In this Viking epic, Richard Widmark plays a Norseman with a talent for telling tall tales. There's a flaw in that plot description, however. Richard Widmark sounds like a cowboy, not a Viking, so how can he convincingly pull off his schemes? He can't. But, for some unknown reason, no one questions his supposed heritage; when he's captured by Prince Sidney Poitier's guards, he tells a tale of a giant golden bell, supposedly worth millions. Sidney agrees to spare his life if he helps him find the bell. Meanwhile, Sidney's wife, Rosanna Schiaffino, is more than frustrated with her husband's lack of intimate interest in her, and with another good-looking man in the picture, she might look elsewhere to get her needs met.While you're busy scratching your head wondering why anyone cast Dick Widmark in a period piece, you'll find out he's not the only unconvincing Viking in the movie. Russ Tamblyn plays his younger brother, who's in love with Bebe Loncar, and both of them are painfully contemporary. The Long Ships gives period pieces a bad name. It's full of expensive sets and costumes, action scenes and supposedly dramatic dialogue, but it's just too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Russ gets to demonstrate his famous acrobatic talents in some of the fight scenes, but you're better off watching Tom Thumb.The only realistic part of the film is actually quite disturbing. In the middle of the night, the Vikings break into the safety of palace. They see dozens of scantily-clad sleeping women and absolutely lose their minds and attack them. The women are screaming, and the men grab incessantly, pulling them offscreen, dragging them to the floor or wherever they can exert their force and have their way. Since the film was made in 1964, nothing besides forced kisses are shown, but it's an extremely upsetting scene since that's probably exactly what happened back then.Even though 1964 was a more liberated film-making era than the previous decade, certain restrictions were still in place. The women's costumes bared their bellybuttons—which was previously a no-no—but their torsos were covered with a flesh-colored mesh so as to not shock the audience. Actually, the men's costumes were much more risqué than the women's! The Vikings were clad in leather tunics, with extremely short shorts underneath. Russ and Dick seemed to be in constant competition as to who could show off their biceps more often and who could wear the shortest Speedo.The bottom line is yes, Richard Widmark is incredibly good-looking, but this is a pretty terrible movie. You don't need to watch it, unless you're having serious beefcake withdrawals.

The name of Frans G. Bengtsson features on the credits. He must be turning in his grave. He was an outstanding Swedish writer, and the author of several novels and historical works, including an exciting best-seller, in two parts, which was translated into English as "The Long Ships", and into 22 other languages. This film, so far as I can tell, has virtually nothing whatsoever to do with that excellent book. The film does have a character called Krok, who bears no resemblance to his namesake in the book. Otherwise the whole production is a ghastly travesty.Richard Widmark was of Swedish descent, and he does look quite Swedish. However, he doesn't look anything like a Viking. His acting in this film is atrociously inappropriate. None of the other actors seem anything like Vikings or Moors, especially not Russ Tamblyn and Sidney Poitier, or any of the variegated British crowd. Leonard Rossiter and Lionel Jeffries for God's sake! Was this meant to be a comedy ? It's riddled with plot holes and serious impossibilities, including a bell made of solid gold, perhaps the least suitable metal for a bell, 18 foot tall.The film starts off immediately on the wrong note with an excruciating introductory narrative in a light, gentlemanly English voice, by an actor called Edward Judd. Strange that characters in films of this era, notably females, always have impeccable hairdos, even if they've just been dragged through a storm backwards. The wife of the head Moor (was that really Poitier ?) has an exceptionally dishy deshabille.Widmark is reported as having said of the shoot, which took place in Yugoslavia during the rule of Tito, that "It wasn't a happy time." That is apparent. It's an unhappy film. There are one or two good maritime scenes, hence the extra star. Made for uncritical ten year olds.

Out of Columbia Pictures comes this Viking/Moors adventure very loosely based on the Swedish novel of the same name written by Frans G. Bengtsson. Produced by Irving Allen, it's directed by Jack Cardiff and stars Richard Widmark, Sidney Poitier & Russ Tamblyn. It's a Technicolor/Technirma 70 production with cinematography from Christopher Challis, who shoots on location along the Yugoslavia coast. The plot follows the search and fights for a fabled golden bell known as The Mother of Voices. On one side is the Moor army led by king Aly Mansuh (Poitier), on the other is the Norsemen led by Rolfe (Widmark).Thought to be an attempt at cashing in on the success of Richard Fleischer's The Vikings and Anthony Mann's El Cid (in spite of there being a 6 and 3 year gap respectively?), The Long Ships is a messy film bogged down by confused intentions and a poor script from Beverley Cross & Berkely Mather. Things are also problematic within the cast as Widmark, sensing the turgid nature of the beast, plays it for laughs, while a disgruntled Poitier gives it the maximum effort trying to make it work. The rest of the cast are, it seems, just along for a meal ticket ride. Even Dusan Radic's score is boisterously out of place, loud and uneven with the action, it's a score that would be more at home with an Asterix The Gaul cartoon. However, and depending on if you can forgive the nonsense history and all round bad narrative, there's still some fun to be had. Be it intentional or not. The costuming is effective, while Challis' coastal photography is gorgeous and sparkles in Technicolor. The action sequences are competently staged by Cardiff {cinematographer on The Vikings funnily enough}, tho the site of an army being felled by weapons unseen is hilariously bad. With sea-storms, double-crosses and the evil Mare Of Steel execution device, there's enough to have made this something of a cult favourite with the adventure fan. So bad it's good? Well it's not quite in that category, but newcomers entering into it expecting anything other than a dumb downed costume adventure will be sorely disappointed. 5/10

Although as 'old' as 20 when I saw this film I still was, still am, a sucker for action and adventure. I can forgive a lot and often find that re-watching old films, often made on wobbly budgets, continually enlightening. I find that films that I was dismissive of, on first viewing, now stand stronger in the light of more recent 'works'. I occasionally re-watch 'The Long Ships' in hope, as it should be the sort of film I love. It is not. I rate Cardiff as one of the top cinematographers, but not necessarily as a director. I like colour and light.(e.g. 'Tremors'rather than 'things' in two thirds darkness). There is colour and light in 'The Longships' so it is not that which turns me off. It does not have the excuse of a low budget. I enjoyed Widmark in The Alamo, Warlock and The Law and Jake Wade, Russ Tamblyn in Seven Brothers and West Side Story. I had not seen much of Sydney Potier as I recall, A Man Is Ten Feet Tall (Edge of a City). The cast were experienced, as a whole. The second unit and fight arranging are a bit wobbly but often were and are. Even Sidney Potier said "To say it was disastrous is a compliment" It works against the problem that I had read the book, something like 500 pages, from which The Longships takes a side story of about a page and a half and couple of incidents. The Film could be much shorter if it was just a 'romp'. The problem is that it is patched together, much like current UK Government policy, a few ostentatious high spots stuck together with 'spin'. They had the means and makings of a much better film, not just something that gets away with it because it is 'fun'. So why did they not make a better film. In the older 'Halliwells' film guides the late Leslie Halliwell frequently questioned the motives for making certain such films. These comments are now edited out of more recent editions since Halliwells untimely death.(Strangely the same has happened to details of other persons untimely deaths, removed from the pages of the 'Guides')Allen's (Warwick Avilla) films, like those produced by Lew Grade and Columbia often involved filming in the then Soviet bloc and featured casts of overtly 'Left Wing' affiliations (Why did Peter Finch 'just happen' to be on the set of The First Men on the Moon and play {uncredited) the 'Process Server'?). If you are a seeker of truth check some of these out. You may find it more fun than 'The DaVinci Code' or The Long Ships'.