acting wasn't bad... but seriously, no direction, no dialogue that is useful... this is an awful, boring movie with the cast mostly standing around staring doing nothing interesting... this director sucks and so does the movie... what a waste of time. i'm reminded of high school A/V class with this caliber of a movie... can't believe someone actually produced this crap.
share[deleted]
I reluctantly agree..im annoyed and feel raped now after watching it. Shame it couldve been a new Hrafinin Flygur.
share
I reluctantly agree..im annoyed and feel raped now after watching it. Shame it couldve been a new Hrafinin Flygur.
"Tunker knivfer"? Lol, I had to laugh at that. It's "Þungur hnífur" "-thoon-gur hnee-vur"
Andskotinn!
jetset_2002
Glad you felt raped by this film. I'm sure that's just what Winding-Refn had in mind for those of feeble perception. Do yourself as favour and stick to Steven Segal movies and don't bother with films like this.
Yes, apparently all it takes is some off color lighting and aimless dialogue for people like you to think they watching something deep and thoughtful.
shareLOL
shareYeah comparing watching a film to being raped is so much less disturbing isn't it?
Interesting what idiots like you chose to criticize.
this kind of hit the nail on the head. I wanted to like this so bad. and I actually DID enjoy the atmosphere it was trying to convey. but it just wasn't enough. seemed really blowhard in my opinion and WAY too many fluff scenes off grass, of water, of the characters face tiredly looking straight ahead for minutes at a time it seemed like. It could have been good but wasn't. there wasn't enough substance
share"those of feeble perception" -- I love it when film nerds talk like Vikings! The surge of masculinity! Then the burp, and the smell of Cheetoh's and Diet Dr Pepper.
share>"Glad you felt raped by this film. I'm sure that's just what Winding-Refn had in mind for those of feeble perception. Do yourself as favour and stick to Steven Segal movies and don't bother with films like this."
I had to respond to this because I literally wrote the book on Steven Seagal ('Seagalogy: A Study of the Ass-Kicking Films of Steven Seagal' published by Titan Books) and I loved Valhalla Rising. So that was an unfair generalization.
I get why people would hate this movie, for all the reasons listed in these comments. It is not a traditional movie built on a strong sense of narrative or people talking to each other. It does require some patience and if it bores you it doesn't mean you're stupid (although you could be, I don't know you). But we're not exactly talking about Last Year at Marienbad here either - that's a movie I had a hard time getting through. In some ways this is like a traditional western or samurai movie where a quiet drifter comes through town, confronts some guys, there is tension and it explodes into violence. It's that type of movie slowly drifting into Hell to become a surreal experience that's more about tone and atmosphere than traditional storytelling.
I would compare it to movies like Ghost Dog, Redbelt and The Limey that combine a type of action subgenre with more of an arthouse feel. To me it's the best of both worlds. I don't think you're a well-rounded person unless you can appreciate "high art" *and* Out For Justice.
Well said, man. Agree with everything you wrote. Valhalla Rising was awesome; comprises just about everything I love about cinema.
Heddo.
Ahhh spoken like a true film snob. Great filming and a haunting soundtrack does not save this aimless film. His other two films were brilliant. This movie just meanders and eventually goes nowhere. It has nothing to do with someone liking mindless action films. It's about this film being slow, boring and ultimately meaningless.
"You and me are goin' on a car-ride to hell... and you're riding shotgun! "
It has nothing to do with someone liking mindless action films.
Dude? Seriously? Don't you know how a comment thread works? or do you suffer from ADD?
He wasn't replying to outlawvern, he was replying to brutalus who said:
"Glad you felt raped by this film. I'm sure that's just what Winding-Refn had in mind for those of feeble perception. Do yourself as favour and stick to Steven Segal movies and don't bother with films like this."
AFC to PUA. That's the dream.share
Refn had done more than two films, but what films are you referring to?
