in a marvellous set piece as the Vikings take the castle after a blistering well staged battle and Eric and Einar battle it out to the death in a terrific sword duel atop the dizzying castle parapets.
Performances are superb from the entire cast. Douglas himself is a standout in his own production. His facility for knockabout action is a joy to behold. His prowess and unerring skill at stunts is well revealed in THE VIKINGS exemplified in the taking of the castle sequence. Here Douglas, under fire from rocks and arrows, charges and leaps across the open moat grabbing onto the axe handles which his men had already thrown and embedded in the underside of the raised drawbridge. Then using the axes to grip he clambers up and over to let the bridge down. It is a stunning and spectacular piece of stunt work! Again in an earlier scene Douglas can clearly be seen doing what is known as Dancing The Oars whereby he hops from oar to oar outside the ship for the amusement of the camp. Excellent too was Tony Curtis! Here was the emergence of Tony Curtis the ACTOR which manifested itself in Burt Lancaster's "Trapeze" (1956), with Lancaster again in "Sweet Smell of Success" (1957) and then in "The Defiant Ones"(1958). Gone were his pretty boy days at Universal International the studio he started with and where he would become their top pinup male star alongside a young Rock Hudson and Jeff Chandler. Also a standout in THE VIKINGS is Ernest Borgnine giving a powerful portrayal of the Viking leader Ragnar - a part he was born to play. Others in smaller roles are good too such as Alexander Knox as the Friar, Frank Thring as the sly and dubious Aella, James Donald as Egbert the English traitor and Janet Leigh (Mrs. Curtis at the time) as the princess.
My only problem with the movie is the staid and laboured music score by Italian composer Mario Nascimbene a composer who never really distinguished himself in anything he did. Despite the haunting and echoing motif that sings out the two words of the film's title on a giant elephant tusk the colourless tinny sounding score is quite insipid and uninspired. It is surprising that a composer the calibre of Miklos Rozsa or Dimitri Tiomkin - two men who could score such epics in their sleep - were not approached to work on Douglas' picture. Their involvement would have added immeasurably to the film giving it a greater buoyancy and density. However, the score not withstanding THE VIKINGS is still a great movie and remains one of cinema's finest blockbuster epics.
Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine) is the savage Viking chieftain who with his Viking horde rape and pillage along the English coast. On one such raid he rapes an English Queen who later gives birth to a boy they call Eric (Tony Curtis). But his existing son Einar (Kirk Douglas) is unaware he has a half brother and grows to hate Eric especially after the Vikings attack an English ship and abduct the princess Morgana (Janet Leigh) whom both sons desire. Sometime later Eric rescues the princess from the Viking camp and in a small boat makes a dash for England with Ragnar and Einar in hot pursuit. During the chase Ragnar's ship goes aground in the fog but Eric saves him, pulls him aboard and takes him to England as well where the treacherous king Aella sentences Ragnar to die in the dog pit. Later Eric returns to Norway to muster Einer and his men to attack the English castle where Morgana is being held and to avenge Ragnar's death. The picture ends in a marvellous set piece as the Vikings take the castle after a blistering well staged battle and Eric and Einar battle it out to the death in a terrific sword duel atop the dizzying castle parapets.
Performances are superb from the entire cast. Douglas himself is a standout in his own production. His facility for knockabout action is a joy to behold. His prowess and unerring skill at stunts is well revealed in THE VIKINGS exemplified in the taking of the castle sequence. Here Douglas, under fire from rocks and arrows, charges and leaps across the open moat grabbing onto the axe handles which his men had already thrown and embedded in the underside of the raised drawbridge. Then using the axes to grip he clambers up and over to let the bridge down. It is a stunning and spectacular piece of stunt work! Again in an earlier scene Douglas can clearly be seen doing what is known as Dancing The Oars whereby he hops from oar to oar outside the ship for the amusement of the camp. Excellent too was Tony Curtis! Here was the emergence of Tony Curtis the ACTOR which manifested itself in Burt Lancaster's "Trapeze" (1956), with Lancaster again in "Sweet Smell of Success" (1957) and then in "The Defiant Ones"(1958). Gone were his pretty boy days at Universal International the studio he started with and where he would become their top pinup male star alongside a young Rock Hudson and Jeff Chandler. Also a standout in THE VIKINGS is Ernest Borgnine giving a powerful portrayal of the Viking leader Ragnar - a part he was born to play. Others in smaller roles are good too such as Alexander Knox as the Friar, Frank Thring as the sly and dubious Aella, James Donald as Egbert the English traitor and Janet Leigh (Mrs. Curtis at the time) as the princess.
My only problem with the movie is the staid and laboured music score by Italian composer Mario Nascimbene a composer who never really distinguished himself in anything he did. Despite the haunting and echoing motif that sings out the two words of the film's title on a giant elephant tusk the colourless tinny sounding score is quite insipid and uninspired. It is surprising that a composer the calibre of Miklos Rozsa or Dimitri Tiomkin - two men who could score such epics in their sleep - were not approached to work on Douglas' picture. Their involvement would have added immeasurably to the film giving it a greater buoyancy and density. However, the score not withstanding THE VIKINGS is still a great movie and remains one of cinema's finest blockbuster epics.
My kingdom for a Norse
Lejink26 June 2015
Big budget, starry-cast, historical, make that almost pre-historical, action movie where a one-eyed Kirk Douglas plays a rumbustious (that's putting it mildly) Viking prince and his unwitting half-brother Tony Curtis (the offspring of Douglas's dad, King Ragnar's, rape of the British queen on a previous raid, years before) a soon-to-be one-handed British slave who are both vying for the love of Welsh princess Janet Leigh, whilst Ernest Borgnine as Ragnar eggs his boy on from the sidelines. There's also a minor sub-plot about the Vikings crossing the water to remove from power the new, cruel, usurping English king who's tricked Curtis's Eric out of his birthright to be king himself and who to seal the deal just happens to get himself betrothed to the young Leigh.
The movie is beautifully shot in natural light in and around actual Norwegian fjords which look superb in big-screen colour and the recreation of the Viking long-boats by the film's carpenters is also remarkable, but if I'm starting a review by praising the backgrounds, it probably means there's a want in the foreground, and so it proves.
Douglas's boorish Einar looks old enough to be Eric's half-father and his usually drunken behaviour hardly endears him to the viewer. At one point he is determined to rape Leigh's Princess Morgana and is only stopped by Curtis's timely intervention. Curtis's character, unusually, is a man of few words but even with a beard, the young Tony doesn't completely convince playing it strong and silent. The object of their affections, Janet Leigh, appears able to bewitch these two the minute they clap eyes on her, which I suppose is fair enough as she does look lovely in her robes, but she's not really required to do much between simpering and occasionally seething.
