Spoilers below.
She had her own plan to escape anyway but he knocks her up and then leaves her because he has to be the big man and die in battle ... to a MUCH older guy. He gets outclassed and pwned showing how terrible a fighter he is when it's an honorable fight and not an ambush in the dark (easy).
He did not beat his uncle at all, it was a draw.
Now she's a single mother slav slave at the end of the dark ages ... Her kids definitely did not survive.
He knew the children survived because he had the vision of them on his family tree. He also knew it was his fate to die fighting his enemy in a field of fire and that to avoid it would endanger the children. In an old fashioned sense this story is a tragedy that his personal history made inevitable.
shareShortly before their fight, Amleth was stabbed multiple times in the back by his half-brother, and since then he was bleeding out. His uncle Fjolnir wouldn't have been able to get as many hits as he did, let alone stab Amleth, if it weren't for that. We've seen how capable of a fighter Amleth was throughout the movie, he was among the best.
Also, Fjolnir had other guys fight his nephew and his brother, in both cases he didn't dare fight them alone. Not long after Fjolnir took over the kingdom, he fled like a coward when someone else came along, while his brother and nephew both stood their ground against overwhelming odds.
You really missed the entire point of the movie didn't you? As with "The Witch" Eggers made a movie on the premise that everything these people believe about both the physical and spiritual world is real. In that case, that a malevolent coven of witches was present in New England, and really was murdering people, blighting crops, and worshiping the devil. In this case that means the Norse gods, Valkyries, Valhöll, all of it, are real with everything that means. 9th century Norsemen do NOT have the perspective of a 21st century man, and what is important and meaningful to them is much different.
As others have noted, how did you miss that Amleth had been stabbed repeatedly in his back and right shoulder -- his weapon arm no less -- and was going into the battle with a severe handicap as a result? That gave Fjölnir a great advantage. Amleth did not send Olga off to slavery; he sent her with people he trusted, with his father's ring, that his relations would recognize and understand the meaning of.
And for Amleth, a heroic death in combat is a triumph. It means he gets to spend the afterlife in Valhöll with Óðinn and the Norse gods, not Hel, where those who are not heroes go. For that matter, Aurvandil, Fjölnir, Gudrún, Thorir, and Gunnar, all potentially get to Valhöll after death, as they were all slain with weapons, as opposed to dying a "straw death" (which was what the Norse called dying in bed of natural causes). We know Amleth got to Valhöll, because the final scene of the movie shows a Valkyrie carrying him there. He dies a hero, and his children survive and preserve his line. From the perspective of a Viking Age Northman, that's a fate to be envied.
Precisely! As I left the theater, I wondered why I didn't feel at all sad, even though I was thoroughly invested in the story. I thought about it for a while, and came up with a similar understanding. It was a happy ending, for a Viking.
shareLol I didn't miss any of it - but it's nice how aggressive you are trying to defend this film from any criticism.
Also nice, significant assumptions about things I never mentioned 🤦🏿♂️ (ie; I never said she was sent off into slavery)
Norse mythology is great and all - but that's what it is, myth and legend with no grounds in reality. Hallucinations, visions and superstition won't protect his widow or offspring.
Also him getting stabbed by a small child was completely contrived it was almost comical.
Nice to see so many people butthurt in here though, recency bias LOL 🤦🏿♂️🤣
Your reply is childish. That you need to characterize difference with your opinion as "butthurt" is telling -- it's not the hallmark of a mature character. Yes, Norse mythology is myth and legend. Christianity is not considered myth and legend, though many people (myself included) disbelieve in it. That doesn't mean one can't set aside disbelief and enjoy "The Witch" and regard the tragedy and horror of the ending of that story. It's call "suspension of disbelief." In the context of the movie Norse mythology is NOT merely "Hallucinations, visions and superstition." Numerous clues in the movie indicate, again and again, the it's more than that. The story is told as a Viking age saga composer would tell it, not as a 21st century script writer would, and the point of view is, or tries to be, that of the people in the story. By the standards, morals, and ethics of 10th century Scandinavians, Amleth is a heroic figure: clever, brave, tough, loyal, and ultimately victorious.
Your reaction reminds me of a line from 1984's "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes" (still the best Tarzan movie yet made). "What he sees as a great achievement, you see as your failure, so you call it his."
This film is not a great achievement, it's a casuals adaptation at best.
But I've come to accept that this is fine and I don't take issue with anyone who is a fan of it.
"The story is told as a Viking age saga composer would tell it, not as a 21st century script writer would, and the point of view is, or tries to be, that of the people in the story. By the standards, morals, and ethics of 10th century Scandinavians, Amleth is a heroic figure: clever, brave, tough, loyal, and ultimately victorious."
It amazes me that no one gets this. You don't have to like the movie, but it IS a movie in which myths and magic are real, even if you disbelieve such things in reality. Lions don't sing, but that doesn't stop people from getting into the drama of The Lion King.
Whatever happened to suspension of disbelief for God's sake?
Another thing that should have tipped people off comes quite early in the film, but it tells you unmistakably that you're seeing people with a very different set of beliefs and values. At the conclusion of the raid on that village that Amleth takes part in, we see the town being wiped out. It's people are disposed of. Attractive females and able-bodied males are carried off into slavery, while the old and the children, are forced into the village's biggest building, where they are burned alive. We even see a screaming child, beating his tiny fists ineffectually against a Viking warrior, carried into the building before it's set on fire. To us these are war crimes, but in the 10th century, that was just war.
As Ross Douthat wrote:
In a familiar sort of historical epic, this massacre of innocents would be a moment of moral test or transformation for our hero. Maybe he would halt the massacre outright, thus establishing himself as a worthy surrogate for a modern audience’s sympathy. Maybe he would unsuccessfully object but be sufficiently disgusted to turn aside from the berserker’s path and back toward the restitution of wrongs awaiting him at his uncle’s court. Or maybe he would save a few of the innocents — a love interest, a plucky child — whose influence would slowly change his stony heart.
In The Northman nothing like this happens... the mass murder itself makes barely a ripple in the plot. It has no significance for any character arc, inspires no revulsion or regret, and even Taylor-Joy’s character, who lost kith and kin in the blaze, carries no special animus against Amleth for his role in the destruction.
Astute observation. I found the film average, but was impressed by its commitment to the time period (just like The Witch).
Reminds me of that Hobbes quote about the natural state of mankind (outside of a protective government), something like "nasty, brutish, and short."
That was the moment that when it just hit me what type of movie that I was seeing. I've been transported to an entirely different space.
shareThis is a silly reply.
Edit, I see you amended your stance there. Yeah not everyone is looking for a fight, good call.
How is she going to prove that the two babies are his?
Another question. At the end they showed his uncle without a head (or so it appeared). Did he chop it off?