What makes it different from others?

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Better Late Then Never

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

...story, lines, events, adventure, fights, heroism , love story. but not bad. in few aspects - surprising. because it has the right cast, the right director and...the right music. because it has the same flavor from the "historical" films of same period. but seductive nuances. because Sydney Poitiers is real convincing as the cruel, powerfull Aly Mansuh and Richard Widmark orRuss Tamblyn use the inspired recipe defining each of them roles. so, a film who not gives much surprises but it is more than decent. and, for today, when the Viking fashion is alive, "The Long Ships" has the chance to be real cool.

Richard Widmark is excellent in the Kirk Douglas role, Sidney Poitier cast very much against type as the villain and Gordon Jackson as a cowardly Viking providing comic relief many years before he became the authority figure made famous by his roles in The Professionals and Upstairs/Downstairs.2 things that really stand out about this film, the revelation of the giant bell (which seems to float very well considering it's supposed to be solid gold?)and the 'Steel mare' torture device which really is the stuff of nightmares, like the Tarzan film where his African porters would be ripped apart by being tied to criss crossed palm trees. Even though this is all implied and you don't actually ever see anything it's still amazing that this is a PG? The way Poitier's ruler casually sacrifices the life of one of his men to prove a point is horrifying. Unusually he's portrayed quite nobly and the relationship with his head harem girl is interesting and multi-layered, eventually when she dies for him you totally buy it. Really you couldn't make this film today, the blonde and blue eyed Vikings defeating an Islamic enemy not to mention their lusty raid on the harem girls. You also have the extremely beautiful Viking princess being given to the delighted harem girls as their new plaything before being presented primped and pouting to her new master as his latest slavegirl, scenes that probably launched a 1001 historical romance novels. So all told not as powerful as The Vikings but possibly more fun.

The name of Frans G. Bengtsson features on the credits. He must be turning in his grave. He was an outstanding Swedish writer, and the author of several novels and historical works, including an exciting best-seller, in two parts, which was translated into English as "The Long Ships", and into 22 other languages. This film, so far as I can tell, has virtually nothing whatsoever to do with that excellent book. The film does have a character called Krok, who bears no resemblance to his namesake in the book. Otherwise the whole production is a ghastly travesty.Richard Widmark was of Swedish descent, and he does look quite Swedish. However, he doesn't look anything like a Viking. His acting in this film is atrociously inappropriate. None of the other actors seem anything like Vikings or Moors, especially not Russ Tamblyn and Sidney Poitier, or any of the variegated British crowd. Leonard Rossiter and Lionel Jeffries for God's sake! Was this meant to be a comedy ? It's riddled with plot holes and serious impossibilities, including a bell made of solid gold, perhaps the least suitable metal for a bell, 18 foot tall.The film starts off immediately on the wrong note with an excruciating introductory narrative in a light, gentlemanly English voice, by an actor called Edward Judd. Strange that characters in films of this era, notably females, always have impeccable hairdos, even if they've just been dragged through a storm backwards. The wife of the head Moor (was that really Poitier ?) has an exceptionally dishy deshabille.Widmark is reported as having said of the shoot, which took place in Yugoslavia during the rule of Tito, that "It wasn't a happy time." That is apparent. It's an unhappy film. There are one or two good maritime scenes, hence the extra star. Made for uncritical ten year olds.

I wanted to love this film. After all, my favorite film for fun and adventure from the 1950s is 1958's "The Vikings". While this Richard Fleischer film is no masterpiece for the snobs out there, it IS exciting throughout--with more action and thrills than three typical action films. So, with this in mind, I was hoping to see the same sort of movie--filled with excitement aplenty. However, sadly, this was NOT the case. The entire movie seemed very, very talky (a Viking who talks?!) and a bit like a bad movie serial--with lots and lots of narrow escapes but not a lot of inspired action.The film begins with Viking Richard Widmark in the middle of the Muslim empire. While it is a little-known fact that Vikings DID travel as far as the Mediterranean and the Muslim world, the combination seemed uninspired. And, to make it worse, the powerful Muslims seemed amazingly dumb--as they let the Vikings escape repeatedly. The only possible cool moment they COULD have had involved a fictional device called the "steel horse"--and they never exactly got around to actually using it on anyone but one of their own innocent men!! Duh.The plot is a silly mess, as it supposedly involved an enormous golden bell that has NONE of the properties of real gold (see the GOOFS on IMDb for more). And, seeing Vikings in furs in the middle of the hot Middle East looking for Byzantine gold just seemed crazy. But, this MIGHT have worked if the film had been interesting or the characters compelling--which none of it ever was. So what you have is a pretty film with decent music but that is all. Too bad...Vikings should be fun and entertaining to watch.By the way, while the film was far from great and the Vikings NEVER would have dressed in furs like this, I did at least appreciate that they did NOT have horns on their helmets--a modern myth about these Scandinavian warriors.