Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Fantastic!

Absolutely Fantastic

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

I haven't watched Hammer of the Gods, so Sword of Vengeance was a completely fresh and new impression for me. Frankly speaking, I expected (and feared) to see something alike Valhalla Rising, but fortunately I was wrong in my expectations.Here we have not an art house movie, full of hidden meanings and symbols, but quite frank and straightforward story about vengeance (as you may guess from the title). Plot retains logic almost till the end, slightly (or completely, depends on the point of view) losing grip on reality in the final part. Would it stood firm until the ending credits, for me it would be one of the best films I saw this year. The Sword of vengeance is built on visuals, and by visuals I mean not only effects (which are mostly practical by the way) but the whole filming and editing thing. It's stylish, well-sustained and strong in every scene. In fact the visuals in this movie are self-sufficient, especially in combination with the sound. Plot, and even actors' performance may be put aside, neglected – and the movie still would look great.In fact actors are not bad. I would say they did well enough, at least to stay on the level and not waste the good, almost perfect picture. The fighting scenes are good, but the lack of budget still can be seen through them, especially in large-scale battles. Director was careful enough not to exceed the scale beyond his limits, but these limits still were very tight. That's why from time to time we feel the lack of men in the shot and battles look sliced into separate pieces, which run separately from each other. In duels there are too many slow-motion that meant to hide simple, ascetic fighting choreography, and all the other scenes are tend to be static and mute.Despite all of above-mentioned as a whole picture is good and gives you a good emotional impact. I guess, it's because of director's and operator's talents. As I've said already, would the writer to as good as them – movie would be very, remarkably good. No one would expect a complicated intrigue for a plot, but remain logical is crucial in such cases.So the movie is good, but not as good as it could be – with just a slight script edition.

The Vikings TV series seems to be spinning off a sub genre of 1000 AD action shows. At least that is how I see this one. Cross Ragnar with the High Plains Drifter. Distilled Man with No Name with a Ragnar L. haircut. Wish they had explained how a Norman boy transformed into a Viking bad-ass. Love the berserkers by the way. I like the style, the weird electronic score. It is more like a dream world than realistic.The colors are black and white.The landscape science fiction. Not even true to history.There were no stone castles three years after 1066! No originality to the plot. Really it is the classic a stranger comes to town.But that's OK I was entertained. I like it for what it is.

Its kind of a Ragnar pulls a Seven Samurai in a muddy village in England. The film appears to have real depth and substance at first but then after a while you realize almost everything is in slow mo and it becomes obvious its a young director who is ever so slightly off the mark. Despite that there was something about this that made me want to like it and the production itself was impressive although I started to question the use of throat-slitting after about the tenth time. Others have criticized the movie for lacking a plot but I think there was a decent story in there it just didn't really punctuate through the violence. I especially liked the younger brother villain that didn't just die at the beginning. ////SPOILER ALERT////// I had all but given up on this movie as trife predictable male fantasy but the ending kind of brought me back in. It came so close to being great but left too many villagers alive. I thought finishing it with basically everyone dying except the male lead would have been a perfect statement about revenge and almost Shakespearian. I guess that is kind of what they were going for but again they just didn't quite punctuate that point and make it hit home with the audience. Like maybe the guy should have felt somewhat guilty at the end especially because he could have made a difference if he wasn't late for the final fight. I am hoping the character will go on to bring more misery and death to people already dealing with misery and death but I doubt we will see a sequel.I'm glad i watched it and I found it interesting. The slow mo really put me off after a while but some of the characters were interesting and not what i was expecting overall. I'm interested to see what else this director does because with a few tweaks here and there this could have been a bad ass flick. As far as copycat movies go it was half way to solid.

Reviewed by: Dare Devil Kid (DDK)Rating: 2.5/5 starsWith a stylish look and 86-minute runtime, "Sword of Vengeance" is chock full of action, violence, retribution, and minimal dialogue. The script revolves around a Norman prince (Stanley Weber) who seeks revenge on his father's murderer - his ruthless uncle, Earl Durant (Karel Roden). Gaining the trust of a band of exiled and beleaguered Saxon farmers, he leads them into battle against Durant and his army, exploiting them in his quest to satisfy his code of honor. Does the prince find his retribution, and will he be willing to sacrifice everything and everyone to quench his thirst for bloody vengeance forms the crux of the story.The film showcases a great use of color, making the battlefield look hazy and depressing. It's also heavy on style, has a great production design (considering its budget), and boasts impressive sets. There is an interesting background score to boot - very electronic and not at all what you might expect from a film set one thousand years ago, but nevertheless refreshing and merged well with the scenes.The bleak and desolate landscape, the depiction of the silent warrior, and the tyranny of the Normans over the Saxons are all well- portrayed. Unfortunately, the plot feels scattered, and the character development, subpar. The audience is only treated to flashbacks of our prince's past; how he got to where he is remains open to conjecture (and not of the less known the better kind). Though Weber does a good job of portraying his character, the writing and story does not provide adequate depth for the audience to sympathize with him, nor to be wholly engaged in his pursuit. Also, the historical authenticity of the portrayal of female Saxon warriors with one of being the leader (no less) of the ragtag and of Saxons is dubious to say the least. It's a given that the movie is a fictitious tale set against a historical backdrop, meant solely for entertainment, but this stretch of liberty taken by the filmmakers is somewhat hard do digest. And, as much as I'm an advocate for gender equality, it cannot trump reality."Sword of Vengeance" is basically one long battle sequence against a dark, brooding landscape interspersed with morose characters. Standing out from the bunch is Annabelle Wallis who breathes life into her battle worn character Anna. She is shown as a brutalized form in her introductory scene, and, then as the movie progresses, her inner warrior comes out. Obviously, Anna has to mix it up with the men, in battle and in the, um, bedroom, and Wallis has the proper combination of beauty and brawn to be believable in both aspects.Among the pros of 'Sword Of Vengeance' are its scenery, costumes, and score, which are pretty good, considering it's limited budget. The battle scenes are engrossing, barring certain portions where the use of slow-motion becomes excessive. The final battle looks epic with arrows, flames, pits, swords, axes, and plenty of mayhem. If you can look past the weak narrative and lack of character development, the film is worthy of an Itunes or Amazon download, especially for action buffs.