Vallhala Rising!

To those that have time and patience! Other wise Yes.......Sanmarc.

Hey Talon, P.M. me your take on the ending, I am still trying to digest the whole movie.......SanMarc.

Curious. I haven't seen it myself - mostly because I'm sick and tired of the whole "grim, dirty, hardkore" portrayal of Viking culture, which for the record I think was unique and colorful enough to deserve better - but most accounts I've heard of this movie states that it's kinda terrible.



If you are talking about what I think you are talking about - that is to say a claymore featured in movie set in the 11th century - then I'm going to have to say no, they can totally get more accurate then that.

Ancient warrior: that may be my second favorite, but, my number one spot goes to the 1958 movie "the vikings". A young and ..uh..buxom Janet Leigh doesn't hurt it any. I'm not sure of complete historical accuracy, but there seems to be a strong attempt at it. SanMarc's comments would be interesting.

Yep, the one with tony curtis! the director/actor, cant remember his name, but he made sure it was as historically accurate as possible for what they knew at the time.


(Curt Douglas)

ancient warrior: I'm guessing you would feel the same about the 1938 Robin Hood with Errol Flynn (no I'm not THAT old, but I have always enjoyed it) compared to the new one with Russell Crowe; and Ivanhoe and Knights of the round table (both from the fifties). Your point is valid; we are from different generations I think; another good thing about this forum, it brings together many perspectives.

I finally got to see this movie. It's essentially a fictitious parallel of a true story. In the late 990's, a young man named Bjarni Hejolfson set sail from Iceland to visit his father who lived in Greenland. Bjarni was caught in a storm at sea and when the weather cleared, the terrain of the land made it obvious to him that he wasn't in Greenland. Figuring that he must have overshot Greenland during the storm, Bjarni sailed northeast for four more days and landed just in time for dinner with good old Dad. He told the settlers of his trip and the new land he sighted. Leif Erikson, aka: Leif the Lucky, decided to check it out. I'd say he was a Viking, but the name itself is a bit of an historical misnomer. To go "Viking" was to go raiding. Very few Norsemen had the resources to do that. But on or about 1001 AD, Leif, with Bjarni at the helm, set sail from Greenland to back-trace Bjarni's steps. On the first leg of the journey he found a location with flat stones and glaciers. He called this Helluland , which means "Land of Flat Stones". Historians now believe that this was the coast of Baffin Island in Canada. (Sorry Chris Columbus. You weren't first.)

He sailed south for three more days and came across a white sandy beach which stretched to the horizon. Behind the beach lay forest-clad slopes. He called this location Markland or "Land of Woods". This is believed to be the forty mile beach at Cape Porcupine on the coast of Labrador. Sailing for two more days, he entered a natural harbour and found a land of grassy meadows. He found wild grapes in the vicinity (Oregon Grapes) and called the place Vinland. Leif and his crew set up camp and eventually built a settlement. Archeologists are in agreement that the site of Vinland is now called L'ans aux Meadows. The uncovered ruins of the Vinland community at L'ans aux Meadows can be visited near St Anthony at the tip of the Western Peninsula in Newfoundland, Canada.

During the Norsemen's stay in Newfoundland, they encountered people they called Skraelings, believed by archeologists to be the now extinct Beothuk Indians. They had several battles with these people who may have eventually driven them from the settlement. As for the Scottish Christian element in the movie? Bizarre!

Well do not try and read the Sagas, they proceed like the movie, that's why I said those that know Norse History and culture......

Ish, I will be honest, I was highly disappointed with this film.

I am a huge Norse/Scandanavian mythos, poetry, and prose fan - and Valhalla Rising was more like Valhalla Sinking to me. That's 1.5 hours of my life I will never get back. It was a terrible film because the director could not exploit the story fully based on his budget. So, he did that alot of directors do. Add some weird camera angles, put in a alot of blank space/empty shots, stick in alot of meaningless music crecendos. It's an artsy indie film, which sinks so far below par - I'd not even bother to review it.

The story could have been told in a much better and coherant manner than it was. Shame on that director for wasting the budget half-telling a good viking story that he could have completely told with only a little more effort. To be honest, Dark Kingdom: The Dragon King was a much better adaptation to some Scandanavian lore that Vallha Rising ever could be. I enjoyed Outlander more as far as entertainment value is concerned and the 13th Warrior knocks One Eye's axe in the dirt. And those three movies are my LEAST favorite Viking films of all time - which speak eons about how bad Valhalla Rising was.

The only thing of worth to me was the little bit of gore and axe work. That's was it's only bright point. The rest is a life-sucking vacuum of celuloid which not even light of the Aesir can escape.