There are some odd scenes of I presume authentic old Viking customs, if you exclude feasting, drinking and womanising on a Henry VIII scale that is, like "walking the oars" and strangest of all the method of proving a wife's infidelity which involves putting her in a set of stocks, then nailing up her outstretched hair plaits and inviting her allegedly cuckolded husband to free her by throwing axes to sever her plaits. Talk about being saved by a hair's breadth. Elswhere there's no stinting on the crowd scenes and the battle scenes are reasonably exciting if not wholly convincing.
This film was reasonably entertaining as a spectacle but for me was let down by the hackneyed plotting, use of extreme coincidence and shallow characterisation. Douglas and Curtis of course would get back into tunics and sandals a few years later, but this time with a better tale to tell and under a master director in Stanley Kubrick. To paraphrase a famous line from that movie however, this film here isn't "Spartacus".
The movie is beautifully shot in natural light in and around actual Norwegian fjords which look superb in big-screen colour and the recreation of the Viking long-boats by the film's carpenters is also remarkable, but if I'm starting a review by praising the backgrounds, it probably means there's a want in the foreground, and so it proves.
Douglas's boorish Einar looks old enough to be Eric's half-father and his usually drunken behaviour hardly endears him to the viewer. At one point he is determined to rape Leigh's Princess Morgana and is only stopped by Curtis's timely intervention. Curtis's character, unusually, is a man of few words but even with a beard, the young Tony doesn't completely convince playing it strong and silent. The object of their affections, Janet Leigh, appears able to bewitch these two the minute they clap eyes on her, which I suppose is fair enough as she does look lovely in her robes, but she's not really required to do much between simpering and occasionally seething.
There are some odd scenes of I presume authentic old Viking customs, if you exclude feasting, drinking and womanising on a Henry VIII scale that is, like "walking the oars" and strangest of all the method of proving a wife's infidelity which involves putting her in a set of stocks, then nailing up her outstretched hair plaits and inviting her allegedly cuckolded husband to free her by throwing axes to sever her plaits. Talk about being saved by a hair's breadth. Elswhere there's no stinting on the crowd scenes and the battle scenes are reasonably exciting if not wholly convincing.
This film was reasonably entertaining as a spectacle but for me was let down by the hackneyed plotting, use of extreme coincidence and shallow characterisation. Douglas and Curtis of course would get back into tunics and sandals a few years later, but this time with a better tale to tell and under a master director in Stanley Kubrick. To paraphrase a famous line from that movie however, this film here isn't "Spartacus".
When male actors were MEN
BigBobFoonman20 December 2010
This film actually holds up very well in today's show-too-much and CGI blanding effect environment.
Douglas, Curtis and Borgnine run away with it all, and Janet Leigh is rather breathtaking.......
Combat scenes are coarse and brutal, not "300" level, but tough nonetheless. Stunt work is top notch.
The quality of the film, the color, the scope, the natural sets are worth purchasing the DVD for alone. The beautiful score is actually one of the most haunting melodies I have heard in my life.
The tension leading up to the assault on the English castle is dead-on....no music for the most part, just unrelenting marching, and the dread on the faces of the castle defenders.....very satisfying movie experience.
Douglas, Curtis and Borgnine run away with it all, and Janet Leigh is rather breathtaking.......
Combat scenes are coarse and brutal, not "300" level, but tough nonetheless. Stunt work is top notch.
The quality of the film, the color, the scope, the natural sets are worth purchasing the DVD for alone. The beautiful score is actually one of the most haunting melodies I have heard in my life.
The tension leading up to the assault on the English castle is dead-on....no music for the most part, just unrelenting marching, and the dread on the faces of the castle defenders.....very satisfying movie experience.
A Ticket to Valhalla
Bob-4516 August 2000
Warning: Spoilers
THE VIKINGS, the most entertaining film of 1958 was also the biggest moneymaker (the film stayed in the top twenty all time moneymakers until 1966. The only explanation I have for why this is rarely shown is this genre is no longer popular and some slightly dated elements of the film (the chorus during a key scene is downright laugHable). Exquisite music and cinematography, solid performances by Kirk Douglas, Ernest Borgnine (wonderfully over the top) and James Donald, and terrific stunt sequences made this a standout film. Director Richard Fleischer (20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA) handles the gore quite discretely. Only one scene shows any real blood flow (as the director once pointed out in an interview). This movie, highly criticized for its violence at the time, is tamer than the average XENA episode. Still, it packs a wallop. Special mention must be made of Kirk Douglas stunt, in which he gracefully tip toes from oar to oar as a long ship returns from a raid. The music is as memorable, unique and beautiful as any from the Sergio Leone westerns.
POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD
A bit of interesting trivia. DELL Comics used to publish comic books of some movies just being released. According to the DELL Comic, Eric (Tony Curtis) was supposed to be "Eric the Red," and the film was supposed to end with scenes or narration (by Orson Welles) of Eric's travels. Instead, the film ends with a wonderfully touching Viking funeral. The images still linger in my mind. Beautiful! A technical note: the film was shot in Technarama, a wide screen process which uses two frames of film to produce the image. It is the widescreen version of Vistavision, which produces such a beautiful, crisp image, it is still used for optical effects on films such as STAR WARS EPISODE ONE.
POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD
A bit of interesting trivia. DELL Comics used to publish comic books of some movies just being released. According to the DELL Comic, Eric (Tony Curtis) was supposed to be "Eric the Red," and the film was supposed to end with scenes or narration (by Orson Welles) of Eric's travels. Instead, the film ends with a wonderfully touching Viking funeral. The images still linger in my mind. Beautiful! A technical note: the film was shot in Technarama, a wide screen process which uses two frames of film to produce the image. It is the widescreen version of Vistavision, which produces such a beautiful, crisp image, it is still used for optical effects on films such as STAR WARS EPISODE ONE.
Realistic and brutal depiction of Viking life.
KEVMC24 April 2003
Two Viking half brothers (who are unaware that they are related) fight over Welsh Princess Morgana, who has been captured during a raid in England while en-route to marry the King of Northumbria.
A handsomely mounted historical epic in the old tradition. However, a great deal of effort was made to achieve accuracy in terms of clothes, villages, ships, weapons etc. The stunning Norwegian locations add to the authenticity, and are breathtakingly photographed in Technirama by master cinematographer Jack Cardiff.
Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine all give strong performances, although the characters are hard to like. The level of brutality is quite surprising for a film made in 1958, and the overall atmosphere is one of harshness.
While the film is perhaps not quite in the league of 'Spartacus' or 'El Cid' in terms of epic status, it is admirably authentic, unsentimental and vigorous.
A handsomely mounted historical epic in the old tradition. However, a great deal of effort was made to achieve accuracy in terms of clothes, villages, ships, weapons etc. The stunning Norwegian locations add to the authenticity, and are breathtakingly photographed in Technirama by master cinematographer Jack Cardiff.
Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine all give strong performances, although the characters are hard to like. The level of brutality is quite surprising for a film made in 1958, and the overall atmosphere is one of harshness.
