Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

JohnHowardReid NOTES: Number 5 at the U.S./Canadian boxoffice for 1959. The movie did even better in the U.K. where it came in at Number 3. In Australia, however, the movie did virtually no business at all. Quite likely, it actually lost money after deducting advertising expenses, print costs and distribution overheads.Ever since Edison Marshall's 1951 novel hit the bestseller's list, it had been considered prime film material. In 1952 Mike Todd and Edward Small planned a joint venture in producing a film of the bloodthirsty actioner, but it remained for Kirk Douglas' Bryna production company to set the project into expensive actuality. (At the time Douglas was labeled Kirk von Stroheim for his seeming budgetary excesses on The Vikings.) Filmed in Technicolor and Technirama, with location work in Brittany and along the coast of Norway, and Viking ships and village replicas built at Fort La Lotte in Dinard, France, The Vikings cost nearly four million dollars, but grossed $6.049 million in distributors' domestic receipts.COMMENT: Most reviewers have been facetious in dealing with The Vikings, referring to it as a "Norse Opera" and commenting that the great expense and effort spent on the historically accurate sets and costumes is at variance with its probable audience, i.e., the juvenile trade, and admirers of gore and violence on the screen. Provided he is willing to tolerate the banality of the story, the history student will find much to catch his eye, beginning with the film's credit titles. These were designed by the UPA studio, and give animation to figures suggested by the Bayeux tapestry, setting up the historical background of the story. The interiors of the film were shot in the Geiselgasteig Studios in Munich, and the exteriors were shot in Norway and on the coast of Brittany. All this visual grandeur was magnificently color photographed by Jack Cardiff, soon to become a director himself. Some of his shots, especially scenes of the Viking ships in fjords, are mystically beautiful.

daviddaphneredding This United Artists movie, directed by Richard Fleischer, has breathtaking beauty since it was produced around the fjords and mountains of Norway; in fact, the fjords were very refreshing-looking. It is, essentially, a "Scandanavian western" with a lot of exciting action all the way through. The movie depicted so well the bitterness and bitter fighting between England and Norway during the Middle Ages. The cast was well-picked. Kirk Douglas was a mean Viking barbarian named Einar, and the blond-haired, blue-eyed prided himself on being so handsome. Ernest Borgnine was a mean man himself named Ragnar, the father of Einar. (In real life,their ages were very close to each other.) Tony Curtis, who was adept at playing either dramatic roles or comedic roles, did a serious turn as Eric, a slave, mistreated but very brave. Janet Leigh, Tony Curtis' wife, was very beautiful as Morgana. The excitement of the movie maintained almost perfectly my attention and thus alleviated any boredom. The love scene in which Einar spoke to Morgana (which was Curtis speaking to his wife) was touching. For many reasons it should be considered a superb classic, since it was that to be sure.

utgard14 Gotta say I wasn't overly impressed with this one. I mean, it looks great. It's got some cheesy appeal. But I really didn't like any of the characters in the story. I especially didn't like the so-called hero of the story, played by Tony Curtis. Also, I'm admittedly no expert on royalty but if a king is killed and his wife is raped and gives birth to a child from that, how is that child entitled to be next in the line of succession? As far as I'm aware, he's not, especially if the king still has blood relations living. Anyway, it's not a big deal I suppose but when you're not that into a movie you tend to mull over little details like that. It's a corny movie with some nice cinematography by Jack Cardiff. There are some laughs to be had at its expense. But if you're looking for a serious epic adventure story about Vikings with characters you can care about, I don't think you're going to find it here.

Armand over three decades ago, I watched it with my father. twenty years ago, my father slept and this film , the memories about it, are part of a precious affective legacy. blockbuster of a time. and magnificent work. not exactly a history lesson but a powerful story with impressive characters, dramatic scenes, extraordinary fight moments and a smart script. a show of images about values, secrets, competition and fragility of truth. all with a great cast as letters. because the performance of Kirk Douglas is out of definition. and the art of Tony Curtis to build a dark-complex hero is admirable. force and wise solutions. precise exercise of art and slice of mythic world. a fairy-tale with all essential ingredients. and a great film , seed of touching memories.