The Vikings (1958)

Top comments

1. 

   dombrewer

   Very silly, overblown Technicolor epic with a pretty thin plot dressed up beautifully by Jack Cardiff's gorgeous Norwegian location cinematography. Tony Curtis and Kirk Douglas are unknowingly half-brothers, one a lowly good-hearted slave and the other an arrogant aggressive Viking prince, both love the same kidnapped Northumbrian princess (Janet Leigh, looking lovely), the slave is the lost heir to the throne of Northumbria... so far, so obvious... Douglas chews the scenery as the tortured Einar, blinded in one eye and looking as villainous as possible, but the film never really convinces or thrills the way it should. Two years later the two stars hit gold with a "Spartacus" - an altogether better class of epic. 11 years 5 months ago
2. 

   Siskoid

   I wouldn't stake my reputation on the authenticity of 1958's The Vikings - the Vikings look good; the Saxons are at least 400 years off - but it has a great cast and gorgeous European locations, so I can forgive the Hollywoodized interpretation. I mean, Hollywood or not, the film certainly doesn't shy away from the nasty violence of the era. People get maimed and killed in the most horrific ways, even if they don't always show a lot of blood (one case excepted). The Vikings themselves are portrayed as party animals and happy rapists, and the English are craven dandies, so neither side comes off positively, except maybe Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh as the central couple. It's hard not to like Ernest Borgnine, I admit, and even Kirk Douglas' villain has a noble streak (not as much as the movie wants him to have, mind). They all acquit themselves well. This lusty action adventure has plenty of variety, cool stunts and fights, and a pretty nice score. I don't think I need it to be grittier and grimier. So Douglas has a modern hairstyle, so what. 3 years 10 months ago

See all comments

Friends

Login to see which of your friends have seen this movie!