IMDb RATING
4.5/10
8.4K
YOUR RATING
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... Read allA 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.
- Awards
- 2 nominations total
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
The main sense that I drew from the film from that start was how forced it all felt. Nothing seemed to really flow together correctly.
This all stems from the fact that, with this time period being underused in films, it never gives an accurate representation of what it was actually like.
The combat was obviously all Hollywood with no correct fighting styles. the clothing that they were are completely impractical with all the sleeveless tops in freezing weather.
The one relieving factor in the whole movie would have to be James Cosmos who I feel is a great actor.
This all stems from the fact that, with this time period being underused in films, it never gives an accurate representation of what it was actually like.
The combat was obviously all Hollywood with no correct fighting styles. the clothing that they were are completely impractical with all the sleeveless tops in freezing weather.
The one relieving factor in the whole movie would have to be James Cosmos who I feel is a great actor.
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.
Considering my last trip down Viking movie terrain was the unbelievably bad A Viking Saga, I approached Hammer Of The Gods with more than slight trepidation. I had my finger hovering over the EJECT button just in case, and a back-up film prepared. To my immense relief, neither action was necessary, although this is still a LLOONNG way from being a good movie, it is at least (until the ridiculous ending sequence) durable, and precisely 1000 times better than the aforementioned pile of old donkey droppings. Go on... you figure it out.
Aside from not having an obnoxious narrator and scenes where people actually LOOK as if they're fighting (as opposed to doing a stupid dance) it also has satisfying gore as knives are twisted and decapitations are as commonplace as horned helmets. The story, such as it is, revolves around the search for a lost king in ancient Britain, but it soon fades from the memory as we witness one bloody slaughter after another. In fact, as sick as it may sound, I wanted MORE of it rather than the rather tiresome 'bonding' scenes between our sketchily drawn comrades. And as for nonsense in the caves towards the end involving incest, a weird cult and a complete overuse of body paint... Let's not mention it.
The wait for the perfect Nordic movie goes on. This is the best I've seen, only so far as to say: This is a freshly made turd, and not one with flies and mould on it... 4/10
Aside from not having an obnoxious narrator and scenes where people actually LOOK as if they're fighting (as opposed to doing a stupid dance) it also has satisfying gore as knives are twisted and decapitations are as commonplace as horned helmets. The story, such as it is, revolves around the search for a lost king in ancient Britain, but it soon fades from the memory as we witness one bloody slaughter after another. In fact, as sick as it may sound, I wanted MORE of it rather than the rather tiresome 'bonding' scenes between our sketchily drawn comrades. And as for nonsense in the caves towards the end involving incest, a weird cult and a complete overuse of body paint... Let's not mention it.
The wait for the perfect Nordic movie goes on. This is the best I've seen, only so far as to say: This is a freshly made turd, and not one with flies and mould on it... 4/10
Did you know
- GoofsThe 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.
- Alternate versionsIn 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.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Half in the Bag: Shut in and Arrival (2016)
- How long is Hammer of the Gods?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $641
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $164
- Jul 7, 2013
- Gross worldwide
- $7,343
- Runtime
- 1h 39m(99 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content