everything you have heard about this movie is true.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

THE VIKING of 1928 still appears to be, in a way, a strikingly absorbing picture. Although it seems that any commitment to viewing this movie may be a privilege of some little group of film scholars, claiming that it leaves no impression whatsoever would surely belittle the significance of silent cinema along with its unique appeal. Obviously, it could not stand a chance against many modern 'pseudo-epic adventures' that heap us with cheap effects which, at moments, cross dangerous borderline placing us at risk of being deprived of imagination. With that in mind, its two strip Technicolor effects would merely appear laughable for some but, paradoxically, renewing for others. Yes, some of its awe-inspiring charm that initially contributed to its adventure merit, still remains.A misleading assumption lies in a viewpoint that solely two strip Technicolor (for which the movie is most famous) makes THE VIKING worth seeing. Of course, it is impossible to miss this point when even mentioning this movie. Nevertheless, what strikes me most about this film is its storytelling and the fact that it evokes the courage of the Vikings no less than their cruelty. Meanwhile, it does not fall into temptation of reducing them to sheer savages from a purely subjective standpoint of 'baddies.' So to say, such an early achievement becomes authentic and, at the same time, gains realistic targets. It is not only executed in the character of Leif Eriksson (Donald Crisp) who travels towards the new shores but, even, in Erik the Red (Anders Randolf), his father. The sophisticated nature of his character is prompted by contrast within him. On the one hand, his axe is used against his political and religious enemies, even his own son when he discovers his new faith. One the other hand, he draws a very humane conclusion in a memorable scene: 'Leif is my son after all.THE VIKING with no great stars of the time (being an MGM production), contains all the pictorial elements that we find in cinema of any decade. It substantially depicts love, revenge, fight. We have a Northumbria context of Alwin (LeRoy Mason), taken as a slave, we have a beautiful prototype of female warrior, Helga played by Pauline Starke (of course, a blonde beauty as it is a movie about the Vikings after all), we have kings of two opposing policies, we have this eternal conflict between Christian faith (represented by King Olaf of Norway and his followers, including Erik Leifsson) and pagan cults (represented by Erik the Red, Leif's father, the king of Greenland). Predictably, the Christians are depicted as loving, understanding and forgiving while the pagans are cruel. Yet, there is some nobility in both groups (again with reference to a more psychological approach). Their confrontation, however, is one of the most authentic moments of the theme ever found in silent cinema. Finally, we have the theme of new land, promised land, America (yes, long before Columbus) so much appealing to the audiences of the late 1920s.But the film is no serious stuff and it should never be treated like one. It is, first and foremost, adventure and entertainment. Just to recall some scenes that have truly stood a test of time and are no less entertaining than they must have been in the late 1920s, including the depiction of Greenland, Vikings' feasts (less savage than in 1958 Fleischer's film), love plot between Alwin and Helga, Egil/Alwin vibrant fight. On the subject of Helga, the beautiful warrior blonde, much credit to Pauline Starke's inspiring performance. The idea of such a female character was not new in this period of silent films. We should remember the lost film QUEEN OF SHEBA and the famous chariot race of the queen and princess Vashti. Nevertheless, Starke's portrayal must have occurred revelatory as early as in 1928 combining appeal and authenticity.I agree with the opinion of those viewers who praise this film and recommend others to seek it out. Perhaps, it is flawed historically; surely, it is no towering entertainment for viewers used to most dazzling spectacles of our decade. Nonetheless, I believe that anyone may find something for themselves in this early Technicolor treasure and find its reasonable running time fruitful and memorable.

Viking, The (1928)** 1/2 (out of 4)Leif Ericsson (Donald Crisp) sales off in hopes of going West of Greenland looking for uncharted land. Along the way he battles with viking queen Helga (Pauline Starke) as well as a slave (LeRoy Mason) she bought. If you're looking for a history lesson then I'd recommend you get a book because there are certainly many liberties taken with the "truth" here. However, at the same time, I've always said that you shouldn't come into a movie expecting a history lesson because a movies main goal should be to entertain you and for the most part THE VIKING is an entertaining film. It is somewhat historic because it was an all-color production that has some of the best looking 2-strip Technicolor that you're going to see. Coming at the end of the silent era we're also greeted with a soundtrack as well as several sound effects. I don't think there's any question that the main reason to see this is for the Technicolor, which is certainly very beautiful and there's also no question that MGM went all out to make sure there were plenty of colorful items in front of the camera. The look of the costumes, sets and ships are certainly beautiful to see in color and you can tell that the studio pumped up the look so they could show off all the colors. The beautiful blues of the seas were a major highlight as was the bloody red that actually happens during some of the more violent scenes including one man get stabbed as well as another getting an ax in the head. The sound effects are mainly crowd noises such as cheers but there are still enough of them to make you forget you're watching a silent movie. The actual story being told is rather weak because there's a love triangle that really goes no where and some of the alterations to history are a tad bit funny and I don't think the filmmakers were wanting you to be laughing. The three leads are decent in their roles but I'd be lying if I said any of them really stood out. There are some rather wild moments including a brief bit where the men believes there's a witch and ghost below decks and another violent fight where the Pagans go after the Christians. Fans of Technicolor will certainly want to check this out as will silent film buffs but I'd be willing to bet that the rest will find themselves bored. THE VIKING isn't perfect and it's too flawed to be a good movie but there's some entertainment to be had.

Donald Crisp was an extremely prolific actor in sound films. What many people don't know is that he made even more silent films (as actor and director) than sound films. In The Viking, he plays Leif Ericsson, who plans his greatest adventure, to go beyond Greenland and explore for new lands.A strikingly handsome LeRoy Mason plays Lord Alwin, an English noble. His castle is attacked by the Vikings early in the film, his family scattered, and he is made a slave.The lovely Pauline Starke plays Helga Nilsson, who is a spunky Nordic gal who is loved by Leif, Alwin, and... well let's not give away too much of the story here.What makes this film charming and somewhat unique is that it came at the end of the silent era, when camera technique was at its height. It is also filmed in primitive technicolor. The early technicolor process did not render true color as we know it today. The muted shades of the film actually help to make the historic subject matter of the film more remote, as though one were actually watching something that happened long, long ago.The version of this film that I saw had sound effects, and a symphonic musical score that mixed new music with lots of Richard Wagner at climactic moments. It all worked very well.It's amazing to me that this very entertaining film is almost unknown today.

There are so many two-strip Technicolor features lost (Laurel and Hardy's The Rogue Song (1930) comes to mind) or just partially intact, that it was a pleasure to see one that seems not only intact (with no black and white inserts) but also as beautiful as originally released. This film is not colorized, as is often done with early black and white films; it was filmed in color, but without the yellow component that was added in the mid 30's that most of us know as Technicolor. As a result, the reds, blues and browns look pretty good, but you will notice the yellows and greens look a bit off color. Still, it is a great example of the process and worth seeing for that reason alone. But there are also some good action sequences that are sure to please lovers of that genre. I also enjoyed the backdrop of the plot; that of Leif Ericsson sailing west to discover America in the 12th century.