Blood of Beasts

A Viking-era retelling of the Beauty and the Beast storyline, with the pretty Jane March (STALKER) playing a character about 20 years younger than the actress is. This was retitled BLOOD OF THE VIKINGS in a bid to draw in a new audience, and I'm glad I wasn't misled by that new title.

In any case, this is rubbish. It's pantomime-level stuff with production values weaker than an average episode of XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS. The story sees a group of loyal Vikings taking a voyage abroad, where the king is killed and a woman's lover lost. Later they travel again, where they find a brutal monster capable of killing the most seasoned warriors. Could it be the woman's lover, trapped in a sinister curse?

Needless to say this is all complete nonsense, loaded with anachronisms and an almost entire lack of understanding of the era in which the story is set. It works best as a fantasy, but even then it's poor stuff indeed, with some of the most horrid action choreography you'll see. The hair extensions have to be seen to be believed. March, the most experienced actress in it, gives a poor performance equalled by the miscast Justin Whalin, who once starred in THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN but now has no career.

But at the same time I didn't find Blood of Beasts a good movie. It is far better than the 2010 Beauty and the Beast also directed by David Lister though. Blood of Beasts' flaws come from some hilariously fake wigs, costumes that are not very authentic, the substandard effects especially the fires and the man in a prosthetic suit for the Beast, stilted dialogue and some rather forced acting from William Gregory Lee. On the other hand, I did like the fantasy-adventure nature of the sets, the photography and editing are above average and the score was cool with some beautiful and atmospheric themes. The story may strike you as standard, but it didn't feel predictable, it held my attention and unlike Lister's later Beauty and the Beast film the romance was somewhat believable. The acting is also not too bad, Jane March exudes beauty and is commanding also. Overall, not good or bad, more average to me. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Jane March at age 30 is no Viking teenage princess.The hair was bad. the CG flames were bad. The speech was nowhere near Scandinavia. The end was less than completely satisfying. But I'm glad to have seen this film. Jane March is a beautiful actress, and some of her scenes were fine ("And yet you live!"). The rest of the cast, the Beast, the story...not superb, not amazing, not surprising. And yet, more than just satisfactory. The Beauty and the Beast story is a healthy perennial, and this has some interesting variations thereon. I got this as a Netflix rental, and I was pleased enough to share it with my family and watch it a second time. Worth watching, not a disgrace to the actors, directors, film-makers. Good costumes, not disgusting, a quirky production. Loved the musical score. Solid workmanship with some charm.

We rented this movie for fun, and what a blast it was! The cover looks like Lord of the Rings, which is why it was rented. The acting was alright, some were worse than others. But that's to be expected in a movie like this. The sets were good, for the budget they were on. Costumes were not completely historically accurate, but they were alright. Sven's fringe braid thing was fugly, and I wanted to cut it off. The wigs though...the best damn thing in this movie. Who designed them I don't know, but damn, they were hideous. Fugly, fugly, fugly! Overall it's an okay movie, um maybe play a drinking game while you're watching so that it seems better than it really is? Though if you have a rule where you take a drink every time a bad wig is on the screen, you may die.

Once again I feel like odd man out, i read all the comments and wonder at all the would-be movie critics, with all the harsh comments, I cant help but wonder why there are not more people before the cameras for all their seeming knowledge of the acting profession and directors abilities. For myself, once again I just enjoyed the movie for its entertainment factor, and Jane March is still one of my favorites, my only disappointment was her death near the end, but thats just me, all I can say is to those who had such harsh feelings toward s the movie, why did you watch it all the way thru, then waste your time vomiting your comments in these columns? If you don't like a movie don't watch it, May I always enjoy what I watch and watch what I enjoy, tincancpo.....