While the film is perhaps not quite in the league of 'Spartacus' or 'El Cid' in terms of epic status, it is admirably authentic, unsentimental and vigorous.
Vicious Violent Villainous Viking Vows Vengeance In Valhalla
ShootingShark6 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Viking leader Ragnar and his rambunctious son Einar kidnap Morgana, a princess betrothed to the English king. When she is rescued by Eric, a slave, Einar pursues them to England in a jealous rage. Who will win her heart, and will Einar and Eric discover the secret bond which unites them ...
As the title suggests, this is the definitive Viking picture, chock-full of looting, pillaging, plundering, drinking, whoring, fighting and sailing with a fair bit of royal kidnapping, ritualistic sacrifices, castle-storming and mystical rune-casting thrown in as well. There are one or two lulls in the script, but there's so much to enjoy it hardly matters; the action sequences are terrific, particularly the final battle (shot at Fort-La-Latte on the coast of Brittany) and the cast throw themselves into the physical scenes, like the sequence where Douglas dances on the oars. The cast are an odd bunch and shouldn't really fit these roles at all - royals Leigh and Thring aren't British, and Norsemen Douglas, Borgnine and Curtis aren't remotely Scandinavian - but somehow they do, and the unusual switch of having the leading man be a villain is a tremendous touch. The movie also strikes a nice balance between historical depiction of Viking culture and entertainment value, complete with a natty little animated intro narrated by an unbilled Orson Welles. Beautifully photographed by Jack Cardiff and featuring an appropriately overblown score by Mario Nascimbene. Made at the very peak of Douglas' career (following Gunfight At The O.K. Corral and Paths Of Glory), this is one of the best action films of the fifties and a great wholesome bloodthirsty family Saturday matinée. From a book by Edison Marshall.
As the title suggests, this is the definitive Viking picture, chock-full of looting, pillaging, plundering, drinking, whoring, fighting and sailing with a fair bit of royal kidnapping, ritualistic sacrifices, castle-storming and mystical rune-casting thrown in as well. There are one or two lulls in the script, but there's so much to enjoy it hardly matters; the action sequences are terrific, particularly the final battle (shot at Fort-La-Latte on the coast of Brittany) and the cast throw themselves into the physical scenes, like the sequence where Douglas dances on the oars. The cast are an odd bunch and shouldn't really fit these roles at all - royals Leigh and Thring aren't British, and Norsemen Douglas, Borgnine and Curtis aren't remotely Scandinavian - but somehow they do, and the unusual switch of having the leading man be a villain is a tremendous touch. The movie also strikes a nice balance between historical depiction of Viking culture and entertainment value, complete with a natty little animated intro narrated by an unbilled Orson Welles. Beautifully photographed by Jack Cardiff and featuring an appropriately overblown score by Mario Nascimbene. Made at the very peak of Douglas' career (following Gunfight At The O.K. Corral and Paths Of Glory), this is one of the best action films of the fifties and a great wholesome bloodthirsty family Saturday matinée. From a book by Edison Marshall.
Memories from Childhood
audunka30 January 2000
When I was a boy of 11 years, I admired the reconstructed Viking ships near our cottage at the Hardanger fjord. It was the year 1957, when Kirk, Tony and Borgnine visited our country and participated in this beautiful movie... In a funny sort of way, the picture makes us Norwegians proud of that brutal past... I have seen it many times, and am struck by the surprisingly "right" atmosphere, touched by the landscape that I know so very well, and fascinated by the action. OK, so it's Hollywood, but somehow, I have the feeling they don't make movies like this any more. Pity! Well, maybe I'm getting old.
Rousing fun!
rosscinema15 January 2003
I've always thought that this was a fun film to watch. Kirk Douglas with his impressive physique is well cast but I think Ernest Borgnine steals the show playing his father. A great role for him. Maybe Tony Curtis looks a little out of place among the vikings but he's always been a good enough actor to pull it off. Great sets and just beautiful cinematography. The film was shot on real locations in Norway. If you get a chance to see this just sit back and enjoy this fun adventure film.
A Big Exciting Comic Book Adventure
Wayner5019 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"The Vikings" is a very good and entertaining movie, even if it is a big comic book brought to the big screen. Featuring two Jews and an Italian playing Scandinavians is just the start of the fun. Great action sequences, exciting battles, insights into Viking customs, Frank Thring as a cold blooded villain, a wolf pit, Exact scale long ships and much more make this a classic. Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis play half-brothers Einar and Eric, sons of Ragnar, portrayed with his usual flair by Ernest Borgnine. Ragnar kills an English king and rapes his queen, resulting in the birth of the rightful heir to a petty kingdom. Aella usurps the throne and Eric is sent away for his own good. Eric is captured by Vikings and made a slave, but he wears a sword pommel stone for identification, which is recognized years later by a renegade English noble, played by James Donald, who's been collaborating with the Vikings to protect his lands. Aella forms an alliance to be sealed with his marriage to a lovely young princess, Janet Leigh. The Vikings intercept her ship, take her prisoner and plan to use her against Aella. Einar falls for her and intends to deflower her, regardless of the original plan. Eric follows him to the boat Morganna the princess is held on, and knocks out the drunken Einar. Eric, another slave, Morganna and her Lady-in-Waiting set sail for England using a magnetized fish for a compass to navigate through the fog. The Vikings follow incautiously, and Ragnar's ship hits rocks and sinks. Eric fishes "Dad" out of the sea and takes him to Aella. Aella decides to feed Ragnar to his starving wolves, but Eric gives Ragnar a sword so Ragnar can die like a Viking. Ragnar jumps into the pit, where he's devoured, but Aella isn't happy and slices off Eric's left hand. Eric returns to the fjord and tells the Norsemen what happened and they launch their ships for an attack on Aella's castle. A wild, improbable battle that has to be seen occurs, the Vikings take the castle, Einar flies through a window to find Morganna. They climb onto the battlements where Einar calls Eric over for the final showdown. The duel ends and the film ends with a Viking funeral.
Rugged pillaging in the offering.
hitchcockthelegend24 April 2009
Unknown to both men, warrior Einar and disgraced slave Eric, are in fact half-brothers. As the kingdom of Northumbria becomes ripe for the taking, both men, with a fancy for Princess Morganna, are heading for the revelation right in amongst their bitter rivalry.
Kirk Douglas (Einar) and Tony Curtis (Eric) would both re-team for Spartacus two years after this sword and sandal swasher had hit the screens in 1958. That Spartacus is considerably a better film all told is a given, but The Vikings stands up well as an entertaining precursor to that Thracien slave classic. Based on the novel of the same name written by Edison Marshall, The Vikings makes up for what it lacks in authenticity with sheer gusto enhanced sword swishing adventure. These Vikings may not totally convince as mead swigging, women chasing, pillagers of England, yet running along side Mario Nascimbene's terrific score and Jack Cardiff's excellent photography (the Norway location scenes are breath taking), it doesn't take much for the discerning genre fan to get swept away in it all.
Douglas and Curtis give it a good blast, while Janet Leigh as Morganna perks her breasts out and actually becomes believable as a lady lusted after by two rough and ready ruffians. However, The Vikings doesn't sit up in the top echelons of swords and sandals pictures, something which irked both Douglas and director Richard Fleischer and caused them to hold each other responsible during the following years. With bad weather, injuries to actors and even a strike by Norwegian oarsmen to contend with, it was a far from easy shoot. Casting those issues aside, one tends to think that Douglas' ire was warranted, for Fleischer was clearly the wrong choice for the piece. He chooses to go for a more genial, almost comic book approach, which sadly loses what earthy grit and grime feel the film needed once Orson Welles' splendid opening narration had set things up for a bodice ripping sword slashing epic.
The director isn't found lacking with his action sequences though. With the likes of Fantastic Voyage, 20000 Leagues Under The Sea & 10 Rillington Place on his CV, he clearly was a director of worth. Here he impresses with his construction of the kinetic sword fights, while the attack on Nothumberland Castle (really it's Brittany, France, with Cardiff's camera working the oracle) is brilliantly staged and pumps the pulse rate considerably. Pic is often violent and features some genre moments never to be forgotten (Einar losing his eye, Ragnar and the Wolf Pit, The Running the Oars tradition), while it's also pleasing to find a director overseeing some attentive research that opens up the craftsman side of the Viking hoards.
So all in all it's a fine and entertaining genre picture that's arguably more fun than dramatic gold, a film that was a fave of many who got lost in its charms all those years ago. The flaws and minor frustrations are obvious when one revisits with older and wiser eyes, but regardless one should crack open the mead and enjoy the sheer grizzled guts of it all. 8/10
Kirk Douglas (Einar) and Tony Curtis (Eric) would both re-team for Spartacus two years after this sword and sandal swasher had hit the screens in 1958. That Spartacus is considerably a better film all told is a given, but The Vikings stands up well as an entertaining precursor to that Thracien slave classic. Based on the novel of the same name written by Edison Marshall, The Vikings makes up for what it lacks in authenticity with sheer gusto enhanced sword swishing adventure. These Vikings may not totally convince as mead swigging, women chasing, pillagers of England, yet running along side Mario Nascimbene's terrific score and Jack Cardiff's excellent photography (the Norway location scenes are breath taking), it doesn't take much for the discerning genre fan to get swept away in it all.
Douglas and Curtis give it a good blast, while Janet Leigh as Morganna perks her breasts out and actually becomes believable as a lady lusted after by two rough and ready ruffians. However, The Vikings doesn't sit up in the top echelons of swords and sandals pictures, something which irked both Douglas and director Richard Fleischer and caused them to hold each other responsible during the following years. With bad weather, injuries to actors and even a strike by Norwegian oarsmen to contend with, it was a far from easy shoot. Casting those issues aside, one tends to think that Douglas' ire was warranted, for Fleischer was clearly the wrong choice for the piece. He chooses to go for a more genial, almost comic book approach, which sadly loses what earthy grit and grime feel the film needed once Orson Welles' splendid opening narration had set things up for a bodice ripping sword slashing epic.
The director isn't found lacking with his action sequences though. With the likes of Fantastic Voyage, 20000 Leagues Under The Sea & 10 Rillington Place on his CV, he clearly was a director of worth. Here he impresses with his construction of the kinetic sword fights, while the attack on Nothumberland Castle (really it's Brittany, France, with Cardiff's camera working the oracle) is brilliantly staged and pumps the pulse rate considerably. Pic is often violent and features some genre moments never to be forgotten (Einar losing his eye, Ragnar and the Wolf Pit, The Running the Oars tradition), while it's also pleasing to find a director overseeing some attentive research that opens up the craftsman side of the Viking hoards.
So all in all it's a fine and entertaining genre picture that's arguably more fun than dramatic gold, a film that was a fave of many who got lost in its charms all those years ago. The flaws and minor frustrations are obvious when one revisits with older and wiser eyes, but regardless one should crack open the mead and enjoy the sheer grizzled guts of it all. 8/10
historical action and adventure movie
myriamlenys16 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Now this is pretty much the epitome of the big, expensive Technicolor "matinee" movie meant to transport the viewer to another, more lively and dangerous era. It's a manly movie full of fighting, pillaging, wassailing, wenching and carousing, to the point where both "adrenaline" and "testosterone" should have been mentioned somewhere in the credits. (People wishing to get into the spirit of things should watch it while demolishing a piece of smoked boar and swigging large amounts of ale.)
As an evocation of the Viking way of life this may be one-sided, but there are still interesting things to see. For instance, the movie contains a recreation of a highly dangerous but spectacular stunt where young men would run/jump from one ship's oar to another. The Viking ships themselves are impressive : efficient, elegant and lethal, like poisonous flowers. For quite a lot of Medieval Europeans the sight of one of these things must have been among the very last things they saw...
However, "The Vikings" falls somewhat short in the characterization department. There's not a lot of psychological depth or nuance. For instance, one of the characters is an English queen who gets raped during a Viking raid and falls pregnant as a result. She grows to love her unborn child and later, when she gives birth to a baby, she cherishes that baby. It is noticeable that the queen looks upon her newborn without the tangled mix of emotions one would expect in real life : maternal love, possibly, but also fear, shame, regret, hatred, resentment.
The music is excellent - just the thing one needs for a violent and colourful epic - but beware, it tends to creep into the brain...
As an evocation of the Viking way of life this may be one-sided, but there are still interesting things to see. For instance, the movie contains a recreation of a highly dangerous but spectacular stunt where young men would run/jump from one ship's oar to another. The Viking ships themselves are impressive : efficient, elegant and lethal, like poisonous flowers. For quite a lot of Medieval Europeans the sight of one of these things must have been among the very last things they saw...
However, "The Vikings" falls somewhat short in the characterization department. There's not a lot of psychological depth or nuance. For instance, one of the characters is an English queen who gets raped during a Viking raid and falls pregnant as a result. She grows to love her unborn child and later, when she gives birth to a baby, she cherishes that baby. It is noticeable that the queen looks upon her newborn without the tangled mix of emotions one would expect in real life : maternal love, possibly, but also fear, shame, regret, hatred, resentment.
The music is excellent - just the thing one needs for a violent and colourful epic - but beware, it tends to creep into the brain...
"Love and hate are two horns on the same goat."
utgard149 June 2014
Gotta say I wasn't overly impressed with this one. I mean, it looks great. It's got some cheesy appeal. But I really didn't like any of the characters in the story. I especially didn't like the so-called hero of the story, played by Tony Curtis. Also, I'm admittedly no expert on royalty but if a king is killed and his wife is raped and gives birth to a child from that, how is that child entitled to be next in the line of succession? As far as I'm aware, he's not, especially if the king still has blood relations living. Anyway, it's not a big deal I suppose but when you're not that into a movie you tend to mull over little details like that. It's a corny movie with some nice cinematography by Jack Cardiff. There are some laughs to be had at its expense. But if you're looking for a serious epic adventure story about Vikings with characters you can care about, I don't think you're going to find it here.
The Vikings-an under-appreciated masterpiece
treagan-220 April 2000
Call me a fool, but I feel strongly that the Richard Fleischer/ Kirk Douglas 1958 film THE VIKINGS is a waiting-to-be-rediscovered masterpiece.
Of the costume drama spectaculars of the 1950s-1960s, it has the most coherent script and theme. It knowledgeably explores the themes Europe was dealing with during its Dark Ages. Acting performances are first rate (Frank Thring's villainy drips pure acid), and the photography is breathtaking. Mario Nacimbene's score has a majesty that matches any, including its little love theme. See it (if possible) on the big screen/wide screen format.
Of the costume drama spectaculars of the 1950s-1960s, it has the most coherent script and theme. It knowledgeably explores the themes Europe was dealing with during its Dark Ages. Acting performances are first rate (Frank Thring's villainy drips pure acid), and the photography is breathtaking. Mario Nacimbene's score has a majesty that matches any, including its little love theme. See it (if possible) on the big screen/wide screen format.
Mighty brutality
TheLittleSongbird12 September 2018
My main reason for seeing 'The Vikings' was the cast. It is hard to go wrong with Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, Janet Leigh and Ernest Borgnine. Richard Fleischer was a very capable director with the right material. Really liked the concept of the story, Vikings fascinate me, it looked and sounded like it would be great and had heard a lot of good things about it.
Seeing 'The Vikings', can totally see why it is remembered fondly and the good things heard about it, as the elements lauded by many are indeed excellent and deserve the praise. Can also see where those who didn't like 'The Vikings' are coming from, can understand the script and characterisation complaints, as they are the film's weak points and not what people remember the most watching the film, and the surprisingly not-for-the-faint-hearted nature of some scenes won't appeal to all. Found myself liking it, despite having a few problems.
As said, 'The Vikings' is at its weakest in the script and character writing. The script doesn't always flow well and occasionally is a bit wordy and unintentionally humorous. While some roles are meaty, especially those of Douglas and Borgnine, some of the secondary characters are underwritten as is the romantic elements despite Curtis' and Leigh's (married in real-life) charming chemistry.
There are a few story flaws. It is exciting and fun with great atmosphere and action, but parts are a little complicated and others rely too much on coincidence. Occasionally the score is somewhat repetitive.
However, 'The Vikings' has many great things. Especially good are the production values and cast. The cinematography is superb and the art direction and period detail stunning and remarkably evocative. Douglas' charisma dominates in a role perfect for him, while Borgnine has a character he was born to play. While seeing him as a Viking is a bit of a stretch, Curtis nonetheless excels in a role that allows him to stretch his acting chops and show his adeptness in drama and darker roles. Leigh is charming and alluring although her character is bland, while Frank Thring is loathsomely acidic. The rest of the cast do well if not as memorably as those mentioned.
Music is not without its repetitive spots, but it is mostly grand and haunting and Fleischer directs in a way that allows the atmosphere speak for itself, there is intensity and intimacy in the character interaction, the action-oriented scenes rouse and he has a keen eye for detail. The story is mostly compelling and fun, making the most of a generally coherent theme, and there are thought-provoking parts in the script. Another big strength is the action, both grand and brutal and going full throttle with the intensity and not-holding-back. The film is gory and uncompromisingly so, which is a surprise and quite ballsy for back then. Especially in the stirring climax, the swordfight being one of the greatest.
Overall, good if not quite great. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Seeing 'The Vikings', can totally see why it is remembered fondly and the good things heard about it, as the elements lauded by many are indeed excellent and deserve the praise. Can also see where those who didn't like 'The Vikings' are coming from, can understand the script and characterisation complaints, as they are the film's weak points and not what people remember the most watching the film, and the surprisingly not-for-the-faint-hearted nature of some scenes won't appeal to all. Found myself liking it, despite having a few problems.
As said, 'The Vikings' is at its weakest in the script and character writing. The script doesn't always flow well and occasionally is a bit wordy and unintentionally humorous. While some roles are meaty, especially those of Douglas and Borgnine, some of the secondary characters are underwritten as is the romantic elements despite Curtis' and Leigh's (married in real-life) charming chemistry.
There are a few story flaws. It is exciting and fun with great atmosphere and action, but parts are a little complicated and others rely too much on coincidence. Occasionally the score is somewhat repetitive.
However, 'The Vikings' has many great things. Especially good are the production values and cast. The cinematography is superb and the art direction and period detail stunning and remarkably evocative. Douglas' charisma dominates in a role perfect for him, while Borgnine has a character he was born to play. While seeing him as a Viking is a bit of a stretch, Curtis nonetheless excels in a role that allows him to stretch his acting chops and show his adeptness in drama and darker roles. Leigh is charming and alluring although her character is bland, while Frank Thring is loathsomely acidic. The rest of the cast do well if not as memorably as those mentioned.
Music is not without its repetitive spots, but it is mostly grand and haunting and Fleischer directs in a way that allows the atmosphere speak for itself, there is intensity and intimacy in the character interaction, the action-oriented scenes rouse and he has a keen eye for detail. The story is mostly compelling and fun, making the most of a generally coherent theme, and there are thought-provoking parts in the script. Another big strength is the action, both grand and brutal and going full throttle with the intensity and not-holding-back. The film is gory and uncompromisingly so, which is a surprise and quite ballsy for back then. Especially in the stirring climax, the swordfight being one of the greatest.
Overall, good if not quite great. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Matinée Hokum.
screenman26 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I really couldn't see the point of making 'authentic' anything for such a blatantly over-the-top romp-around-the-raiders movie as this. Who but academics and nit-picking pedants would even notice if the longships were replicas? I know I didn't. They were the right shape, and that was enough for me. Besides; who needs accurately detailed vessels when they're sailed by an English-speaking crew with American accents? I mean; come on!
In any case, unlike most other period pieces, there seemed to be a marked lack of 'gravitas' to anchor the story to any serious context. Script was pretty banal, and drama so florid at times as to be almost camp. These were vikings lifted from 'The Eagle' or 'Boys Own' comics. Everything was as straightforward as it could be. They squabbled for power, they squabbled over women. They formed lifelong friendships, and similar enmities. And they partied fit to disturb the neighbours. But who's going to knock on a Viking's door and ask them to keep the noise down? The politicking would have needed to be far more subtle and complex, and the script wiser and witty to raise this effort into the 'serious' movie league.
Kirk Douglas's manic excess was just made for the part, as indeed was Earnest Borgnine's gargoyle face. But fay young Tony Curtis looked as if he was only along for the cruise and the cheque, and even then seemed to have his doubts. Some people don't fit a part no matter how hard they try, and Curtis just does not seem comfortable with this sort of work. Two years later, he looked equally out of depth as Spartacus's sidekick.
