Drakkar

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.

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-

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.

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

I understand all about film budgets and how the costs of locations play a large part in getting a film off the ground. That said, I've also spent a great deal of time on Lindisfarne (Holy Island, as it is now called) and I know its history as I've placed a story, a screenplay, and a magazine article there. The Lindisfarne raid by Vikings in 793 was a smash and grab affair sacking whatever riches were in place on the altar of the church. The Vikings' knowing anything about the illuminated book called the Lindisfarne Gospels is far-fetched to say the least and attaching the Vikings' concept of magical significance to that work of art is idiotic.

The opening sequence on the beach at Lindisfarne looks nothing at all like Lindisfarne. In fact, no filmed setting---especially those used by the History Channel for re-enactments or for their Vikings television program---has ever looked like the real Linsdisfarne.

In this film, for the two monks to have escaped the Viking raid on foot to the mainland of Northumberland from the island of Lindisfarne, they would have had to cross a treacherous stretch of mud flats and quicksand at low tide. The same would be true of Vikings following them. It couldn't have and wouldn't have taken place. What's more, the landscape of Northumberland is hardly grey as portrayed in this film but exceedingly green. Even if two monks were seeking refuge for their holy book, they would hardly try to cross the width of Britain to get to Iona but instead head down the coast to Bamburgh, scant miles from Lindisfarne and both a fortress and seat of power during and long before 793. The film's discussion of signal fires having been lit in order to seek the protection of guides for a journey across Britain never would have happened since there was no time for such nonsense because the raid most likely took place at dawn awakening the sleeping monastery.

The whole premise simply doesn't hold in this long-winded draggy mess in which even the local saint being discussed as associated with Northumberland is all wrong. Lindisfarne is strongly associated with Saints Aidan and Cuthbert. It would have been either or both of those who would have been talked about by the film's characters. The writer-director apparently did no homework at all for this project other than to cull the same old historical passages used at the beginning of this film and used ad nauseam (and without understanding) whenever Lindisfarne is mentioned in movies and television programs. The writer-director would have been much better off fictionalizing the places and the whole story, making it all much more visually interesting, and speeding up the storytelling. None of that would have impacted his budget in the least. And what's with that awful horned-helmet artwork on the poster?