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.
gsygsy
Starting with the pluses, the reconstructed Viking ships look terrific; Jack Cardiff's photography is - as is to be expected from such a master - beautiful, mostly; some lesser-known character actors, such as Eileen Way and Frank Thring, are given a chance to shine whilst chewing the beautifully-photographed scenery, as are a trio of better-known supporting artistes, James Donald, Alexander Knox and Ernest Borgnine. But beyond this list, I start to struggle. Take Mario Nascimbene's score, for example. The recurring fanfare recurs so often that any power it possessed during the opening credits is so diluted that by the final reel it ends up sounding like an advertising jingle. And that huge ram's horn, blown so often, is a joke because we're clearly meant to overlook the fact that is makes the sound of a modern french horn.Then there's Tony Curtis' costumes, anticipating 60s miniskirts. Although he looks lovely in them, they seem so counter-character.Then there's the script. Oh my goodness, the script. Jaw-droppingly embarrassing, toe-curlingly bad. Only massively over-the-top playing or wily underplaying could survive it. Borgnine, Thring, Way and Douglas go big, whilst Donald and Knox go small. All get to the end of the film with their heads held as high as possible in the circumstances. Curtis and Leigh, both good actors, sadly sink below the fjords. Given the clichéd inanity of their lines, they had no hope. Leigh's role in particular is not so much wet as soaked through, flooded, sodden. If it weren't so sad it would be funny.But actually, it IS funny. There's little to choose between the number of laughs in this movie and those in THE COURT JESTER (1955), except that the laughs in THE VIKINGS are gloriously unintentional. Historical epics are strange. The 1925 silent version of BEN-HUR starring Ramon Navarro is as silly as the 1959 version starring Charlton Heston, but is somehow believable and even touching because there is no dialogue. As we've seen, terrible movie dialogue requires either over-playing or under-playing. Canny actors - and directors - realise this. So Heston, Yul Brynner and Anne Baxter flounder in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS of 1956, because they attempt to be real. Edward G. Robinson and most of the women craftily underplay whilst Judith Anderson and Vincent Price do the opposite, both tactics giving the effect of the actors standing outside of the nonsense they're having to say, the paradoxical result of which is that we believe what they're saying. This is very much the technique of stars as different as Bette Davis and Charles Laughton. So it is in THE ROBE (1953), with Richard Burton and Jean Simmons attempting naturalism in a film that has the believably unbelievable Ernest Thesiger in it; in SPARTACUS (1960), in which Kirk Douglas lethally plays it for real, and as a result is fatally incredible; in EL CID (1961), CLEOPATRA (1961), THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (1964), THE BIBLE (1966). All terrible scripts, all inadvertently funny, all with only a handful of performances which the audiences can relate to, but the actors giving those performances rarely if ever in the leading roles.The directors who had to deliver these inevitable turkeys contain some remarkable names - Anthony Mann, John Huston, Stanley Kubrick...THE VIKINGS was directed by Richard Fleischer, who was perhaps more creative with lower budgets, and who definitely turned in excellent work when given a worthwhile script e.g. COMPULSION (1959); THE BOSTON STRANGLER (1968), his very next film after THE VIKINGS, which couldn't be more of a contrast both in tone and achievement, with Curtis giving one of his very best performances; 10 RILLINGTON PLACE (1971), a well-judged, atmospheric thriller with memorable performances from Richard Attenborough and John Hurt. Fleischer also ventured into toga-territory with BARABBAS (1961), which has an amazing cast all over-playing like crazy, making it a rare success in the genre. Two developments gave new life to the cinematic epic, whether Biblical, Roman, medieval or any other flavour. One was James Goldman's script for THE LION IN WINTER (1968) which gave all the characters language that seemed to belong to our time rather than a fabricated age of yore. The other development was the coming of Monty Python, who took up the lunacy of THE COURT JESTER with MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL (1975), LIFE OF BRIAN (1979) and ERIC THE VIKING (1989 - surely a direct response to the movie reviewed here) and made the form impossible to take seriously again. Not that Hollywood cared: it still financed GLADIATOR (2000) and TROY (2004, with Brad Pitt in the Curtis-esque miniskirt), and very funny they were too.
richieandsam
THE VIKINGSYeah... another Sunday morning movie. I only recorded this off of the TV because it had the legendary Ernest Borgnine in it. I met Ernest a few years ago, and he was one of the nicest actors I have met so far. A really big character. He has made so many great movies and I watched him in various things whilst growing up. I felt very privileged to have met him.This film is not bad... but not great.Lots of Vikings, lots of violence and lots of sword fights. There were some really good scenes.The cast list was very impressive. It stared Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis. Ernest Borgnine and Janet Leigh. It is unbelievable how much Kirk Douglas looks like Michael Douglas in this film. Michael definitely got his looks from his Dad.Kirk played a great character. He was a Viking who had an awesome scar across his face. He looked really good. Tony Curtis played a slave that was actually the rightful King but didn't know it. Kirk had a score to settle with the slave as it was him that gave Kirk that scar.This film, like a lot of other old movies, was a bit harsh on the animals. I don't think any animals got seriously hurt in it. There is one scene where Tony Curtis was holding a Hawk. The Hawk was clearly tied to Tony's hand... but when Kurt kicked Tony in the chest and knocked him down... that poor bird definitely took a tumble. I just remember thinking to myself "There is no way Hollywood could get away with that now.". And not that they would need to... special effects are so good these days that they can make it look like an animal has died, where really there was no animal at all.Anyway, this film was OK. A pretty good story, not the greatest acting from everyone, but not too bad. Clearly Kirk, Tony, Ernest and Janet did brilliantly... just some of the supporting cast were not that good. Some of the death scenes were comical.I will give this film 6 out of 10.Not a bad daytime movie. For more reviews, please check out my Facebook page:https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ordinary-Person-Movie- Reviews/456572047728204?ref=hl