What action there is presents a gung-ho fest, particularly the raid upon a castle. It's a chance for every man to blaze a testosterone trail. Erol Flynn, but with a hairier chest and ruder manners. The two leading protagonists finally go head-to-head and boyish looks triumph over grisly resentment.
A lot of energy went into making this movie and it has much to recommend. But for the most part it's hardly serious enough for adults and would better suit kids of about 10-15 years old.
It sure ain't no 'Spartacus' or 'El Cid'.
In any case, unlike most other period pieces, there seemed to be a marked lack of 'gravitas' to anchor the story to any serious context. Script was pretty banal, and drama so florid at times as to be almost camp. These were vikings lifted from 'The Eagle' or 'Boys Own' comics. Everything was as straightforward as it could be. They squabbled for power, they squabbled over women. They formed lifelong friendships, and similar enmities. And they partied fit to disturb the neighbours. But who's going to knock on a Viking's door and ask them to keep the noise down? The politicking would have needed to be far more subtle and complex, and the script wiser and witty to raise this effort into the 'serious' movie league.
Kirk Douglas's manic excess was just made for the part, as indeed was Earnest Borgnine's gargoyle face. But fay young Tony Curtis looked as if he was only along for the cruise and the cheque, and even then seemed to have his doubts. Some people don't fit a part no matter how hard they try, and Curtis just does not seem comfortable with this sort of work. Two years later, he looked equally out of depth as Spartacus's sidekick.
What action there is presents a gung-ho fest, particularly the raid upon a castle. It's a chance for every man to blaze a testosterone trail. Erol Flynn, but with a hairier chest and ruder manners. The two leading protagonists finally go head-to-head and boyish looks triumph over grisly resentment.
A lot of energy went into making this movie and it has much to recommend. But for the most part it's hardly serious enough for adults and would better suit kids of about 10-15 years old.
It sure ain't no 'Spartacus' or 'El Cid'.
Has A Lot In Common With A Later And Better Movie
Theo Robertson19 June 2005
After recently seen SPARTACUS I was reminded of THE VIKINGS a movie I re watched several weeks earlier and they're both movies that have a lot in common . In fact I saw them both for the first time on television within days of each other circa 1974 . There's other more obvious and impersonal connections like they both star Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis where a sword fight takes place between their characters , everyone seems to speak in either British or American accents no matter where their character is supposed to be from and there's a fight between the good guys and bad guys at the end
Having said all that SPARTACUS is by far the better movie because it's got a better story , production values and cast . Not only that but Kubrick's movie has better imagery . There's two scenes that stuck out from THE VIKINGS in my childhood , one of them featuring a hawk and someone's face and a pack of dogs and someone's live body but apart from that there's little I could recall . It should also be pointed out that the differing accents in SPARTACUS is hardly if at all noticeable whereas here it's somewhat intrusive . But to be fair THE VIKINGS does feature an impressive battle scene at the end where the Norsemen attack the English castle and perhaps if I hadn't seen SPARTACUS recently I would have enjoyed THE VIKINGS much more
Having said all that SPARTACUS is by far the better movie because it's got a better story , production values and cast . Not only that but Kubrick's movie has better imagery . There's two scenes that stuck out from THE VIKINGS in my childhood , one of them featuring a hawk and someone's face and a pack of dogs and someone's live body but apart from that there's little I could recall . It should also be pointed out that the differing accents in SPARTACUS is hardly if at all noticeable whereas here it's somewhat intrusive . But to be fair THE VIKINGS does feature an impressive battle scene at the end where the Norsemen attack the English castle and perhaps if I hadn't seen SPARTACUS recently I would have enjoyed THE VIKINGS much more
A Massive Film, still
lamps11 June 2004
I saw this film at the pictures a long, long time ago.
I was a kid and was as wide eyeyed as any kid seeing a spectacular of comparable impact as Star Wars or Harry Paintpot or any derivative.
How on earth could any little lad be less than profoundly moved by the images of of eyes being ripped out by a hawk, people being eaten by crabs, wild wolves eating people in a pit, hands being chopped of.
This was a bloody massive movie and still is.
I just bought it on VCR and feel like a kid again.
I cannot imagine any modern kid being as equally moved but I'm sure they will come across it one day the same way I see impressive movies on TV made way before I was around.
Trouble is, for some reason this film never seems to get shown on either satellite or terrestrial TV. Why is that?
Setting asside my middle aged predudice, I challenge anyone to put forward a movie of a more spectactularly impressive introductary sequence and haunting theme music.
I was a kid and was as wide eyeyed as any kid seeing a spectacular of comparable impact as Star Wars or Harry Paintpot or any derivative.
How on earth could any little lad be less than profoundly moved by the images of of eyes being ripped out by a hawk, people being eaten by crabs, wild wolves eating people in a pit, hands being chopped of.
This was a bloody massive movie and still is.
I just bought it on VCR and feel like a kid again.
I cannot imagine any modern kid being as equally moved but I'm sure they will come across it one day the same way I see impressive movies on TV made way before I was around.
Trouble is, for some reason this film never seems to get shown on either satellite or terrestrial TV. Why is that?
Setting asside my middle aged predudice, I challenge anyone to put forward a movie of a more spectactularly impressive introductary sequence and haunting theme music.
We're Vikings, burning, pillaging, and raping is what we do.
bkoganbing1 June 2006
I doubt today we could make a film today with the opening sequence a rape of Queen Enid who is Maxine Audley by Ragnar the Viking Chief played by Ernest Borgnine. And Borgnine's supposed to be one of the good guys.
She's had no kids by her late husband the king and her late husband's cousin, Frank Thring, takes the throne. However Borgnine left something behind and the Queen has her child. She gives the child to some monks, but then the child is captured by that same pack of Vikings.
Some twenty years go by and Borgnine and his son Kirk Douglas are living high off the hog from their raids. They hit on another plan, capture Princess Janet Leigh who is betrothed to Frank Thring and get a hefty ransom for her. But Janet gets the hormones going of both Douglas and slave Tony Curtis.
Kirk Douglas produced The Vikings and he cast himself as the lusty Einar. He's always been an actor not afraid to be seen as less than noble, in fact some times as down right villainous. But here he's a chip off the old Borgnine block and while as a kid I loved this film, as an adult I've got some real problems viewing Borgnine and Douglas as heroes.
In fact the other problem is with Frank Thring. As King Aella, he IS the legitimate heir to the throne. He's supposed to be the bad guy, but the only bad acts we see him doing are to his enemy Borgnine who's done a lot of things he'd have to answer for and to Tony Curtis for disobeying an order. It's a major fault with the story.
The battle sequences and the general atmosphere of pre-Norman England and Viking Norway are well done by Director Richard Fleischer. I still like The Vikings on some level, but not as much as when I was a kid.
And The Vikings as a film should stay with the kid trade.
