IMDb रेटिंग
4.5/10
8.4 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA young man transforms into a brutal warrior as he travels the unforgiving landscape in search of his long lost brother, Hakan the Ferocious, whose people are relying on him to restore order... सभी पढ़ेंA young man transforms into a brutal warrior as he travels the unforgiving landscape in search of his long lost brother, Hakan the Ferocious, whose people are relying on him to restore order to their kingdom.A young man transforms into a brutal warrior as he travels the unforgiving landscape in search of his long lost brother, Hakan the Ferocious, whose people are relying on him to restore order to their kingdom.
- पुरस्कार
- 2 कुल नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I don't understand the rating this movie has on here right now! This movie is as good as sooo many movies in this genre with much better scores. (i.e. Kingdom of Heaven, King Arthur, Robin Hood, etc...)
Yes, okay, the casting choices weren't great (the main actors were great, although unknown, but the female roles were all poorly cast)and the story was, a little, thin, but this movie gains points from me for it's atheist message.
It was also shot very cool and the soundtrack was AWESOME. I hope the success of this film encourages more independent style period pieces in a market dominated by the big companies.
Yes, okay, the casting choices weren't great (the main actors were great, although unknown, but the female roles were all poorly cast)and the story was, a little, thin, but this movie gains points from me for it's atheist message.
It was also shot very cool and the soundtrack was AWESOME. I hope the success of this film encourages more independent style period pieces in a market dominated by the big companies.
I'm Welsh, so forgive me if I fail the US spell-check.
Firstly I'm bewildered, amused and dismayed by many of the comments: "Funny British Accents" (they're English accents), followed up by "Would be OK in Trainspotting II" (which is a Scottish film with Scottish accents), yes there are three countries in Great Britain. It's not called Great because it's great, it's to distinguish it from Brittany in France, formerly known as Little Britain after some Britons fled the Saxons and colonised the area. There's a bit of history for you.
Then we get into the historical accuracy of it all... and "Vikings" is held up as a better example, when most of "Vikings" is historically wrong.
Unlike "Vikings" this is a fantasy, it's not supposed to represent history, it's also not a Hollywood film, it's a "British" (English) one, that's why everyone talks with a "Funny British Accent".
There's also a fair amount of Old English and a snippet of Old Welsh, I don't think I've heard those languages used on film before.
It's main flaws are in trying to pander to the U.S. market (make it simpler and dumber)... yet it has strong performances throughout, a great lead in Charlie Bewley, fantastic settings, a solid although somewhat bipolar score, solid cinematography and a half-decent script.
People lap this stuff up in Game of Thrones yet as soon as you fix something which is obviously a fantasy to a point in history it get's pulled apart?
It's a solid 7. I'd have given it a 6 yet I find my patriotism roused by indignation at ignorance.
If you want to find something that completely lacks historical accuracy, only happened a couple of hundred years ago yet is revered as a great film, please watch Lincoln.
Firstly I'm bewildered, amused and dismayed by many of the comments: "Funny British Accents" (they're English accents), followed up by "Would be OK in Trainspotting II" (which is a Scottish film with Scottish accents), yes there are three countries in Great Britain. It's not called Great because it's great, it's to distinguish it from Brittany in France, formerly known as Little Britain after some Britons fled the Saxons and colonised the area. There's a bit of history for you.
Then we get into the historical accuracy of it all... and "Vikings" is held up as a better example, when most of "Vikings" is historically wrong.
Unlike "Vikings" this is a fantasy, it's not supposed to represent history, it's also not a Hollywood film, it's a "British" (English) one, that's why everyone talks with a "Funny British Accent".
There's also a fair amount of Old English and a snippet of Old Welsh, I don't think I've heard those languages used on film before.
It's main flaws are in trying to pander to the U.S. market (make it simpler and dumber)... yet it has strong performances throughout, a great lead in Charlie Bewley, fantastic settings, a solid although somewhat bipolar score, solid cinematography and a half-decent script.
People lap this stuff up in Game of Thrones yet as soon as you fix something which is obviously a fantasy to a point in history it get's pulled apart?
It's a solid 7. I'd have given it a 6 yet I find my patriotism roused by indignation at ignorance.
If you want to find something that completely lacks historical accuracy, only happened a couple of hundred years ago yet is revered as a great film, please watch Lincoln.
Unfortunately the most exciting views of the landscape is ruined by the participation of the actors and the history falsifying equipment.
Starting with a low-D whistle tune while the movie shows a penny whistle, actors, some with modern hair cuts running around in an incomprehensible story with bare armed biker leather outfits and round ringed unriveted or knitted and silver painted "chainmail", wielding fantasy weapons, screaming while performing most epic moves and spins in a very obvious fighting choreography.
Hahah, they even used that round ringed unriveted chain as a mosquito net.
Had they omitted all humans, this movie would have been worth watching.
Starting with a low-D whistle tune while the movie shows a penny whistle, actors, some with modern hair cuts running around in an incomprehensible story with bare armed biker leather outfits and round ringed unriveted or knitted and silver painted "chainmail", wielding fantasy weapons, screaming while performing most epic moves and spins in a very obvious fighting choreography.
Hahah, they even used that round ringed unriveted chain as a mosquito net.
Had they omitted all humans, this movie would have been worth watching.
Film tells a nonexistent story, characters lack likability as they here & gone type. Was the end cave sequence a Viking version rip directly out of Apocalypse Now.
This is another forgettable NZ Netflix movie.
This is another forgettable NZ Netflix movie.
The cover for the movie and previews make it seem as if it will be along the lines of the cinematic view like the 300 and Spartacus but it is far from it. The acting is poor quality, the combat appears cheap and poorly acted out. If you are expecting large epic battles, be prepared for disappointment. It has small skirmishes as if they had a very low budget. Do not waste your time with this movie unless you are looking to throw away time. Graphics have a low quality feel to them as well as the acting. It is a movie that, if done well, would be worth someones time but it wasn't. I had to pause the movie multiple times from boredom. I wish I could get my $1.07 back from Redbox and my time back. Sum this movie up in one word...DISAPPOINTING!!!!
क्या आपको पता है
- गूफ़The depiction of Ivar the Boneless is grossly inaccurate. The most egregious being ignoring the known, historically documented fact that Ivar was incapable of standing upright on his own due to an unknown birth defect hence 'the boneless'. Ivar is shown throughout this movie standing and walking on his own.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनIn Germany, the movie was cut by 2 minutes in order to get the 18 rating from the FSK and avoid being indexed by the SPIO/JK.
- कनेक्शनReferenced in Half in the Bag: Shut in and Arrival (2016)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Hammer of the Gods?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $641
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $164
- 7 जुल॰ 2013
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $7,343
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 39 मि(99 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.35 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें