At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Set in the Iceland of medieval times, The Viking Sagas tells the story of Kjartan (Moeller), a lone Viking trying to find his way in a very confusing and constantly-changing world. In order to take on and defeat his rivals, he needs a mystical weapon called The Ghost Sword. But even then he is not trained in the ways of battle, so a more experienced Viking, Gunnar (Thorsen) agrees to train him. Making his quest a lot more pleasant is the beautiful maiden Gudrun (Stefansdottir). The forces of darkness are represented by Ketil (Olafsson), and Kjartan, Gudrun and Gunnar must defend their honor, their land, and their freedom, as Kjartan also avenges the death of his father. Will they succeed? It's "Brakus The Viking" as Ralf Moeller treks across Iceland in a chain mail vest in this so-so period piece. The locations are visually interesting, and they're shot well, and Sven-Ole Thorsen is perfectly cast in the role he was truly born to play, but The Viking Sagas lacks coherence. The decision to use a narrator who is constantly naming characters and events doesn't help the confusing factor. The "battle violence" is decent, but it can't patch over some of the more plain and mediocre aspects of the overall film. There's a certain earnestness about the whole project, which seems like a misplaced tone. There should have been a bit more verve.The fact that the movie was directed by Michael Chapman, who is an Academy Award nominee for best cinematography for Raging Bull (1980), among others, and that the film was released on VHS by New Line with a bunch of trailers for more mainstream material such as The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996) and Last Man Standing (1996), seems a bit odd. The Viking Sagas seems like it would have been released by Vestron, Academy or Continental in 1989. We're guessing Harvey Weinstein isn't constantly name-checking The Viking Sagas at his high-level Hollywood meetings. But, it presaged Game Of Thrones by many years, so maybe there should be some pride there.Was there a huge demand for Viking-based Sagas in the 90's? This particular Saga hits all the bullet points of what should be involved, such as a beautiful maiden, axe battles, snow, etc., but it's unlikely to inspire viewers. That being said, the end credits are amazing. We've never highlighted that before (nor has any other movie reviewer, probably) - Just watching them, you see a dizzying myriad of crazy letter combinations, accent marks, letters not in English mixed in, and credits such as Robert "Bloodaxe" Brakey - where else are you going to see that? (He was a first assistant editor, by the by). That must be one seriously badass Editor. We're guessing he edits film with an axe.The Viking Sagas is completely hit or miss. There are some great moments, but they're mixed in to an overall project which is...mixed. Fans of this historical period may want to check it out. For others, it's probably not worth going out of your way for.

I was stunned to read some of the positive reviews about this movie. Not to be a fly in the ointment but this movie was absolutely horrendous. The director, Michael Chapman, tries to follow the script of the Icelandic sagas, which is an impossible task to achieve without thoroughly boring an audience, so the characters are left spouting meaningless lines like "I am..(pause for dramatic effect) Gunnar" instead of the more realistic (but infinitely more boring) "I am so-and-so, son of Eilif, grandson of Torkjell, 2nd cousin to Hallgeir Bloody Tooth, 4th brother-in-law twice removed to Helgi the Red, who defeated your great-grandmother in battle." Chapman goes out of his way to employ a largely Icelandic cast but then fails to get any advice from them on how to pronounce the character's names, which doesn't help the intended realism.Okay, so maybe sticking to the Eddas and the Sagas wouldn't make for exciting cinema but instead of fleshing out the characters and making them people we can relate to Chapman makes them stereotypical and one-dimensional. The audience is led to believe the Vikings are overly macho brutes who take killing very lightly and seldom think of anything other than upholding their honor and obtaining bloody revenge.The hero, Kjartan (Ralf "Terminator" Moeller), mostly grunts, flexes his muscles and speaks in a strong German accent about how he's going to "awenge his fatter". The training scene with Gunnar is another perfect example of the hideous dialogue throughout the movie. "Go ahead and kill me," is Gunnar's introduction to their first swordfighting lesson. "I don't vant to kill you," answers Arnold (er, Kjartan) and the two predictably end up bonding after Gunnar's spear nearly shaves several inches off our hero's manhood.There are some redeeming moments in the film: the Icelandic scenery is stunning and there are several scenes where the characters chase each other over raging streams on 5-ft. tall Shetland ponies. Ingebjorg Stefansdottir's breasts are stunning and for a "virgin" she wastes no time in showing our hero how grateful she is by climbing on top of him, which she does frequently and gratuitously throughout the movie. The two have sex wherever they can find a warm, hot spring and manage to fall deeply in love without ever having to enter into any conversation.The final battle scene though is the movie's shining moment in time: the Icelandic minstrels start playing Scottish bagpipe brogues and Kjartan mistakenly grabs the wrong prop - a circular Roman shield from the "Gladiator" set and embraces Ketil in a struggle to the death. Our hero emerges victorious when the evil villain's axe bounces off his chest and he shouts out the memorable and oft-repeated line "Vatter, I have awenged you!" Not to be outdone (his union contract called for him to have the final say), Ketil continues to egg on his enemy for a full 5 seconds after being decapitated before realizing he lacks vocal cords.