She's had no kids by her late husband the king and her late husband's cousin, Frank Thring, takes the throne. However Borgnine left something behind and the Queen has her child. She gives the child to some monks, but then the child is captured by that same pack of Vikings.
Some twenty years go by and Borgnine and his son Kirk Douglas are living high off the hog from their raids. They hit on another plan, capture Princess Janet Leigh who is betrothed to Frank Thring and get a hefty ransom for her. But Janet gets the hormones going of both Douglas and slave Tony Curtis.
Kirk Douglas produced The Vikings and he cast himself as the lusty Einar. He's always been an actor not afraid to be seen as less than noble, in fact some times as down right villainous. But here he's a chip off the old Borgnine block and while as a kid I loved this film, as an adult I've got some real problems viewing Borgnine and Douglas as heroes.
In fact the other problem is with Frank Thring. As King Aella, he IS the legitimate heir to the throne. He's supposed to be the bad guy, but the only bad acts we see him doing are to his enemy Borgnine who's done a lot of things he'd have to answer for and to Tony Curtis for disobeying an order. It's a major fault with the story.
The battle sequences and the general atmosphere of pre-Norman England and Viking Norway are well done by Director Richard Fleischer. I still like The Vikings on some level, but not as much as when I was a kid.
And The Vikings as a film should stay with the kid trade.
An excellent film with marvelous scenery and terrific acting.
wade155515 March 2005
Ernie Borgnine, playing the viking father of Kirk Douglas but actually very close in age, does a marvelous job in this film. I have seen this film many times and each time I am more impressed than the last time. Also, the beautiful scenery sets a background for the sea scenes and the home location of the Vikings. The Fjords, hills and waterfalls are so very beautiful. I especially enjoyed the final battle scene where Einar and Eric are fighting on the top of a castle tower where it looked as if any slight false move would have both of them and the camera operator tumbling down to an awful demise. I highly recommend this film to those who enjoy watching Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, Ernest Borgnine and the others.
Hollywood hokum
Leofwine_draca19 October 2013
Hollywood has never managed to make a decent Viking film and THE VIKINGS doesn't alter that trend. Sure, THE VIKINGS is an entertaining enough movie in the finest old-fashioned sense, full of crowd-pleasing moments of pleasure like they used to do in the 1950s, but it's hardly authentic and at times descends into the kind of B-movie fantasy favoured by such fare as SIEGE OF THE SAXONS.
I could go through and nitpick this movie for an age, but let's suffice to say that the Anglo-Saxons didn't build in stone, so watching the Vikings attacking a Norman-era castle build a couple of hundred years later is complete nonsense. Not to mention the silly intricacies of the plot, which presents the Vikings themselves as ambivalent at worse, if not the outright 'good guys', despite their reputation as bloodthirsty marauders.
Inevitably, the fun aspects of the film are largely down to the actors. Headlining the cast is Kirk Douglas in one of his more memorable turns, and indeed Douglas is the reason to keep watching. He's the life and soul of the party, tackling each of his scenes with gusto and never flagging for a second. Tony Curtis is more sensitive and thoughtful, and nearly as effective, and Ernest Borgnine a treat.
Despite a fairly lengthy running time, THE VIKINGS never really flags although there's a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in the plot. The battle sequences are well-staged and fun, although filled with plenty of silliness, particularly at the climax which asks the viewer to suspend their disbelief over and over again (and then some!). THE VIKINGS is pure Hollywood hokum, and as fun as it sounds, but a classic it isn't.
I could go through and nitpick this movie for an age, but let's suffice to say that the Anglo-Saxons didn't build in stone, so watching the Vikings attacking a Norman-era castle build a couple of hundred years later is complete nonsense. Not to mention the silly intricacies of the plot, which presents the Vikings themselves as ambivalent at worse, if not the outright 'good guys', despite their reputation as bloodthirsty marauders.
Inevitably, the fun aspects of the film are largely down to the actors. Headlining the cast is Kirk Douglas in one of his more memorable turns, and indeed Douglas is the reason to keep watching. He's the life and soul of the party, tackling each of his scenes with gusto and never flagging for a second. Tony Curtis is more sensitive and thoughtful, and nearly as effective, and Ernest Borgnine a treat.
Despite a fairly lengthy running time, THE VIKINGS never really flags although there's a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in the plot. The battle sequences are well-staged and fun, although filled with plenty of silliness, particularly at the climax which asks the viewer to suspend their disbelief over and over again (and then some!). THE VIKINGS is pure Hollywood hokum, and as fun as it sounds, but a classic it isn't.
so much fun you'll overlook its minor flaws
planktonrules6 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is NOT high art. Nope. It's a "guy picture" that will doubtless be looked down upon by SERIOUS cinephiles. However, despite all the silly stuff thrown into it (and this movie has Everything), you find yourself really enjoying the movie. Sometimes mindless adventure is what everyone needs.
The music, though repetitive, is very haunting and will probably become stuck in your brain. The cinematography is great, too, as the director and producer chose to film on location in Norway.
Now the plot--it has so much it's almost overwhelming: 1. An opening scene of murder, pillaging and,...yes, rape (though nothing is shown here). 2. Drinking and more drinking and wenching with a giant Viking toga party. 3. A trained hawk being thrown into Kirk Douglas' face. Subsequently, his face appears torn apart and is blinded in one eye. 4. For this crime, Tony Curtis is thrown into a pool where he is to be drowned and eaten by crabs. 5. A traitor helps the Vikings plan an abduction of a sexy princess (Janet Leigh). Once she is stolen, Douglas decides to keep her for himself. 6. Tony Curtis (not eaten by crabs, miraculously) steals Leigh and takes here back to Britain. In chasing them, Ernest Borgnine (the Chief) falls into the water and is taken prisoner by fleeing Curtis. 7. Curtis gives Borgnine to the evil English king. The king will throw Borgnine into a pit of wolves. Borgnine objects, as a REAL VIKING MUST die with a sword in hand. The king declines to assist him, but Curtis takes pity and gives him a sword. Borgnine then willingly jumps into the pit and is mauled. 8. For helping Borgnine, Curtis has his hand cut off by the jerk of a king. 9. Somehow Curtis makes it back to Norway to get the Vikings' help to exact revenge (and help him get into Leigh's skirt). 10. The Vikings storm the castle and all the English are killed. 11. This sets the stage for a final showdown between Douglas and Curtis. They have a rousing fight on the castle parapets. 12. Curtis' sword breaks but Douglas pauses before killing him--as he has learned that Curtis is actually his HALF-BROTHER!!! 13. Due to the hesitation, Curtis plunges the broken sword into Douglas' gut. Before dying, he lets out a cool yell. 14. Douglas' body is placed on a Viking ship and set ablaze (I'd like to go that way). Somehow, in the confusion, the other Vikings forget to murder Curtis for all his treachery. Fade out.
Wow--that's enough stuff for 2 movies! Give it a try and be ready for a fast-paced roller-coaster adventure.