HI F-ING YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall
2013 Rankings imdb.com/list/2-zx4cThbEY/
Do people ever think about how stupid their comments are? Seriously, you felt like this @jetset_2002 "im annoyed and feel raped now after watching it." afterward? It must be a subconscious fantasy of yours to be raped because I've probably seen 2,000 movies and none have ever made me feel "raped". Truth is I hate when you fags talk about the 90 minutes you wish you had back after watching a particular movie and I hate how people exaggerate how good or bad a movie is.
share
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433346/board/nest/146874012?d=222234565#2 22234565
by Infinite_Rage: 2 days ago (Sat Nov 16 2013 14:36:37)
"@arne_seneca, The hate is because if you're going to make a movie this bad, don't make it at all! Don't you understand arne_seneca that a movie has to have some entertainment value? Unless you're watching it for naked girls, there's nothing this garbage has to offer and I'm a Horror Movie nut, especially Zombies. Yes, upon reflection, I resent that they made this movie and got my interest and wasted my time. You don't just make and sell a movie because there's a camera laying there!"
Infinite_Rage:
"Truth is I hate when you fags talk about the 90 minutes you wish you had back after watching a particular movie and I hate how people exaggerate how good or bad a movie is."
- LOL! You make this up as you go along? You must, cuz clearly there is no thought process going on...
Wolf
"I Drank What?!" - Socrates
I couldn't agree more I just finished watching it and had trouble staying awake it was so boring.
share[deleted]
No kidding. I only saw it a third of the way through, being surprised at how long it took for so little to happen.
I'm sure its just because I don't have the intellectual background to appreciate this movie.
===
You don't come here for the hunting...
[deleted]
Well normally speaking there's always a group of people defending a movie, no matter how much it sucked balls, claiming that the "haters" aren't intelligent enough to appreciate it.
With this movie however.... I see.... none?
Could this be the suckiest movie of all time?
Oh, good. Now I feel better that its just me, not the movie.
I'm up to 1 hour though. I think I can push towards the riveting finale.
===
You don't come here for the hunting...
didnt you realise its all our fault the movie sucked ?
convicted to life should convicted for life, for watching this crap, I dread to think how bad stalker is, it surely can be any worse then paranormal activity tho, can it ?
didnt you realise its all our fault the movie sucked ?
convicted to life should convicted for life, for watching this crap, I dread to think how bad stalker is, it surely can be any worse then paranormal activity tho, can it ?
ignore people on this board like convicted to drugs, hes a stoner that needs a psych check.
Compared the the second PA film, there is far fewer shots of the pool. :-)
So Stalker at least has that going for it.
C
"I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize." - Steven Wright
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
people can crow on and on about how its an arthouse film but that's just another word for making something that makes no sense, looks like crap and yet still people stand there and say "that's ART" in their smoking jackets, feeling all smug and clever.
I can appreciate good films, all types of films, but *beep* like this just makes me annoyed, I freely admit that I didn't really know what to expect but I just can't find any artistic value in a movie that makes literally no sense... either in a traditional sense or more intellectual sense, it simply made no sense.
I couldn't work out where they were meant to be, why they would want to go to Jerusalem if they are vikings, can't work out how they made it across the sea in a boat like that and can't understand the scenes that followed where, one can only describe as insanity set in and people proceeded to dig in the mud... crawl around in the water, at one point I'm pretty sure one guy started out by trying to kill someone but ended up butt raping him and then they all get killed... it was pointless, tedious and down right frustrating and I'm sorry but I can't sit there and say "this film is beautiful, its art" because its not, there's nothing stand out about it in terms of cinematography or direction, the scenes where the screen goes RED just looked like something out of a crappy psychedelic 60s program and it was just totally out of place
most disappointing, *beep* film I've seen in a long time, its not art, it doesn't mean people are stupid to not like it, it just means they watched a film that they didn't like, more so that many other films they've probably seen.
Did ANYONE undertand the ending? I mean OBVIOUSLY the idea is supposed to be that they died in the boat and end up in hell but then why would there be native americans there? *beep* up and pointless
Live on Xbox 360 as Ultrapro
Insanity didn't set in, they ingested a drug.
shareI found this movie riveting. I saw a story here and I had to see it to the bitter end, which it was. No happy ending, no one gets to go back home. The Christians with their blind and unanswered faith. One-Eye stoicly going to his death.I didn't enjoy it but I liked it for what it was. A story.
shareWhoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute, hold on. You said...