What a refreshing retelling of stories that I read as part of my honors thesis way back when. Unlike recent Hollywood epics, this film gives a real sense of the land, its heritage and its people. I recall seeing a great foreign film in 1969 entitled Hagbard and Signe (The Red Mantle in the rest of the world). This film echoes that earlier epic both in content and beauty. (Unfortunately, the earlier film is nowhere to be found.) I would highly recommend both of the films, along with the original Pathfinder for anyone who shares an interest in the sagas and who also desires realism in a Nordic film. (Note: I would that Hollywood would do away with the horned helmets, dragon boats,etc. in films that deal with the Nordic sagas.)

About the best thing that can be said about this movie is that the cinematography is stunning, which is to be expected in a film made by an Oscar-nominated cinematographer like Michael Chapman. You get a real sense of how a rugged, towering country like that shown can turn out rugged, towering people. It's too bad you can't get that sense from the people themselves.Ralf Moeller, who was so impressive in "Gladiator", is much less so here. His stock in trade is his magnificently chiseled body, which was showcased to great effect in "Gladiator". Here, though, he doesn't even take off his shirt until almost halfway through the movie, which makes you wonder if the filmmakers hired him for his acting skills (he's earnest, but he makes Arnold Schwarzenegger look like Laurence Olivier) or his fighting skills (not in evidence at all, even after he's supposedly trained by "the best warrior of all the Vikings"), since they pretty much kept his physical attributes under wraps for much of the film. Not so with Ingibjorg Stefansdottir, Moeller's love interest, who kept very little under wraps (not that there's anything wrong with that). She has several somewhat gratuitous nude (well, topless anyway) and sex scenes, but other that that, she doesn't impress much, either. What's most unimpressive, however--and the most disappointing aspect of the film, IMO--are the "action" scenes. Another poster has described director Chapman as "clunky", and that word fits the battle scenes like a glove. They're listless--even though the participants shout, grimace and yell at each other a lot--and, frankly, badly done, with very little flair, panache or even excitement to them at all. There are scenes of various limbs and heads being lopped off among great spurts and rivers of very Karo-syrup-looking blood, but they're by-the-numbers and you can see them coming a mile away--there's no "gaaah!" factor (as in "gaaah! that guy just got his head split in half!") to them, as there was in, for example, "Braveheart". As for the story itself, well, the plot is your standard "he killed my father and I will avenge his death!" tale, but the film is so choppy, convoluted, badly put together and, in some cases, hard to understand that it's difficult to follow the plot even though you know exactly what it is and exactly how it's going to turn out.If you can't tell, I was really very disappointed in this film. The subject matter lends itself well to a sweeping, rugged spectacle, with snarling villains, gorgeous women in distress, ferocious battle scenes and everything you'd come to expect in a Viking picture. There was little of that here. I understand that the filmmakers wanted to be as accurate as possible in their portrayal of the Vikings of the time, but they didn't have to make it so, frankly, boring. Worth a watch, maybe, but it's not one that you'd want to see again any time soon.