FYI--Despite all the salacious qualities of the film, it actually is exceptional from a historical point of view. No where in the film do Vikings wear horned helmets and their life is typical of many Vikings in the Middle Ages. Heck, it's decent enough that's I've used clips of it in my history classes.
The music, though repetitive, is very haunting and will probably become stuck in your brain. The cinematography is great, too, as the director and producer chose to film on location in Norway.
Now the plot--it has so much it's almost overwhelming: 1. An opening scene of murder, pillaging and,...yes, rape (though nothing is shown here). 2. Drinking and more drinking and wenching with a giant Viking toga party. 3. A trained hawk being thrown into Kirk Douglas' face. Subsequently, his face appears torn apart and is blinded in one eye. 4. For this crime, Tony Curtis is thrown into a pool where he is to be drowned and eaten by crabs. 5. A traitor helps the Vikings plan an abduction of a sexy princess (Janet Leigh). Once she is stolen, Douglas decides to keep her for himself. 6. Tony Curtis (not eaten by crabs, miraculously) steals Leigh and takes here back to Britain. In chasing them, Ernest Borgnine (the Chief) falls into the water and is taken prisoner by fleeing Curtis. 7. Curtis gives Borgnine to the evil English king. The king will throw Borgnine into a pit of wolves. Borgnine objects, as a REAL VIKING MUST die with a sword in hand. The king declines to assist him, but Curtis takes pity and gives him a sword. Borgnine then willingly jumps into the pit and is mauled. 8. For helping Borgnine, Curtis has his hand cut off by the jerk of a king. 9. Somehow Curtis makes it back to Norway to get the Vikings' help to exact revenge (and help him get into Leigh's skirt). 10. The Vikings storm the castle and all the English are killed. 11. This sets the stage for a final showdown between Douglas and Curtis. They have a rousing fight on the castle parapets. 12. Curtis' sword breaks but Douglas pauses before killing him--as he has learned that Curtis is actually his HALF-BROTHER!!! 13. Due to the hesitation, Curtis plunges the broken sword into Douglas' gut. Before dying, he lets out a cool yell. 14. Douglas' body is placed on a Viking ship and set ablaze (I'd like to go that way). Somehow, in the confusion, the other Vikings forget to murder Curtis for all his treachery. Fade out.
Wow--that's enough stuff for 2 movies! Give it a try and be ready for a fast-paced roller-coaster adventure.
FYI--Despite all the salacious qualities of the film, it actually is exceptional from a historical point of view. No where in the film do Vikings wear horned helmets and their life is typical of many Vikings in the Middle Ages. Heck, it's decent enough that's I've used clips of it in my history classes.
Violent Vikings and their fight against Britain
esteban174715 August 2002
In the genre of adventures, this is an excellent film, which has acting of good actors, such as Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis together with the usual supporting work of Ernest Borgnine and then beautiful Janet Leigh. What I noticed is that Richard Fleischer made this film in the same Viking environment, i.e. in the Fjords of Norway and before starting the film, he studied main aspects of the Viking life in the museum of Vikings in Oslo and also in other museums in England. Based on these previous studies, Viking ships, clothes used by actors/actresses and others were made accordingly. The music of the film was also very nice as well as film colors.
Historical accuracy? Forgeddabaudit.
thenobleageofsteam13 January 2006
In this vaguely pre-medieval semi-epic, a Viking named Einar fights with his half-brother Eric for a frankly uninteresting dame called Janet Leigh - damn! - I mean Morgana. Eventually Eric, who for reasons not well explained happens to be a slave, escapes with Morgana, in what I can only assume was meant to be a Viking rowboat, to England, where for no good reason the wicked king executes Einar's father Ragnar. Eventually Einar catches up and there is a thrilling siege. The king gets his, and everyone not dead is happy.
The failing of this film isn't the plot, which ranges from so-so to fairly interesting - the problem is the utter lack of attention to historical detail. The Vikings are depicted as savage barbarians, clothed in furs. Which in itself isn't a bad thing, except that this movie is called "The Vikings" rather than "Conan the Barbarian." As the film wears on, it becomes obvious the filmmakers haven't the vaguest knowledge of the actual period, and haven't done research whatsoever. Even in the 50s, it was known to archaeologists that Vikings wore more than furs - how do you think they survived in the frigid North? And drinking-horns are known to have been only used ceremonially - most vessels were made of the greenish "forest glass" from Germany. And they've dreamed up the most bizarre things - like the horn they play when the Viking ship approaches. Where the *$&% would you find a horn like that? Did they hollow out dinosaur bones? And the jumping along oars - where did they get that? And why would the English king have a castle in the pre-Norman conquest era? And why do they have the Bayeux tapestry? That's not Viking art, that's Norman. And where on earth did they get the idea for Einar's helmet? What's up with the bizarre chin-piece? And why for the love of god does Einar during the film's climax wear a Crusader hauberk? And which king exactly did they feed to the wolves? What's their documentation? And lastly, where in the bloody blue blazes did they come up with the chastity test for the wife? Viking society was noted as being quite liberal towards women at the time - women could demand a divorce, or if their husband came home drunk they could lock him out of his home.
So, in conclusion, watch this only for an enjoyably silly film - not for any semblance of historical accuracy. Don't listen to KEVMC - he doesn't know what he's talking about. This film is as historically accurate as watching the linoleum curl is exciting. 4 stars out of 10.
The failing of this film isn't the plot, which ranges from so-so to fairly interesting - the problem is the utter lack of attention to historical detail. The Vikings are depicted as savage barbarians, clothed in furs. Which in itself isn't a bad thing, except that this movie is called "The Vikings" rather than "Conan the Barbarian." As the film wears on, it becomes obvious the filmmakers haven't the vaguest knowledge of the actual period, and haven't done research whatsoever. Even in the 50s, it was known to archaeologists that Vikings wore more than furs - how do you think they survived in the frigid North? And drinking-horns are known to have been only used ceremonially - most vessels were made of the greenish "forest glass" from Germany. And they've dreamed up the most bizarre things - like the horn they play when the Viking ship approaches. Where the *$&% would you find a horn like that? Did they hollow out dinosaur bones? And the jumping along oars - where did they get that? And why would the English king have a castle in the pre-Norman conquest era? And why do they have the Bayeux tapestry? That's not Viking art, that's Norman. And where on earth did they get the idea for Einar's helmet? What's up with the bizarre chin-piece? And why for the love of god does Einar during the film's climax wear a Crusader hauberk? And which king exactly did they feed to the wolves? What's their documentation? And lastly, where in the bloody blue blazes did they come up with the chastity test for the wife? Viking society was noted as being quite liberal towards women at the time - women could demand a divorce, or if their husband came home drunk they could lock him out of his home.
So, in conclusion, watch this only for an enjoyably silly film - not for any semblance of historical accuracy. Don't listen to KEVMC - he doesn't know what he's talking about. This film is as historically accurate as watching the linoleum curl is exciting. 4 stars out of 10.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