I found this movie riveting. ...I had to see it to the bitter end, ... No happy ending, no one gets to go back home. One-Eye stoicly going to his death. I didn't enjoy it but I liked it for what it was. A story.After reading your comments, I'm wondering if I saw a different movie. Are you sure you watched it all the way through and didn't fast forward? I'll admit, that's what I did at first. I fast forwarded quite a lot but then I decided to focus. I went back to the beginning, cleared my mind, and watched the entire movie.
The Christians with their blind and unanswered faith.This statement is an oxymoron. Faith is blind; it requires no answer; no proof. Faith is something one holds on to; it's hope; a strong belief in something that is not obvious and cannot necessarily be proven. Faith is determination; it's a driving force that can get the faithful through anything. This doesn't just apply to the Christians.
No happy ending
If it wasn't for you, why hang around trying to rile up its fans?
What a bunch of losers on this board. Check out the movie trailers before you go see a film, that way you'll get an idea of what the film is like.
(It's like giving advice to children.)
Valhalla is not for the sheep.
What a bunch of losers on this board. Check out the movie trailers before you go see a film, that way you'll get an idea of what the film is like.
(It's like giving advice to children.)
"Check out the movie trailers before you go see a film,"
The problem is the trailer is trying to sell a completely different movie
Well, I guess I fall under your category of 'loser' or 'child' because I'm one of those people who does NOT check out movie trailers prior to seeing the film. In fact, I'm adamant about it.
Yes, it's nice to have an idea of what I'm about to see; something that'll help me decide which movie(s) to choose but, I feel, a one sentence, general description, suffices.
Some trailers reveal way too much about the movie. That's not my preference. I enjoy discovering what I need to know about a particular movie as it unfolds on the screen before me; as I'm watching it.
I understood it, I don't think it's an intelligent film in the least, just artsy fartsy. A type of film most people hate.
shareU "understood it"? i think theres a zillion ways to interpret this movie, claiming that u "understood it" just points out that u in fact didnt understand the nature of it. Back to the thread, i LOVED this movie, but i can really understand where ur coming from. U have to be superfocused, notice the details and simply accept that its slow. Its just one of these movies where u have to loose urself to enjoy it, I got totally carried away by the atmospehere and the vibe of the movie but the moment u snap out of it, the movie will drive u crazy. The first time i saw it i fastforwarded it all the time, the second time i sort of knew what was coming and i totally loved it.
shareYour an idiot, telling me I didn't understand a movie, you don't know me retard and I am not the one who watched a movie just to fast forward it, this film took me one go and I will leave it at that, I'll never watch it again. It's not inception, no one is going to be confused about a movie with no dialogue. There is really no depth or complexity to this film, what you see is what you get, if you want to pretend your some smart kid and get something from this borfest that others did not than that is your issue.
shareHaha, boywonder 4-1, did Inception confuse you?
Ha...ha.
Debt and debt and debt and debt and debt and then All will be enslaved.
First, don't call people "retard", at least not until you learn proper sentence structure - it's just reflects badly on yourself and the point you're trying to make...
Second, you're not getting what he said; this movie isn't about some complex storyline - it's about mood, delivered through visual and audiable means. As has been mentioned, it's an art movie at it's heart, and as such might not interest you, or the majority of movie-goers. It soesn't mean it's bad, it just means it's something other than what you'd prefer... You're welcome to say you think it sucked, but be aware that this is likely because you don't appreciate it for what it is; not because it's bad.
I genuinely enjoyed it. It was atmospheric, the camera work was stunning.
Mads was wonderful as always. Just my opinion, but I liked it.
the view from the lowest common denominator is terrible.
shareI'll defend it.
This movie is awesome.
Tarkovsky is awesome.
Stalker is awesome.
This movie was kind of like Stalker, interesting comparison.
Watch this movie if: the meaning of existence is something that constantly intrigues you.
Don't watch this movie if: your existence irritates you and you want to avoid thinking about it by watching cars explode and being surprised by plot "twists".
