Jurjen van der Hoek After seeing this movie on DVD tonight i am amazed that its IMDb rating is so low. I was absolutely impressed by it. The acting is great, the historic setting and scenery is convincing and beautifully shot and the movie has an interesting story line, going much further and deeper than the raw violence that is suggested by the poster. Yes there is violence in it, because it is a realistic movie, but it is not dominating. The main characters are developed in an interesting way and the viewer is drawn into the movie because he can identify with them. The music is also very nice and fits well to create an atmosphere that makes the 8th century England come alive

cowboyerik This title should be better that's it's under 5 rating. I think it's well done. Very well done. It deals with a narrow subject, in a narrow time, a savage time really. A small cast, and little no set production and only minimal costume design, this things are made up for with excellent photography, camera work, sound, acting and script, the hallmarks of talent and skill combined to make a low budget epic that will build it's own reputation and appreciated in time. It is worth seeing and is not terribly long. It's length is correct and could have been expanding upon with longer beginning and longer ending frankly. I think it was shortened for cinema.

reelswords For a film that had all the potential to be high paced and explore a wonderful bit of history, this sure fell flat on multiple fronts. The script was trite and slow, with many scenes of just trekking through woods or sitting on hillsides, repeating themes and plot points over and over again. This slowed the pace down to a point where I actually started to fall asleep in places. I understand low budget film making, but it really just felt like some friends got together and shot something quick over a few weekends. The fight choreography was painfully bad- that actors just looked really awkward and unsure... not sure if it was a result of lack of rehearsal time or poor instruction. In short, what could have been a delightful tale, turned out to be quite slow and anti-climactic. Oh and for the love of Odin, VIKING HELMETS NEVER HAD HORNS!!!

je2643 I gave it a higher rating then it deserves but this is to offset the lower ratings for which it does not deserve. A tale of vikings raiding saxon territory, and the viking leader seeking a book which is supposed to be a holy relic of Christ as he feels it has power which he can use for his own advantage. The story follows the young monk who is the only survivor of a monastery where the book was kept, and his flight from the vikings. He is aided by a British warrior nobleman, and later on another (I leave unnoted so as to not spoil).There are a few moments where it plods a touch, but overall I thought it well done. It is brutal in parts, but back in 733AD (when this takes place - part of the dark ages) it was brutal times. I thought the acting was good, the cinematography very good and it had gripping moments. Most of what happens is I think fairly predictable, but how many movies are not? There are always flaws in movies, but I think the ones in the movie can be overlooked plot wise. I have watched a thousand movies rated 5-6 that were not as good as this one at it current 3.5 rating, so I have no idea what the panning is about.Just be advised, this is not a movie for children. There are brutal scenes of violence (and more) in the movie - entirely keeping within the character of the times and setting but stark just the same.The published plot line indicates this movie is based upon a true story, or at least some sort of folklore. I have no idea of the accuracy or merit of that contention, and it seems to me it really does not matter.