L'Homme du Nord

I hadn't realized this film was directed by Robert Eggers, else I would've been better prepared. It's not what I expected, and it was hard to really get into.

That said, I can appreciate the film for its art. I would say it's a gem for cinephiles. It's like viewing the imagination of a medieval Viking peasant as he listens to a bard tell the tale of Amleth.

Great for what it is, but does not evoke emotional connection to the characters, and therefore feels less satisfying.

Well, the movie's cover/poster definitely was interesting enough to catch my attention. And I figured that with the movie's 7.8 rating on IMDb, in this writing moment, then I would be in for something grand here.

And I will admit that I was excited to see what writers Sjón and Robert Eggers had in store for me here with the 2 hours and 17 minutes that the movie ran for.

However, I must say that while "The Northman" was watchable, it was ultimately just another run-of-the-mill Viking-inspired movie, for better or worse. Sure, it was a watchable movie and entertaining enough for what it was. But don't get your hopes up for this one. If you've seen other Viking movies, or TV series for that matter, then you already know what you are in for here. Yeah, director Robert Eggers didn't deviate much from the how-to-make-a-Viking-saga-movie blueprint.

Visually then "The Northman" was interesting, as it definitely felt like an era-appropriate movie. I did like the props, costumes, sets, scenery, etc., because it definitely looked and felt like what is usually associated with the Vikings era.

"The Northman" has a good cast ensemble, with the likes of Alexander Skarsgård, Nicole Kidman, Claes Bang, Ethan Hawke and even Willem Dafoe. All great talents, sure, but some of them do raise a wondering sensation as to why they were cast for a Viking movie. But on the other hand, I will say that casting Icelandic singer Björk for the movie, despite being a minor role and appearance, was just phenomenal.

Something that didn't sit well with me in "The Northman", was the fact that it was English language based. Sure, I understand that from a wider appeal to the audience approach. But it just feels wrong having Vikings speak English, it just takes away from the atmosphere and the believability. And also the supernatural aspects were somewhat baffling to me. Sure, I understand that the Valkyries are a part of Norse lore, but having a pale woman with retainers on her teeth screaming and sitting on a flying horse just doesn't really work.

I was expecting more than just your average generic Viking movie from director Robert Eggers, and I was somewhat disappointed when the movie just turned out to be a run-of-the-mill Viking movie. It could and should have been so much more, especially for a production of this magnitude.

While "The Northman" is watchable and entertaining enough for what it turned out to be, then this is hardly a movie that I will be returning to watch a second time.

My rating of "The Northman" lands on a six out of ten stars. It is the atmosphere, the brutality in the movie, and some of the performances that managed to snag the rating up from five to a six star rating for me.

The cinematography is fantastic and the soundtrack is powerful, though almost too much at times. But the plot is too simplistic which makes the runtime ridiculously overlong. The acting isn't terrible, but the dialogue is atrocious, wooden, and mechanically delivered. It would have served the film better had it been done in native languages (Russian, Slavic, Icelandic, Norwegian, Scandinavian...), but doing it in English gave it the feel of early Gaul. I liked the Tibetan-Bon singing in the film, but it didn't fit the setting at all, since that is Russian-Tibetan, not Icelandic-based. I think Eggers tried to be too expansive with his period-appropriateness. The film dragged a lot as it lacked any intriguing subplots or mysteriousness. As an action film, it was only so-so, since the action scenes lacked action, and Amleth too often looked as if he was flexing for photo ops and not actually fighting or killing. Too many dream sequences that just felt glommed on to the thin story. Sadly, an easy film to let run in the background until the revenge mayhem towards the end. Cool to see Bjork in a film!

Can't really recommend it unless you either love the main actor and/or Viking movies. Even then I actually like both, but am still disappointed overall mostly due to the script

Its full of irrelevant filler, the right move was to make it shorter as it runs a lot longer than it needed too so does drag on. The plot has some really dumb "moves" in it, which can make it a little frustrating to watch. I could go on but you get the idea, Producer and Director are probably somewhat to blame too, but overall the Directing was good other than not trying to tighten this up more

On the brighter side Acting is good, there is some action and it is a revenge movie, though not an original one by any stretch.

First of all, Alexander Skarsgard is way too old to be a young man who seeks revenge. The age difference between Anna Taylor-Joy is way much bigger than between Nicole Kidman. A more serious problem is that it shows. Second, the script is too predictable, and it does not even try to cover the weakness. The tale of an uncle taking the rightful throne by force is too common. It does not have to be Norse mythology. One of the most famous literary works in the West and real history written in detail in both China and Korea. The content is too predictable and the form of telling the content is way too boring as well. Third, the action sequence is crude. Why does Skarsgard move so slow compared to others and still survive? He moves like a robot; his arms, limbs, legs move very awkwardly. The whole film is 'bite off more than it can chew'.