That is one weird sounding Bazooka!
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=44295325
I liked this movie. No Problem with the ending or pace. Found enough to look at to not get bored. It's not as good as Hrafn Gunnlaugsson cool viking trilogy
but not nearly as bad as most of hollywood's crap, when it comes to "historical" movies(that lousy pathfinder remake?). The only problem seems to be that there is no script.
But do you think, let's say, Braveheart is a better movie? It has a script, allright. But its total Walt Disney.
"I stopped watching after 20 minutes. Forwarded a bit, saw that the rest was shait too, then turned it off (...)"
Pretty much the same thing I did. 25 minutes, Fast forward, *beep* skip-skip-skip, same shait, skip a bit more, still more of the same boring *beep* so I turned this crap off and went back to watching the Madagascar Penguins. The penguins beat the crappola out of one-eye and his goons any day of the week.
I completely disagree with everyone who hates this movie.
I'd be very curious as to the ages of everyone hates or doesn't understand this movie.
Anyone who doesn't appreciate this movie quite simply has no true understanding of the subtlety of pure cinema storytelling ie sound and image, with minimal or no dialogue.
This is a profound piece of cinema. But it is an acquired taste.
It seems most of the haters here have a very limited palette when it comes to cinema.
"Almost nobody dances sober, unless they happen to be insane."
H. P. Lovecraft
Just so *beep* boring! When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
Dear 'God', was that boring.
I want those 90 minutes of my life back.
I get it that Nicolas Winding Refn was going for the "artsy", minimalist angle, but for me it was like being trapped in a repeat-play (inferior) Sigur Rós type sound booth, when you really feel the need for something a bit more up-tempo, (not that I have anything against Sigur Rós - just not constantly).
The flim just lagged in all the wrong places IMHO, and really dragged on... painfully, almost depressingly.
On the plus side, it's definitely a miracle-cure for insomnia! :)
[deleted]
"I stopped watching after 20 minutes. Forwarded a bit, saw that the rest was shait too, then turned it off and continued watching Gurren Lagann which I am also currently seeing back to front."
i loled hard. i was looking for "gurren lagann" after reading this, thinking it may be some awesome, deep movie i havent heard about and then i saw some japanese cartoon series. lol, OF COURSE someone who watches japanese action cartoons won't like this movie. i wasn't even sure if this was some joke thread since the contrasts are so huge. the stereotypes definately are true it seems.
i dont go to the texas chainsaw massacre forum and say "wow, this movie sucked, it was so violent and dark, im going back to watching bambi".
[deleted]
Heh, and here's one to top it off, I watched both Valhalla Rising and Gurren Lagann(a few episodes) and found them to be equally entertaining, with a score of about 7.5
I like to think I can appreciate any type of movie or artistic work but it's also possible that I'm just easily entertained. I'd consider the latter a good trait :)
7.5 means between OK and worth watching. This movie isn't a masterpiece by my standards but it is a work of art, creative and original. The costumes, makeup, fighting and emotions are nearly perfect and the script is all it could be for the story they were after and the budget they had. The only thing they were lacking to make this a masterpiece in today's world is money, sadly, this is true.
It's understandable why most people can't accept this movie, it makes sense not to like it, this movie is not for everyone, but then again the cover made it look like some sort of 300(Sparta) movie... and of course, as always, sheep are predictable :)
I wouldn't stereotype a person who watches anime. I love all sorts of movies, that are quite different to anime, not to mention there is a fair bit of anime that is very different to what normal anime is like.
So either way your point is lost. The analogy you made does make sense though, however Gurren Lagen has lots of depth while this movie doesn't... thats what the point that poster was making... so your analogy is pointless.
Not to mention this movie is the longest 90 minutes of my life.
