User Reviews

Sometimes a movie comes along that is almost indecipherable, but for reasons unknown, still can't be shaken from my consciousness. Nicolas Winding Refn's Valhalla Rising is one such example. It concerns a one-eyed, mute Norse warrior's quest to discover his lot in life and/or death … I really don't know which. It could have been the fatigue of being the fourteenth movie seen in less than four days at the Toronto International Film Festival, or perhaps it was intentionally vague to utilize its mood and gorgeous environments as the true focal points. Winding Refn said before the screening that he always wanted to shoot in an exotic place, and this was the chance to make that a reality. So, with the lavish hillsides of Scotland, he and co-writer Roy Jacobsen brought a tale of Vikings searching for the Holy Land—or a place to set up a new one—with them, listening to heavy metal in order to get into the mindframe of the hell that would take over. I do think all involved understood that the story would be left up to audience interpretation, making it more a journey rather than a strict plot, because star Mads Mikkelsen left us with a cryptic message himself before the projector started going. He said, "Sit back, relax, and enjoy that imaginary joint." It all starts with Mikkelsen's One-Eye in captivity, being used as a fighter against other Norse tribes' best—able to take a beating and always shell out more to achieve victory. Helped by a young boy, Are, (played by Maarten Steven), he soon escapes and kills those holding him captive, taking the boy with him as he travels on, visions of red violence coming into his mind, leading him to an inevitable fate. Using the boy as translator to those they cross paths with, a bond is formed between the two, one that holds One-Eye accountable to protect him no matter what. Eventually finding passage with a Viking vessel of Christians, the captain of which sees the use of having a man of his powers as an ally, a fog soon rolls in as they sail to an unknown land. Conditions become dire as food and drink deplete and the water surrounding them becomes salty and undrinkable. Tensions run high and blame is passed to the warrior, calling him a beacon of evil, already having been told by the boy that he came from hell.

The visions become more frequent as we wonder if One-Eye is going insane, is a vessel himself for a higher being, or just supernatural in both strength and mind. Red soaked passages eventually come true in the dull, cold palette used to show reality. Violence runs rampart throughout, allegiances, tenuous at best, and survival playing a large role in everything. Maybe this God of a man is some sort of reaper taking the Vikings on a journey to their destruction or perhaps he has only involved them in the trip to his own, but either way, the graphic nature of combat and battle—dirty and personal, just as you'd think it would be with savages such as these—is prevalent at all times. Right from the start we are exposed to the gruesome fights, seeing two men battle in the mud, feeling each punch connect, a battle ending with the decapitation of the loser by the chain holding the victor in place so as not to escape. Brutal in execution and still beautiful in its hellish visuals, one cannot deny the power of image.

Winding Refn's Vikings are physical specimens of humanity, not exactly giants, but fierce in their mentalities and demeanors. You would not want to get into a fistfight with any, as they would rip you apart limb from limb. It is this gritty realism that helps in the success of the movie, showing this world as being without rules and governed by strength. The leader will be the general that can keep the rest safe, his hold of power only as strong as the respect given him by those he leads. It only takes one moment of weakness to become expendable, killed and tossed to the side as the next warrior rises up. But then you have One-Eye, a man who could take on anyone or all and be victorious. He is not out for the glory or riches that come in war; he is on a spiritual march to whatever future is coming to him in bits and pieces when he closes his eyes.

Norse mythology is often made into large blonde men wearing horned helmets and furry clothing, weapons at hand to bludgeon and beat. Valhalla Rising doesn't buy into these clichés or stereotypes, instead digging deeper into the mentalities of these people, the rage and religious fervor that lives inside. The Christians want to find salvation or safety of some form, and they aren't afraid to spill blood to find it. So it becomes a combination of mythology and Christianity and survival, men without answers on a journey through hell, or into it. I was a little surprised to hear that distribution rights were purchased after it screened in Toronto, not because it doesn't deserve them—it is a cinematic feat that earns the right to be seen and dissected—but because of its lack of mainstream appeal. So much of the movie is internal, watching actors act without words, making the audience think and decipher what is going on. I just hope the Hollywood machine does not fall into the trap of selling it as a battle royale of Vikings on the sea, a 300 type epic adventure. That would be the greatest disservice of all. The film merits an audience of introspective thinkers and open minds to let the sumptuous nature of all on screen—whether beautiful or disgusting or both—wash over them and grab hold. It isn't so much a movie to be seen, but one to be experienced.

On a whim I decided I wanted to try "Valhalla Rising". It looked like my type of movie.... you know, action, violence, that kind of thing. I couldn't have been so far from the truth. Yes, violence was there, more towards the beginning, and dry, hardly any fanfare at all. But, as the movie progressed it became... how to put it... simple yet complex, and artistic and rough (bright use of red/blue vs the lifeless colour).

So on to the movie. There was very little dialogue throughout the film, the actors relying more on body language, the dead-pan stares, the lift and tweaks of eyebrows and mustaches/beards. I was with it so far. Not my type, but actually enjoying it. Then we entered 2/3 way and I entered my "WTH" moment. I swear the wine (at least i think it was wine) they consumed was tainted. Yea, you have to watch that part to understand what I mean. Then the movie races (if turtles race) towards the end. Didn't like the ending. Nope.

On a whole, the movie was so so, with much of my rating going to the cinematography, the score, and Mads Mikkelson whom I think was good as "One Eye". I just didn't quite get it...

Cheers

This film comes with a lot of baggage a fact reflected from the critical reception it got on its release . Some people thought it was a masterpiece whilst others thought it was pretentious self indulgent torture porn . Likewise the comments here that seems to split people right down the middle . Somewhat typically I could only award it 5 out of 10 because seeing it my rating for this film wavered between 1 and 10 . It wavers from dreadful pretentious rubbish and masterpiece from scene to scene

To be honest I almost switched off after the first ten minutes as a one eyed man stands leashed to a pole and indulges in mortal combat in 11th Century Europe . Nothing is held back in this scene of violence or indeed in the suceeding scenes that sees heads bashed in and disembowelment . One can quite understand watching this in the cinema and seeing half the audience walk out in disgust . The film doesn't help its cause much by having little dialogue and the need to insert bizarre surreal sequences in to the narrative

The film does pick up when One Eye and his child companion come across Christian converts who wish to travel to Jerusalem to fight in the Crusades and board a boat a boat to the Holyland only to come across a strange place that geographically is not in the Middle East . Here the film works at its best as the characters try and work out the mystery of where they are and what fate has in store for them . At this point it's almost like APOCALYPSE NOW meets Tarkovsky

Impressive as this is director Nicholas Winding Refn feels the need to go overboard on the directing front and he's neither Tarkovsky or Francis Ford Coppola . Certainly the film has a sense of intelligible portent dread throughout but like his previous film BRONSON Refn shows off a little too much which becomes painfully irritating . Less would have certainly been more This interferes with whatever the subtext the narrative might been making . There's an ecclestastical meaning there somewhere . One character refers to One Eye " He has many Gods while we only have one ( Christopher Hitchen's would reply to this by saying " Good because we're getting closer to the true figure " ) and of course the characters are trying to sail to the Holy Land but this is undone by the pretentious imagery . Strangely the film features a twist ending that possibly isn't entirely leftfield since the characters drink a psychotropic brew that has a mystical maninkari effect , but this leads the audience to ask how anyone can sail to the Middle East only to end up in North America ?

I tried to like VALHALLA RISING and from a technical viewpoint it is very impressive . Unfortunately the director sabotages his own film by including too much gore and too much " Oh look at me aren't I being so clever ? " to the detriment of storytelling and subtext. It's difficult to see what market the film is trying to buy in to . Is it the historical epic crowd , the horror crowd or the art-house crowd ? This makes for a very unsatisfying film

That's what this film is all about. Christianization is on its way and the nordic religion is in peril. It needs to be revived : One-eye's mission.

It is hard to understand the movie without some knowledge of nordic religion. Nobody quite gets it, the professional critics seem to be lost.

Some clues :

One-Eye is Odin, or his human avatar. Odin had one eye. He was, among other virtues from his curriculum, the god of slaves and gladiators (slaves, usually). One-eye is a slave, kept as a gladiator. He's been there for years, waiting, observing. He is Odin in disguise, guarantor of nordic traditions. The cunning warrior who always wins, using any situation to his advantage (here, using the rope tied to his neck).

He chooses to free himself after hearing two chiefs talking about the christians and their one god, while negotiating his sale : his owner at first hesitates "we need him", then agrees to sell One-eye for money that will help him deal with the christians. Obviously a big no-no for Odin : the many gods must prevail. Time for action ! Once free, One-eye ties an enemy against a rock and eviscerates him alive : a sacrifice straight from the cult of Odin.

One-eye has a bloody vision of a trip on a boat, then finds christians who just finished slaughtering some pagans and are planning to go to Jerusalem. He embarks on their boat and leads them to hell instead. The mist they encounter at sea is the mist separating the land of humans - the Midgardr - from the Niflheimer - the world of obscurity - were Odin sent Hel, the godess in charge of, you guessed it, Hell.

The vision of a red sea represents the blood of Ymir, whom Odin and his brothers killed to create earth from his body parts - and the oceans from his blood.

One of the christians wants to kill the kid (not One Eye, important detail) fearing he is the one sending them to hell. He is instantly killed by One-eye. Indeed, the kid has become One-eye's messenger, his messiah - he who hears and spreads the words of the deity. Choosen by Odin, in other words.

On what they believe to be unknown land, the christians loose their minds, those who reject their faith are swiftly killed by One-eye : they have earned their passage to Valhalla. The dead christians will instead remain in Niflheimer. One-eye's answer to one of the survivors is clear : they will die.

The indians are indeed a reference to the discovery of North America by the Norsemen. Here, however, they represent the dead warriors from Valhalla, the einherjar. One-eye has accomplished his mission, he drops his weapons and walks towards the indians - no need for a fight, as the einerjar are in essence already dead. His death is shown as a ritual, a sacrifice : violent death is needed to reach Valhalla - his return ticket, sort of.

There are actually two rituals during the sacrifice scene : we simultaneously see One-eye immersing himself in water, Odin's quintessential element : the water of knowledge (for which he gave one of his eyes).

The kid is spared for a good reason, he now has a mission to accomplish : to cross the ocean again and revive the nordic religion in the land of humans. At the end One-eye's face appears in the mist : Odin is watching.

As a matter of fact the movie was entirely shot in Scotland, where the Gaels-Galls tribes, descending from the Norsemen, perpetuated the cult of Odin and did not convert to christianism until the 13th century (all of Scandinavia had already been converted at the end of the 10th century).

We can assume the story of this movie is dated around the end of the 12th century, in Scotland. when nordic traditions in those tribes were starting to falter. A tartan is seen on the kid's shoulders, there were no tartans in Scandinavia (but they did provide the Scotts with the word kilt, which means wrap). The movie is actually very accurate as far as details are concerned.

One-eye/Odin's mission ultimately failed. Although one of his sons, Thor, is making a killing at the box office this very century :-)

Great movie

The apocalypse for the heathen, pagan warlords has come with a gradual erosion of their culture and kind, rather than a single cosmic cataclysm of thunder, lightning, battle and bloodshed. The kingdom laying waste to their own is one given unto blood like no other - that of Christ and Christianity. "Driven to the fringes of the earth", they live in dirt, mud and ugly desolation. Meagre wealth only obtained by pitting their captive prize-fighting savage, One-Eye, against all-comers, in brutal matches to the death.

Mute, ravaged, horrifically scarred, supernaturally violent, One-Eye kills all – never beaten, always victorious. The heathen tribesmen think he comes from hell. Maybe he does.

Following One-Eye's escape, during which he kills his captors in some wince-inducing, devastating and viscerally extreme ways, he sets out across the desolate highlands, accompanied by his blonde-haired child keeper (and possible psychic link). Joining up with a band of Christian Viking crusaders on their way to the holy land, the game is on for an existential journey into the heart of darkness, punctuated by ponderous, protracted passages of visually arresting pointlessness, freaky hallucinogenic episodes, random violence and death, blood-red visions and a conclusive musing on the concepts of destiny, fate and sacrifice.

Some of the stark, minimalist narrative is confusing. Also confusing is the fact that most of these Norse living-dead men – for they are technically all dead and in limbo at the end of an age – speak with broad Scottish accents. I am not sure if there ever were any Scottish Vikings, especially in Sutherland ("He's the biggest savage in Sutherland" observes one of the would-be crusaders) so I am equally uncertain as to the historical accuracy and context. The dialogue is curiously modern in places, and it jars a little; but allowing for artistic licence...

That aside, the film is certainly a unique experience. It gets into your head and stays there. Visually and sonically it exerts a resolutely hypnotic authority and engages on a strangely primal level. Mads Mikkelsen is a revelation. Communicating without dialogue, only through minute, fractional variations in body language, facial expression and gesture, he commands absolutely every scene he appears in. One wonders, though, if he isn't getting a little typecast as characters that have ophthalmic problems.

Anyone expecting the usual action-packed thunder in the tundra-type Norse saga representative of most previous Viking flicks, forget it. This is more Apocalypse Now than Pathfinder and the promotional artwork is utterly misleading in this respect. Looking for something a little more unique, atmospheric and challenging within the genre? This is probably it.

Amazing how the director managed to expand a 5 minute short into one and a half hours of suffering for the poor viewers.

There is no story, no acting, no nothing.

Granted, some viewers will find it "astonishing", "no Hollywood b...t", "ingenious", as is always the case with bad movies. Just swim against the stream for the sake of it.

I can't remember watching such a boring, useless movie since I made the mistake to watch a movie by Uwe Boll.

Give me back the 90 minutes of my life! Or at least the 60 minutes I was awake during the movie. Maybe I'll keep it as a sleeping pill. Just hearing the title will probably put me fast asleep.

One word Agonizing, I was looking forward to an off the beaten road type of historical flick, a fresh look into the subject. It seems to attempt to be " a piece of art" rather than a film,and i understand what they were trying to achieve with it. However it is so painfully boring, frustrating,pretentious, devoid of any real emotion, and downright annoying. I get the faint feeling that a Film like this is truly insulting my intelligence on some distant personal level. there are artistic films that can cleverly dispense with dialogue and leave much for you to work out on your own, but they have to be engaging enough to stimulate profound emotional feelings in a viewer. Then there are films that seem to to have no real artistic merit but claim to be works of art be virtue of using this so called "artfull" cinematic formula. this is one is the latter. This same film could have been achieved with a series of still images in 5 minutes, and even then it would be mediocre at best. I would have gotten a better experience staring nonstop into a painting on a wall for 90 minutes, because thats basically all there is here, long shots of people staring at each other for no apparent reason whatsoever. what a waste.

About as bad as one can make a movie, nice visuals, but the rest is utter crap. Too bad, this could have been a real gem. The opening scenes seemed to set the viewer up for a treat, again the visuals were captivating, the howling wind and the brutal combat scenes seemed raw and possessed a promising quality. When our one eyed anti-hero hooks up with the crusaders however the whole movie moves from slightly bad to utterly disastrous. But the movie lacked depth, there is literally no dialogue, and all that staring got old fast. All in all a very disappointing movie. Do yourself a favor and watch something else instead..

This movie might frustrate you, probably will, so it's better to get into it without expectations. I suppose that the trailer, that clearly highlights the action scenes of the movie, makes it easy to expect something that this thing ultimately does not deliver. This is not an action movie, there are about three fighting scenes and all of them last less than a minute. Anyone that watches this expecting a bloody viking tale, is going to be disappointed. It's a very quiet movie, there's barely any dialogue and the main protagonist himself has no lines. There's barely any direct information, I'd argue just enough to make you aware of the setting, but you'll be alone with your considerations for the most part. It is not a long movie, but it's a slow one. Many moments will feel longer than they actually are, which can be either good or bad depending on who's watching. It's a good experience for those who are into a contemplative tone some narratives take, I don't personally dislike it.

There's one thing that everyone might possibly agree on: The movie looks very good. The landscapes are absolutely gorgeous, the direction of photography is great. Running the risk of sounding pretentious, I'd say that the scenery is responsible for a big portion of the substance of the movie. This movie feels like a poem translated to cinema. If the (few) dialogue lines are the stanzas of the poem, the landscapes correspond to the rhythm. However, as beautiful as it is, the photography is not holding everything together, without the help of the soundtrack. I don't care what one chooses to call it - drone, dark-ambient - I only know that it fits. It's had to describe, but if, once again, I have to risk sounding pretentious, I'd say that the music sounds as if it emanated from that world itself; it feels like a natural element like the mountains, the mist and all else that is palpable, but that the ultimate function is having an inner impact. I won't claim that there is an objective meaning behind how this flick is structured, maybe the elements it relies on are too abstract for anyone to be certain, but I feel I was able to grasp something; and ultimately find a message. Just as in any other kind of art, the object itself is only 50% of the process, the rest depends on whoever interacts with it. Now, let's move on to what I think I got from this whole thing.

Putting the abstract elements aside, I'd say that this movie does a pretty decent job at exposing its main themes; maybe, context is a better word. We get to watch the ages-old feud between pagans and christians who think they're building the perfect world. One-Eye is an interesting figure because he doesn't really take sides. Originally he was kept as a slave to pagans, but later set towards Jerusalem with the christian vikings. The thing is, it's never truly clear who he is, which side he's standing on. Ironically, One-Eye is the most godlike figure of the story, men seem to fear him for his strength, he doesn't really speak directly to them, his will is put into words by Are, that assumes this prophetic figure analog to the many men who communicated the rest of mankind the words of God. When men kill each other in front of him he does nothing, if they rise against him, he smites them with his wrath. It's very subtle how many elements of the christian lore, and its main figures, are included in the protagonist's actions. If we assume that One-Eye is really an analogy for God, it's even more interesting to notice how undisturbed he is to see men taking the most extreme actions for the sake of their beliefs. Ironically, the main thing about the christian vikings of this movie is that their quest to the holy land leads them to "hell" and, instead of being united by their fate, they end up brutalizing each other in the name of God; or for the lack thereof. So, in the same way one can try to make analogies between the protagonist and God/Christianism, one could also argue that his complete lack of disturbance towards all the chaos that happens is a comment on how ultimately people are killing themselves for nothing, that there is no God and all those acts are meaningless. All the violence, the will to dominate and apply your ideals to other cultures, all in the name of God, but it's also what leads the christians to their doom. All this makes me think of a quote by Nietzsche, "In truth,there was only one christian and he died on the cross." As for the fate of One-Eye himself, it's debatable. We don't know anything about his past, where he came from or what his objective was. One of the characters tells him at first that there's more to life than vengeance, also the trailer makes it seem like he is a man on a quest for vengeance. Actually, we never really see him get revenge on anyone, he only attacks to preserve his own life. True, he killed the people who kept him as a slave, but that's not vengeance if he was merely trying to get his basic right: Freedom. Was he a messianic figure? After all, just like Christ, he didn't discriminate against anyone, no matter if they were pagans, sinners, or if they were followers. His name, is it a reference to Odin or, if we do some mental gymnastics, an analogy to how God sees us all through a single scope? We're all equal to the eyes of God. His death in the end, the way he sacrifices himself to save Are, is it a reenactment of Christ's sacrifice for the sake of mankind? Too many possibilities, but no objective answer. One might choose whatever they want.

I think that now it's time to finish this review. I expected one thing but found something completely different; yet, I'm not frustrated. I liked this movie. I think it's some good food for thought. You get to reflect upon religion, colonization, the violent essence of mankind, the clash between different visions, etc. It's a good movie to me, I think it's biggest mistake was trying to present itself, and I'm talking about the trailer, as something it definitely isn't. Not perfect, but it's not terrible either.

You don't expect much of story line when you see a chained, one-eyed warrior with an axe in his hand, but whatever story the movie was telling, the watcher was left in the dark. There is no reason in the character's acting. Questions that will occur when you watch this movie:

1. What's with the naked women in the beginning?

2. Where did the crusader expect to land? To be flushed straight into the Holy Land?

3. Where did they actually land?

4. Who is the brown guy and why is he sitting with them?

5. Are they supposed to be natives? So the actually got into a boat, got stuck in a fog and eventually landed in the New World?

6. Why do they think they are in hell? And why don't they explore the country? Jerusalem isn't at the ocean, so wherever they landed they'd still have to walk.

7. Why do they go crazy and kill each other?

8. Why does One-Eye sacrifice himself and why is being killed?

The movie has some sort of story line but it's not explained. It just scenes thrown together that chronologically make sense but I still couldn't follow the story.

My last question:

What is the "true self" that One-Eye apparently finds as it's advertised on the back of the movie?