The Saga of the Viking Women and Their Voyage to the Waters of the Great Sea Serpent

1957 "Fabulous! Spectacular! Terrifying! The raw courage of women without men lost in a fantastic Hell-on-Earth!"
The Saga of the Viking Women and Their Voyage to the Waters of the Great Sea Serpent
3.3| 1h6m| en| More Info
Released: 01 December 1957 Released
Producted By: Malibu Productions
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A group of Viking women build a ship and set off across the sea to locate their missing menfolk, only to fall into the clutches of the barbarian Grimolts who hold their men captive and worship the sea serpent which overturned their ship.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Malibu Productions

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Jon Corelis Roger Corman has directed over fifty films (and at age ninety is still active as of this writing as a producer,) some of them, recognized classics of the B-movie genre, such as The Little Shop of Horrors, Bloody Mama, The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, and the series of Poe-inspired horror movies featuring Vincent Price, but many others so quickly and cheaply made that they are esteemed as classics of the "so-bad-it's good" genre.This film is firmly in the latter category. Viking Women has to do with a group of Viking women, of course, who set out on a voyage to discover why their husbands haven't returned from their latest expedition: battling sea monsters and a wicked king ensue. Production values are minimal -- I've seen worse, but not often -- the cast members look more like they belong in a 1950s TV ad for vacuum cleaners than in medieval Scandinavia or the Upper Paleolithic, and the acting, if it is no worse than you would expect in a high school play, is not any better. In short, this will appeal to bad movie fans and not to many others.Probably properly a one or two star movie, but give it an extra star for the camp value.
MartinHafer Considering the title and that the film was made by Roger Corman during his "quickie" days (he'd already made something like 679 other films in 1957), this film is about what you'd expect--a very low budget and silly picture. The only decent thing about the movie is the soundtrack--not bad at all. Otherwise, it's pure crap--1950s drive-in movie crap.The film begins with a bunch of scantily-clad blondes in Scandinavia pining for their lost men. Apparently the men had gone off to sea a few years earlier and never returned. So, these ladies decide to go in search of them. In real life, Viking women were amazingly tough ladies, but I just couldn't see this gaggle of skinny ladies putting up much of a rescue effort--and I turned out to be right. After almost being killed by a giant sea monster, the women wash ashore in the land of dark-haired bad actors where they are taken prisoner. There, they discover that their men are slaves to these dark-haired guys. I loved finally seeing the Viking men, as they all looked like extras from a 1960s beach movie--clean shaven, no chest hair and Troy Donahue hair---exactly like the rugged Vikings must have looked!! Eventually, the well-coiffed Vikings escape and the dark-haired jerks get theirs--the end.While there is a bit more to the plot than this, I really don't care to elaborate--it's just not that interesting or important. Instead, let's talk about the worst aspect of the film--the writing. Again and again, characters do things that make no sense at all. Why take the Viking women on a wild boar hunt? Why does the only dark-haired lady in the bunch of Vikings (a sure sign of evil) behave so wildly unpredictably as she does (I suspect really, really bad PMS)? Why does a teeny, tiny sword kill a 6000-foot long sea monster? How did the Vikings expect to keep warm wearing outfits that looked like they were left over from American-International's last caveman or jungle film? And, why didn't the writers include anything that was remotely exciting or interesting? The bottom line is that the film is just barely watchable but why bother unless you are a bad movie fan. Additionally, it seems that Corman must have quickly slapped together this film in anticipation of the soon to be released epic, THE VIKINGS, a film vastly superior in every conceivable way.
Michael_Elliott Viking Women and the Sea Serpent, The (1957) ** (out of 4) Some viking women head off to locate their missing mates when they're attacked by a sea serpent and thrown on shore where they are taken hostage by some dumb King. The viking women must then fight to save their men and return home before one more battle with the sea creature. This is another ultra low budget picture from AIP and director Roger Corman but it remains slightly fun throughout. The look of the "sea serpent" is actually pretty good and I'd say it's probably the best looking creature from any of Corman's low budget films. The cast including Abby Dalton, Susan Cabot, Brad Jackson and Jonathan Haze is charming as well. The original (and on screen) title of this is The Saga of the Viking Women and Their Voyage to the Waters of the Great Sea Serpent.
dbborroughs This has to be one of the dumbest titles ever. Granted it tells you what the plot of the movie is but that seems to be where the cleverness began and ended.This is really low rent Roger Corman. Its far from a good film, but the chuckle factor and the fact that it has different setting makes it worth giving a try for those who like bad films or at least want to see something different than the typical movie setting.The plot has the viking women going off to find their men who have disappeared. They end up finding them after crossing dangerous waters and running into a rubber sock puppet sea serpent. The men are being held captive by an evil tribe of men who soon capture our heroines, making escape seem possible.Running a brief 66 minutes this film is so full of clunky film making that you'll wonder how it ever got released. Costumes look like costumes, the sea monster looks dumb and the special effects aren't. Rarely has rear projection been put to worse use than here.Still, somehow, its manages to avoid being a truly awful movie. Sure its not good but at least its not the same old same old, which here gives it three or four points in its favor.6 out of 10, just for being off beat, though it probably deserves a 3 in a more realistic frame of mind.