I actually fell asleep when I tried watching it the first time, I'm re-watching it right now that I'm properly awake...I can't believe nobody has mentioned how terrible the fake blood looks. I mean, I just started doing compositing work a few years ago and I can make MUCH more realistic looking blood. Whoever their visual effects person was didn't know what the hell he was doing or possibly whoever did the color correction, but considering the contrast of the film, the blood should have been almost black.
shareWell, it is boring for people that are bored to put their mind in work. Most that answered to this thread. I liked the movie. Certainly not in my best ever, but good acting and realism even though supernatural elements are present. Reminded me of "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (1979" of Werner Herzog in some points. Personally I'm bored of people that thing their opinion it's the absolute when they don't have a clue about what art of cinema is. Ok it's not your type of movie, it doesn't have the stupid lines and lowsy effects you like. That doesn't mean it's not a good movie.
share[deleted]
The blood was intended to be so vibrant to accentuate it from the bleak tone the rest of the film has. One-eye is bright red during his visions because he is covered in blood.
I think everyone has a right to an opion when it comes to film and I do not think anyone in necessarily wrong, however, I don't understand why everyone attacks a film for being unconventional. THAT is what makes no sense to me, not the movie.
It was terrible. I was one of the dopes that watched the whole thing.
~ "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
[deleted]
Kudos to the last author for setting some ground rules on this one. To those of you who can't set out your argument against this movie without betraying your obvious inability to speak ENGLISH - please stay out of it and go rewatch a DUMB blockbuster. For the more intellectual - I just have a few questions. What was your view of One-Eye's seeming Soothsaying ability (He seemed to have visions of the future)? Also what did you think of the end???
shareWhat was your view of One-Eye's seeming Soothsaying ability (He seemed to have visions of the future)? Also what did you think of the end???
I don't care if you think you are a philosophical person or artistic person, this movie flat out sucked. Started out great, had a creepy feel to it, reminded me of The New World, but in the end nothing happened really. I do not care if people think there was a strong message or anything, this film fell flat and died. First 20 minutes were awesome, last hour 10min, horrible.
share[deleted]
To: Convicted_In_Life, your info about Odin etc. is interesting, but I don't think it really fits with an explanation of the plot. I'm sure the whole link with one eye and Odin fits well with the movie, but all of the mumbo-jumbo from that 'Secret Pagan Society'... well most of it has nothing to do with the plot, as far as I can see. How does it fit with his complete submission at the end? We know he has not faced adversity calmly previously, by looking at his earlier killings. And how does this relate to the Christian aspect of the film? I agree that the most likely explanations for the baffling plot-points of the film come from mythology (the scene where they all become crazed after drinking seems to reinforce this), but there are so many other odd directions in which the plot goes.. It left me with the feeling that the wish to be artsy and appear deep won out over the more important aim of telling a story.
share
"It left me with the feeling that the wish to be artsy and appear deep won out over the more important aim of telling a story." quote from derryjordan
Precisely.
I've now watched 1 hour of this and will try to get through the rest.
So boring, serious, selfconscious, mindnumbingly obvious in its references and drawn out.
The cinematography is nice in the beginning, but the use of filters and highlights started to piss me off about a half hour in.
It's like Refn only just applied to the film-school. Has this man totally lost his senses? Does he really think that highly of himself? Well, congrats to him for having the balls to stand up and proclaim it so loudly. But I think he overshot his target. I'm bored and would rather have had him make a real movie with real characters - instead of this postmodern train wreck.
"Look! Look! He hasn't got any clothes on! Oh my..." Quote H.C. Andersen - an actual danish artist
[deleted]
Well this was exactly like the classic Norse sagas. Bursts of violence and the tough, uncompromising nature as the natural foe. The only thing I didn't really care for was the christian angle, it felt a bit too lifted from Aguirre: Wrath of God and naturally also The Heart of Darkness.
Too bad they didn´t speak old norse, now that would have made my day.
I was not expecting action and violence but I was at least expecting somewhat of a plot. The overall story could have been great, but instead 30 minutes is them sitting on a boat, then "SPOILERS"......the end is just One Eye dying.
shareSeriously boring. No character development. Motivations for characters are pretty basic if existent at all. Mads is a cool actor, but he was shafted with the promise of a cool character that never becomes a reality.
Movie reviews (and news) with passion and spirit!
http://www.bitterbalcony.com
I kept thinking of Aguirre while watching this film. Because of the directors obvious love of CGI, i was expecting Klaus Kinski to turn up sans helmet :D
share