Highly Overrated But Still Good

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Blistering performances.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

I think I might have watched "The Vikings" way back some time in my childhood, because I do remember parts of the movie. I got the chance again to watch the movie here in 2017, so of course I jumped at the chance.It turns out that despite being from 1958 then "The Vikings" is actually a rather nice and impressive movie. And I reckon that it must have been some epic movie back in 1958. I mean, even just by watching it today, the production value and the accomplishment of director Richard Fleischer was just astounding. There certainly was a sense of adventure and grand epic about the movie."The Vikings" had a pretty impressive cast, which included two of the biggest Hollywood stars of the day; that being Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis, of course. Now, both of them are good actors and performed quite well, but for some reason it was just a tad difficult to really envision them as being vikings, as they had too much of a pampered beauty appearance going on. It was also a treat to see Ernest Borgnine in this movie.Storywise, then "The Vikings" was entertaining, for sure, but it felt a bit too scripted and predictable.Visually then this was a very impressive movie, and they had put a lot of effort into the costumes, the props, the sets, and so on, and that really paid off quite nicely. And the movie was filmed at some locations that really worked well and added so much flavor and atmosphere to the movie."The Vikings" has a good amount of action, drama and storytelling to keep most people entertained.If you haven't already seen "The Vikings", then you should take the time to do so, because it is an entertaining movie. And don't let the 1958 time stamp discourage you, because the movie really is impressive for its age and production.

This United Artists movie, directed by Richard Fleischer, has breathtaking beauty since it was produced around the fjords and mountains of Norway; in fact, the fjords were very refreshing-looking. It is, essentially, a "Scandanavian western" with a lot of exciting action all the way through. The movie depicted so well the bitterness and bitter fighting between England and Norway during the Middle Ages. The cast was well-picked. Kirk Douglas was a mean Viking barbarian named Einar, and the blond-haired, blue-eyed prided himself on being so handsome. Ernest Borgnine was a mean man himself named Ragnar, the father of Einar. (In real life,their ages were very close to each other.) Tony Curtis, who was adept at playing either dramatic roles or comedic roles, did a serious turn as Eric, a slave, mistreated but very brave. Janet Leigh, Tony Curtis' wife, was very beautiful as Morgana. The excitement of the movie maintained almost perfectly my attention and thus alleviated any boredom. The love scene in which Einar spoke to Morgana (which was Curtis speaking to his wife) was touching. For many reasons it should be considered a superb classic, since it was that to be sure.

Starting with the pluses, the reconstructed Viking ships look terrific; Jack Cardiff's photography is - as is to be expected from such a master - beautiful, mostly; some lesser-known character actors, such as Eileen Way and Frank Thring, are given a chance to shine whilst chewing the beautifully-photographed scenery, as are a trio of better-known supporting artistes, James Donald, Alexander Knox and Ernest Borgnine. But beyond this list, I start to struggle. Take Mario Nascimbene's score, for example. The recurring fanfare recurs so often that any power it possessed during the opening credits is so diluted that by the final reel it ends up sounding like an advertising jingle. And that huge ram's horn, blown so often, is a joke because we're clearly meant to overlook the fact that is makes the sound of a modern french horn.Then there's Tony Curtis' costumes, anticipating 60s miniskirts. Although he looks lovely in them, they seem so counter-character.Then there's the script. Oh my goodness, the script. Jaw-droppingly embarrassing, toe-curlingly bad. Only massively over-the-top playing or wily underplaying could survive it. Borgnine, Thring, Way and Douglas go big, whilst Donald and Knox go small. All get to the end of the film with their heads held as high as possible in the circumstances. Curtis and Leigh, both good actors, sadly sink below the fjords. Given the clichéd inanity of their lines, they had no hope. Leigh's role in particular is not so much wet as soaked through, flooded, sodden. If it weren't so sad it would be funny.But actually, it IS funny. There's little to choose between the number of laughs in this movie and those in THE COURT JESTER (1955), except that the laughs in THE VIKINGS are gloriously unintentional. Historical epics are strange. The 1925 silent version of BEN-HUR starring Ramon Navarro is as silly as the 1959 version starring Charlton Heston, but is somehow believable and even touching because there is no dialogue. As we've seen, terrible movie dialogue requires either over-playing or under-playing. Canny actors - and directors - realise this. So Heston, Yul Brynner and Anne Baxter flounder in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS of 1956, because they attempt to be real. Edward G. Robinson and most of the women craftily underplay whilst Judith Anderson and Vincent Price do the opposite, both tactics giving the effect of the actors standing outside of the nonsense they're having to say, the paradoxical result of which is that we believe what they're saying. This is very much the technique of stars as different as Bette Davis and Charles Laughton. So it is in THE ROBE (1953), with Richard Burton and Jean Simmons attempting naturalism in a film that has the believably unbelievable Ernest Thesiger in it; in SPARTACUS (1960), in which Kirk Douglas lethally plays it for real, and as a result is fatally incredible; in EL CID (1961), CLEOPATRA (1961), THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (1964), THE BIBLE (1966). All terrible scripts, all inadvertently funny, all with only a handful of performances which the audiences can relate to, but the actors giving those performances rarely if ever in the leading roles.The directors who had to deliver these inevitable turkeys contain some remarkable names - Anthony Mann, John Huston, Stanley Kubrick...THE VIKINGS was directed by Richard Fleischer, who was perhaps more creative with lower budgets, and who definitely turned in excellent work when given a worthwhile script e.g. COMPULSION (1959); THE BOSTON STRANGLER (1968), his very next film after THE VIKINGS, which couldn't be more of a contrast both in tone and achievement, with Curtis giving one of his very best performances; 10 RILLINGTON PLACE (1971), a well-judged, atmospheric thriller with memorable performances from Richard Attenborough and John Hurt. Fleischer also ventured into toga-territory with BARABBAS (1961), which has an amazing cast all over-playing like crazy, making it a rare success in the genre. Two developments gave new life to the cinematic epic, whether Biblical, Roman, medieval or any other flavour. One was James Goldman's script for THE LION IN WINTER (1968) which gave all the characters language that seemed to belong to our time rather than a fabricated age of yore. The other development was the coming of Monty Python, who took up the lunacy of THE COURT JESTER with MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL (1975), LIFE OF BRIAN (1979) and ERIC THE VIKING (1989 - surely a direct response to the movie reviewed here) and made the form impossible to take seriously again. Not that Hollywood cared: it still financed GLADIATOR (2000) and TROY (2004, with Brad Pitt in the Curtis-esque miniskirt), and very funny they were too.

Excellent movie. Kirk Douglas was at his very best portraying Einar, the Viking prince. Curtis, Borgnine, and Janet Leigh all were excellent. Many great moments in the film..Tony Curtis telling his falcon, "Kill"..with devastating results. The wolf pit. A drunken Einar throwing an axe at a maiden or jumping across the oars of a Viking ship. Lots of imagination went into the making of this film and the characters were definitely not wooden, as they are in most historical epics. From the very beginning, the movie grabs you and keeps your interest until the very end. Images of Kirk Douglas as Einar scaling the castle walls by grabbing axe handles, crashing into a sacristy and shoving the priest aside, saying "Out of my way, Holy Man"..pretty intense stuff. A masterpiece.