MovieChat Forums > Sword of Vengeance (2015) Discussion > 4/10 A mix of Viking, Outlander & Riddic...

4/10 A mix of Viking, Outlander & Riddick.


4/10

Pro's
Wardrobe came through (mostly, Saxxon helmets and furr could have been done better).
Grit (most things had the amount of grit you would anticipate).
Sound - the music actually sort of works.
Effects - special effects regarding wounds are well done.
Surrounding are quite allright.

Con's
Storyline - one of the most overused storylines in cinema, this did not stand out or ad anything.
Script - didn't bring much fresh to the storyline, though a few smaller decent additions were present (as the trap, one of the leads dying etc).

Acting was mixed, idk the budget but I think they might have gotten a good deal for the buck, the known faces are; Karel Roden & Ed Skrein (who's landed lead in transporter Refueled).

Overall you get a run of the mill action movie with a little better wardrobe than some b-actions, storyline is extremely predictable throughout with 1 exception. The storyline/script lets the production down, with the same budget (differently prioratised) this could have been done alot better with a better script.


Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

reply

You knock the story/script for this? The main character using the Saxxon people to get his revenge was a shocker to me. It was not something I expected at all.

In regards to the acting what more did you want? They were spot on with their lines and showed great emotion. I felt all sorts of emotions during this and it was because the people acting got it all right.

Effects/atmosphere and such were more than acceptable. It definitely wasn't some cheese crap that you would see in a low budget movie.

You give this movie a 4 out of 10? It has everything you would expect in a movie like this and the main character gave a strong performance although I guess you could say at times I wished he said more/had more lines. This is a movie deserving of a score higher than average for sure. I will likely give it extra points making it a 7 movie for the strong lead character and then the interesting bit in terms of plot twist/story towards the end of the movie.

reply

It's been a long time since i watched this movie and I can't say it particularly stayed with me, the bleak cinematography being an exception to that.

In acting I look for rationality (that includes consistant mannerism, path dependency to a degree if i may) which is mostly down to the script/director and lastly the actor (of those three it often differentiates between movies).
"An eye for an eye": the actions needs to either be rational by the actors previous actions/ways or by the context given (overacting/underacting...) the script is what creates the rationality of the scenes together with the director (as an unrelated example: having an army (that is obviously within bow range) which is full of characters that are skilled in archery with both longbows and shortbows would be a huge miss in rational behaviour and thus in the script).

Remember vikings were a mix of skilled hunters that knew the values of the skills then required (stealh, intelligence, fast action/reactions) and boastful warriors who liked to measure themselves versus others and not to themselves alone.

[EDIT] Cleared out the post a little.

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

reply

This was pure overacted garbage and 4/10 is way too generous. One stereotype following another. They didn't even try much to make this convincing. All that pathetic music with slow motion made me laugh throughout this painful session. The faces those actors made would suit someone sitting on a toilet and waiting for it to happen. Removing colors and inserting lots of slowmo cannot fix the horrible ridiculous script and bland acting. Not for a second did I believe the main character to be some sort of invincible warrior. Pathetic waste of time which I'm never getting back.

reply