Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

dfx4360 If you want to see a viking's anus unload and leave a sloppy viking turd in the bushes, watch him wipe his ass, and see him kill his viking lover's monk friend,"Sancho",,, than this is for you... Otherwise, skip it! PS: The head-banging intermission to Pagan Metal was awesome! So IMDb doesn't like the fact i have less than 10 lines for such a shitty movie! So I'm BS'n for four more lines after this one. Why did he kill the monk? He was jealous that the monk was giving his friend foot rubs. Maybe he didn't like homo's? And that was not a passionate Indian lovemaking like this other review I read. She was stealing his Viking seed... Nothing more. His bracers staked in the ground. She raped him... Maybe she was paying him back for the way his vikings raped her mom? Like when the Indian killed the other viking. The look on his face was satisfied. Then you can read the expression as a first kill. Then the blonde one buries an axe in his chest like a 500 B.C. Frank.

idaho_mtnman Cinematography was great. Breathtaking locations. Costuming was very good on all characters. However none of the language spoken matched the actors lip movements. Was it filmed in Greek then dubbed in Norse? The plot was weak but very much on the right track. There are several directions this tale could have gone rather than the random rambling direction it went. They could have told a very interesting story; parts were awesome, most was boring. The language used in the subtitles was way off. The Noesemen would not have said the fish was "killer". Nor would they say they would be "toast" if the Indians caught them. Also the "F word" did not come into use, at all, until during the late 1800's. And what was the poop scene all about? That was completely thrown in for shock value as it had no other purpose. The head banging Viking during the chapter change could have been cool, instead it just seemed out of place. The whole movie might have been more believable if the Noesemen had carried surf boards and called each other Bro or Dude.

bendandblow Look, all anyone needs to know, is that this film Rocks, plain and simple. If you really wanna know what it must have been like to be a Viking surviving the perils of a young America- See this Movie. The three act formula that is so present in most all Hollywood films, has been abandon in "Severed Ways." If your strictly a fan of Buff Nordic men, raping, pillaging, giving loud speeches packed with bravado and axe on axe battles- see "Pathfinder"OR better yet, get hopped up on some over the counter medication, mix the Tobasco in with your Vaseline and watch the "13th Warrior". Free your minds and your ice-holes will follow- Into the woods...

bergelmer-bergqvist First of all, some really good points have been made about the directing and whatnot. The movie stinks as bad as his poop did in the pointless shitting scene. Yes, vikings made poopie like everyone else.Did you ever stop to think about the Swedish "dialogue" in the movie?. First of all it is directly taken from Det Sjunde Inseglet by Ingmar Bergman (lawsuit?) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050976/ and it is no way connected to the story nor the subtitles (which are also not connected t the "story"). For example after he sees the Indian woman for the first time he comes back screaming "Skraeling" but in Swedish he is screaming "HÅLL KÄFTEN" which means "shut the f**k up!". The other man replies "Where are they?" but in Swedish he is asking his friend simply "Har du ont i magen?" which means "Do you have a tummy ache?". Does this make any sense? Many scenes filmed through the eye of the Indian woman (Atleast it could have been her, it is all so confusing) is filmed through what appears to be binoculars. This looks as stupid as it sounds, especially when you can see the damn binoculars moving infront of the camera.Someone said that it was good that the movie did not have a lot of dialogue. Both yes and no. The advantages of having dialogue is that people actually get a chance to understand what is going on with the characters and the story. For example, did Volnard turn Christian? Did he like the foot massage? Why was he sad, confused, angry, constipated, jealous, bored, tired, wondering why he did the movie or any other emotion that his ONE facial expression tried to express.What really amazed me about this movie is that it is so frustrating and funny to watch that you have to see it all. Just to see if it will make sense in the end (don't worry, it doesn't. Not in the least).Whether you like it or not, it is a great conversation piece. Watch it with a friend who has some knowledge (unlike the director) of movies and how to make them. Diss it like in Mystery Science Theater 3000, you will have the time of your life.And NO the soundtrack was NOT amazing, it was stupid and made no sense whatsoever. However the nature shots were beautiful but almost always pointless.This is a rape of viking culture and an affront to movie making. It simply leaves you confused and outraged. You want to talk to Tony Stone and ask just two questions; HOW? and WHY?.