when did this film ever pretend to be any more than it is, a very watchable good adventure film with a good plot and cast. Is this now the world of highbrow film reviews well your watching the wrong movie. It is a good film for what it is, a fast paced adventure with a cast who pull it off well, anyone with an interest in Vikings will enjoy this why try to find more, it is exactly what it sets out to be..bloody good fun and well worth a watch....I like Vikings the TV series who don't! I presume you spotted Rollo, I think the lead in this film played it very well and he had that Raganar swagger and played it well.stop bad mouthing this movie world its bloody good....

A slightly chaotic attempt at gritty realism. Positives, the cinematography and lighting fit the tone and mood very well. Charlie Bewley ( Steinar ), the main protagonist produced a solid display in developing the character from morally centred to amoral psychopath and critically in keeping the character likable. Clive Standen ( Hagan ) also provided a reasonable turn in a supporting role even if his character, along with the majority of the rest were fatally under developed. Unfavourable comparisons with his infinitely more complex and developed character in popular series, Vikings are not unjustified. Regarding the negatives, its a case of where to begin. The soundtrack / score was abysmal. I applaud creative, inspiring new ideas however the idea to ditch the classical crescendo of a battle scene with a heady mix of electro / techno was poor and baffling. It did little to settle the chaotic camera visuals during the same scenes. Whilst I appreciate that hand held camera visuals can add to the chaotic nature and brutality of a battle scene here or there, here it added to the despondency of the story telling. The supporting roles were all hugely underdeveloped particularly the female characters with even the apparent lead female role having little or no development or substance. The finale sequence felt anti climatic and disengaging which unfortunately sums this film up. As numerous reviews point out the costume design also was bizarre at best, with a mix of attempted realism and odd symbolism. The whole film lacked depth and with no character development you felt little if any remorse or sympathy when anyone died and added to lacklustre and disenfranchised feeling. One to avoid, a wasted opportunity.

"Hammer of the Gods" had potential to be much more than it ended up being. The storyline was good enough, and the action sequences were great, lots of really nice scenery, but, but, but... It was all weighed down to the point of idiocy by an excessive usage of foul language which was highly time-period inappropriate. I am pretty sure that vikings didn't use the f-word, nor call people c...suckers!It was a shame with the excessive foul language, because it really brought down the value of the movie to a point where it was starting to become a nuisance and bordering on being too much.And as for the vikings speaking English, well... Of course, it is a movie, and the English language is universal, but still, there would have been so much more creditability to the movie if they actually spoke Norse.I will say that the costumes and outfits were quite nice, and there were some great details and touches here. Great weaponry and armory on the vikings and Saxons.The people hired for the various roles were also doing good enough jobs with their given roles, generally all-round. Of course, some more than others. But all in all, a fairly good ensemble of talents put together.The scene where Steinar was getting drunk or high, or whatever it was supposed to be, really fell to the ground by cheesy effects and bad usage of colors and slurring of the camera lens. And the whole segment where Steiner finds his brother in the cavern was really odd and very misplaced. So not only do we have Saxons and Vikings, but we also need to throw in some primitive cultists into the mix?As in many of these kind of movies, there was a very majestic feel to the landscape and scenery throughout the movie. Which is essential to this particular genre.If you enjoy the viking era, then I suggest you get your kicks by watching the TV series "Vikings", perhaps, because it far outshines "Hammer of the Gods". While "Hammer of the Gods" had its moments, it was just too difficult to get past the foul and inappropriate language and take the movie seriously.The movie was enjoyable for what it was, but given the foul language issue, then I am rating "Hammer of the Gods" a mere 3 out of 10 stars.

In 870 AD, in Britain, the Vikings under the leadership of King Bagsecg (James Cosmo) are in war against the Saxons. When he is mortally wounded in a battle, he summons his younger son, Prince Steinar (Charlie Bewley), to meet his to other sons Harald (Finlay Robertson) and Vali (Theo Barklem-Biggs) at his death bed. King Bagsecg asks to Stainar to seek out his missing brother Hakan the Ferrocious (Elliot Cowan) to return with the next king of his people. Stainer travels with his friends Hagen (Clive Standen), Grim (Michael Jibson) and Jokul (Guy Flanagan) and his half-brother Vali to search the warrior Ivar (Ivan Kaye) that might know the whereabouts of Hakan. When they meet Ivar, he joins the group with his mate Agnes (Alexandra Dowling) in a brutal journey to hell."Hammer of the Gods" is a weird and violent movie about the quest of a young prince to find his older brother that has been expelled from the kingdom by his father. His unexpected discovery of the truth about his family changes his behavior. Unfortunately the movie is too brutal and the choreography of the gore battle scenes is very poor with successive cuts and very few warrior due to the low-budget. My vote is six.Title (Brazil): "Martelo dos Deuses" ("Hammer of the Gods")