UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Adventure >

Blood of Beasts

Blood of Beasts (2005)

October. 18,2005
|
4.1
| Adventure Fantasy Drama Action

Timeless tale of Beauty and the Beast set in the period of the Vikings. Freya, a warrior and the beautiful daughter of a Viking king, is held prisoner on an island castle by a Beast whom has been cursed by his god Odin.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Reviews

VeteranLight
2005/10/18

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

More
Afouotos
2005/10/19

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

More
StyleSk8r
2005/10/20

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

More
Logan
2005/10/21

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

More
Chris Estes
2005/10/22

Okay...truthfully, I knew this movie would not be a cinematic masterpiece. I knew it would be some low-budget, straight-to-video Lord of the Rings knock off. It was low-budget and it was straight-to-video. However, it wasn't a LOTR knockoff...which is unfortunate. The story was Beauty and the Beast all over again...only it was set it the days of the Vikings. This is a problem because the characters didn't act like Vikings, nor did they dress like Vikings. For God's sake they wear all wearing chain mail...CHAIN MAIL!!! Vikings were only a couple of centuries BEFORE chain mail. If this story had taken place on an imaginary world with imaginary tribes and people and such, it would have been much better. However, setting it in Viking era did nothing but fill the movie with historical inaccuracies.Inaccuracies aside, let's talk hair. Most of the actor were wearing wigs and it was obvious. There was one in particular...I remember him vividly. He was only in the movie for a couple of seconds. You say him in the background on the boat. He had no lines and no name that was mentioned. He was obviously just an extra. His job was to just blend in. Unfortunately, he didn't. Why?? Because he was wearing this ridiculous 1980's Britney Fox wig. This thing was WAY too big for the actor's head. It was just so terrible. All of the actors had bad wigs, but this one was the worst. Also, William Gregory Lee had hair extensions, but, apparently, the budget wasn't big enough for him to get a full head of them, so the producers just gave him a few. You could see where they were attached to his head and...it was awful. Also, what the heck was up with that little twig over his forehead. That thing got on my nerves.The acting was, by no means, great. It was like watching a high school play or an after school special (for those of you old enough to actually remember after school specials). Anything with Justin Whalin is destined to be crap...let me present Exhibit A: Dungeons & Dragons, Child's Play 3, Lois and Clark...you get the idea. However, he wasn't the worst actor...in fact, he did well. William Gregory Lee got on my nerves. Obviously, he wasn't really all that tough, because he seemed to be having trouble acting tough. Jane March was okay, but not great. David Dukas, who played the Beast/Agnar, was probably the best, but only whilst playing the Beast. He struggled through the three minutes that he played Agnar. Very strange. The other actors were nothing short of mildly mediocre.The SFX in this movie were...well...almost completely absent. The Beast was a guy in a prosthetic suit. And though it was a pretty cool idea, it really just looked like a guy in a bear skin rug. Also, the fires never looked real. Apparently, it was cheaper to make fake fire rather than actually set stuff on fire for real. The flames looked like those TV fireplace things and the smoke...well...there are no words to describe how bad the smoke looked. In the film's defense, though, this was a low-budget movie. That is something that must be taken into consideration. The weapons were obviously fake. They looked like wooden weapons that were spray-painted to look like metal only the producers hired some one-eyed imbreed from a Mississippi body shop to paint them.In the end. This film was low-budget and watching it gave constant reminders of this fact. However, the low budget wasn't the real problem. The real problem was that the producers tried to pass it off as a Viking tale. They should have just gone ahead and made it a cheap knock-off of LOTR. It would have actually been a better film. 3/10.

More
cogito42
2005/10/23

Absolutely awful. Everything from the "acting" to the discount Renaissance Faire costumes is laughable. Nothing is period or even remotely historically accurate as far as Vikings go, but I'm not sure that was the intention of the "filmmakers," if we can call them as such. I can't help but imagine a prepubescent D&D nerd behind the camera.Add alcohol or some other intoxicating substance, however, and the movie instantly becomes hilarious.If you love to mock movies MST3K-style, then this is the movie for you. With a budget of approximately $50, the producers were able to whip up a tour de force of epic foolishness. It behaves like professional porn, but without plot or tolerable acting, and fails to deliver even one decent sex scene.Watch this movie with a group of friends and plenty of beer goggles. It is not worth watching under any other circumstance.

More
harbeau
2005/10/24

This movie is not great, by any stretch. It is the story of Beauty and the Beast retold from a vaguely new perspective.Having said that, its not as bad as it first appears. Sure, the costumes suck...it is obvious that this is a film with a very low budget.But the acting is decent, and there were even a few that stood out. The writing is decent. And the directing was obviously quite good. He/she did quite a bit with very little money spent. Even the production was decent. Not spectacular, by any means. But certainly could have been worse.So, does it top my A list? Not a chance. But if you are looking for a movie that is a pleasant diversion, this may be the ticket.

More
isitabee
2005/10/25

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.

More