Who payed the critics

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

The movie's supposed to depict realistically the life of Icelandic vikings. To some extent, there it succeeds - life is gritty and hard, the skies are always gray, wind is always blowing. No stupid horned helmets or Hollywood swashbuckling (as in "Pathfinder"), the vikings do not resemble members of a heavy metal band, trying to be as revolting as only they know how (see "13th Warrior"). The serial killer hero approaches his labor of murder with noble stoicism. The location is postcard Iceland - black sand beach and "troll fingers" rocks near VikOn the other hand, the budget and imagination are tight, all of the action is limited to the same location. It looks like a saga abridged to a level of a comic book - lots of slaughter, not much talk. In place of complex psychology, there is an overwrought and childish symbolism (crows, last scene, etc.). The soundtrack is bad and exploitative. The whole thing is amateurish and gets frightfully boring. This may be a petty quibble, but for a movie that's gunning for verisimilitude, the place looks wrong - in 9-10th centuries, Iceland was still forested, rather than the barren rock you see todayTo sum it up, if you want an art-house viking movie, go watch "Severed Ways", it has compelling, albeit completely anachronistic heavy metal music. Or "Valhalla Rising" - the photography there is amazing.

The thing that shines most out of this film is the plot. The avenging son doesn't just come and kill people, he uses cunning to make them trust him and distrust each other, he separates them and then kills them when he has the upper hand.The problem, though, is the amateurish directing and acting, something that I know well enough from my own country's productions. The fact that the language is Icelandic (and the horses, too, that's funny) doesn't help much, nor does the clearly minute budget.In a way, I agree with many of the people that reviewed this positively: this felt like a real life Viking saga, with normal folk being dressed in animal fur and fighting with bow and knife in a dreary land. However, too much realism is bad as well, and I imagine the film would be liked only by a minority of viewers because of it. In fact, it feels like old Spaghetti westerns at times, with the bad sound and silly music added after the filming.Now, I can imagine this done by Hollywood. They would definitely remove what was good with the script, because their heroes must always be moral and trustworthy, either white or black. The role of the woman would be relegated to something helpless, begging for assistance, rather than the courageous stance the Icelandic character takes. The fights would be epic, touching steampunk, with weird contraptions that mass murder tens of people (but without blood). When I compare this projection to the actual film, the Icelandic version wins, however I can't help think of what this could have been with just a little more resources at their disposal.

I am confused by the magnanimous praise for this film. First of all, let me respect it for its unsensational style. It expressed the everyday unromantic experience of what it must have been like then. In this way, it avoided Hollywoodism, but when I consider how the film-makers could have incorporated vast vistas as a cinematic expression of the isolation of these communities I was dismayed. These people lived in immense isolation, but all we were given 90 percent of the time were tight shots, and landscapes were generally presented as one section of the pebbly beach with some stark rocky islands off shore. And let us consider the opening (of the version I saw). There was no attempt at establishing the historical context. Instead, we got close shots that could have been anywhere, and certainly shot in the style for 'straight to video". Come on! The script was clever, with the potential for a great dramatic experience, but the director must have been limited by a highly restrictive budget, because it ended up looking like 'made for TV'. The synthesized music was occasionally effective but surely deeper chords would have created an ominous atmosphere. The hero did not really have any tense challenges. He seemed to cruise through it all. While I sort of liked him, I never had a sense of his jeopardy. In short, there was no dramatic tension. In this sense, there was an echo of some of Clint Eastwood's movies, but without the stylishness. There was an assumption that we were on the protagonist's side, but why deprive us of his human vulnerability as he seeks revenge? I feel that the writers deserve a bigger budget to prove to us that they can create a truly cinematic experience rather than a small dimension TV drama. I have not seen the subsequent 2 parts of the trilogy.

Being Icelandic I'm of course proud of most films made in Iceland, and they do get better every year. The only thing I sometimes criticise is that we, Icelanders, try to be TOO clever. We don't allow ourselves to just make pure action or pure comedy, but it seems we have to try to add some artistic flair to all our films. Hrafninn flygur is a viking-action film, which keeps your interest from beginning to end. The costumes and surroundings are beautiful, and the story is a good old revenge-your-parents tale, but with enough twists and side stories to keep ones interest fully. I have many friends around the globe, and Hrafninn flygur is one of the few films that I would recommend to anyone for pure entertainment value. Sadly, this film is not available any more, so we will just have to hope that one of these days they will re-release it.