Underrated
It's a shame, in my opinion this deserves to be ranked up there with Spartacus.
You came back, for a place like this. Why? A man like you. Why? - Calverashare
I agree. I guess the critics didn't think much of the picture in 1958. But today, fifty years later, I would rather see this movie again than a lot of the other fare from that year, or any other. It's truly a great movie. If they would have had a little more money in the budget, who knows what they could have done. It's one of the few movies that I wish were longer.
shareGreat movie, loved it. But, no. Good as it was, Spartacus had far more artistic power and equity. But to be fair, it's apples and oranges. Loosely submitted, The Vikings is to Spartacus what Tombstone is to Shane.
www.joekeck.com
Hard to compare it to Spartacus...two very different films with different aims and methods of achieving those aims.
I would definitely agree though, that "The Vikings" is underrated...it is an absolute classic of its genre...it has something extra too, a certain je ne sais quoi.
I love it!
I think The Vikings, as a period action/adventure movie, holds up about as well today as any of its era I can think of. If you showed this to a 12 to 21 year-old male moviegoer, he would probably find it quite entertaining and would not likely be put off by or even much notice the very different conventions of golden-age "Hollywood" epics -- not that any of that is necessary to evaluating it on its own merits. It's a helluva good movie now or 50 years ago.
shareThe Vikings is a more even film. The best bits of Spartacus are superior but that film also has a lot of preaching, a lot of bloat and a lot of bad dubbing.
share