The Viking Sagas (1995)

Simply Perfect

Redundant and unnecessary.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Set in the Iceland of medieval times, The Viking Sagas tells the story of Kjartan (Moeller), a lone Viking trying to find his way in a very confusing and constantly-changing world. In order to take on and defeat his rivals, he needs a mystical weapon called The Ghost Sword. But even then he is not trained in the ways of battle, so a more experienced Viking, Gunnar (Thorsen) agrees to train him. Making his quest a lot more pleasant is the beautiful maiden Gudrun (Stefansdottir). The forces of darkness are represented by Ketil (Olafsson), and Kjartan, Gudrun and Gunnar must defend their honor, their land, and their freedom, as Kjartan also avenges the death of his father. Will they succeed? It's "Brakus The Viking" as Ralf Moeller treks across Iceland in a chain mail vest in this so-so period piece. The locations are visually interesting, and they're shot well, and Sven-Ole Thorsen is perfectly cast in the role he was truly born to play, but The Viking Sagas lacks coherence. The decision to use a narrator who is constantly naming characters and events doesn't help the confusing factor. The "battle violence" is decent, but it can't patch over some of the more plain and mediocre aspects of the overall film. There's a certain earnestness about the whole project, which seems like a misplaced tone. There should have been a bit more verve.The fact that the movie was directed by Michael Chapman, who is an Academy Award nominee for best cinematography for Raging Bull (1980), among others, and that the film was released on VHS by New Line with a bunch of trailers for more mainstream material such as The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996) and Last Man Standing (1996), seems a bit odd. The Viking Sagas seems like it would have been released by Vestron, Academy or Continental in 1989. We're guessing Harvey Weinstein isn't constantly name-checking The Viking Sagas at his high-level Hollywood meetings. But, it presaged Game Of Thrones by many years, so maybe there should be some pride there.Was there a huge demand for Viking-based Sagas in the 90's? This particular Saga hits all the bullet points of what should be involved, such as a beautiful maiden, axe battles, snow, etc., but it's unlikely to inspire viewers. That being said, the end credits are amazing. We've never highlighted that before (nor has any other movie reviewer, probably) - Just watching them, you see a dizzying myriad of crazy letter combinations, accent marks, letters not in English mixed in, and credits such as Robert "Bloodaxe" Brakey - where else are you going to see that? (He was a first assistant editor, by the by). That must be one seriously badass Editor. We're guessing he edits film with an axe.The Viking Sagas is completely hit or miss. There are some great moments, but they're mixed in to an overall project which is...mixed. Fans of this historical period may want to check it out. For others, it's probably not worth going out of your way for.

About the best thing that can be said about this movie is that the cinematography is stunning, which is to be expected in a film made by an Oscar-nominated cinematographer like Michael Chapman. You get a real sense of how a rugged, towering country like that shown can turn out rugged, towering people. It's too bad you can't get that sense from the people themselves.Ralf Moeller, who was so impressive in "Gladiator", is much less so here. His stock in trade is his magnificently chiseled body, which was showcased to great effect in "Gladiator". Here, though, he doesn't even take off his shirt until almost halfway through the movie, which makes you wonder if the filmmakers hired him for his acting skills (he's earnest, but he makes Arnold Schwarzenegger look like Laurence Olivier) or his fighting skills (not in evidence at all, even after he's supposedly trained by "the best warrior of all the Vikings"), since they pretty much kept his physical attributes under wraps for much of the film. Not so with Ingibjorg Stefansdottir, Moeller's love interest, who kept very little under wraps (not that there's anything wrong with that). She has several somewhat gratuitous nude (well, topless anyway) and sex scenes, but other that that, she doesn't impress much, either. What's most unimpressive, however--and the most disappointing aspect of the film, IMO--are the "action" scenes. Another poster has described director Chapman as "clunky", and that word fits the battle scenes like a glove. They're listless--even though the participants shout, grimace and yell at each other a lot--and, frankly, badly done, with very little flair, panache or even excitement to them at all. There are scenes of various limbs and heads being lopped off among great spurts and rivers of very Karo-syrup-looking blood, but they're by-the-numbers and you can see them coming a mile away--there's no "gaaah!" factor (as in "gaaah! that guy just got his head split in half!") to them, as there was in, for example, "Braveheart". As for the story itself, well, the plot is your standard "he killed my father and I will avenge his death!" tale, but the film is so choppy, convoluted, badly put together and, in some cases, hard to understand that it's difficult to follow the plot even though you know exactly what it is and exactly how it's going to turn out.If you can't tell, I was really very disappointed in this film. The subject matter lends itself well to a sweeping, rugged spectacle, with snarling villains, gorgeous women in distress, ferocious battle scenes and everything you'd come to expect in a Viking picture. There was little of that here. I understand that the filmmakers wanted to be as accurate as possible in their portrayal of the Vikings of the time, but they didn't have to make it so, frankly, boring. Worth a watch, maybe, but it's not one that you'd want to see again any time soon.

I disagree with the people who consider this movie "worthless." It is the only historically approximate depictions of life in medieval Iceland (or, "viking age" life at all!) that I have ever seen. While their actions may seem "silly" to most viewers, the characters in this movie act appropriately to the ethics and customs of the time. In a nutshell, the movie is realistic, well-acted, and has gorgeous Icelandic landscapes. The film even uses mostly Icelandic and Norwegian actors who *look* like the characters would have. A viewer used to trashy Hollywood-churned movies may not appreciate this film.

This movie is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. A boy (Moeller) was supposed to take revenge for his father, in order to do so he had to master sword fighting and so on. Here come the dumb parts, he couldn't do sword fighting, but he taught some other boy to do it. Next dumb thing, he always got hurt even he didn't fight that much, he got hurt twice in the movie! Last dumb thing which is the dumbest, he got hurt by arrow while making love. Hey, a warrior was supposed to be good, especially after that sort of training from the master himself! He was supposed to be aware of his surroundings even if he was in the middle of a steamy affair. This movie is not worth seeing, it's wasting your money.