As a sympathetic but apostate former Christian, I am intrigued by a specific sub-genre: dramatizations of the historical adoption of monotheism by pagan cultures. My guard does go up if the film is of the solemn hagiograhy variety, presenting the change as a solemn inevitability (ala most"life of Muhammed" stories.)To my mind, this film "Viking" smuggles a respectable monotheism epic into audiences' attention by disguising it as a visceral Game of Thrones style feud-fest. However, it nonetheless managed to retain my goodwill by packaging it with entertaining spectacles, mostly grounded in dramatically satisfying character motivations and arcs driving the conflict. In the process it averted hagiography (At least until the end when an aftertaste of sanctity seems to hover over the film. SPOILER: the protagonist turns out to become a Russian Orthodox saint.)However, that whiff may well be my own prejudice showing. To my less- encumbered cineaste's eye, the contrast between the smoky, muddy, bloody world of the Rus for most of the film, and the golden sunlit skies and mosaic-laden Christian universe that appears progressively more towards the climax, makes the religion appear impressively enticing, even to this apostate. It's an uplifting transition, one that ultimately reduces to a fake-out the cynical quote from Mao which appeared in the film's opening. I did find the film had some shortfalls, mostly common to other historical epics.It can be hard to distinguish one bearded or armoured character from another, both spear-carriers and variously expendable secondary characters, either in repose or in a rain- curtailed action scenes.The film is overlong, and displays intermittent awkward compromises between historical veracity and dramatic necessities.However, on balance, it still skillfully held my attention throughout; showcased some vivid cinematography and speed- ramped action; and generated moderate star-wattage from a couple charismatic performances.

It is always difficult to make a movie based on historical facts. One must do a thorough research and properly put those facts in the movie. But one should also try to make that movie interesting and entertaining. Otherwise you'll get a protracted documentary.First of all, the title has almost nothing to do with the story. The story indeed follows the historical facts, but is told in such a messy way, full of illogical, irrational and unjustifiable events and decisions that it is tiresome to watch. You will find illogicality and complete idiocy even during the fight scenes. Moreover, this movie has no specific plot, no higher agenda and no epic moments, which all makes it difficult for the spectators to connect with the story.The story is practically about just one person and I kept wondering why it is so. Throughout the whole movie, the main character is completely and utterly useless, failing each and every challenge in front of him. Call it a paradox, but he somehow managed to fail even when he was winning. I wonder if director's decision was to purposely make this character so weak and clumsy. If it was, it's a bad decision because no one wants to watch a 2-hour movie where the main protagonist is a weakling and an idiot. If it wasn't, then the director has totally failed at his creation. I didn't "see" the main character. I didn't believe in him for one moment. He is not strong, he is not smart, he is not a great warrior, and not a great leader. So why is he the main character?I do not blame any of the actors, they really did their best. I blame the writers and the producers for ruining the potential this story had. Thus, I do not recommend this movie, there are far better ways to spend your time than watching this nonsense.

The film starts with a stunning, thrilling aurochs hunt in a snowy forest, which soon devolves into mayhem. And I thought, this must be just a one off, they cannot repeat a scene this visually and emotionally powerful. But the next one is just as gorgeous and disturbing. And the next, all the way until the end. Yet this is not just a collection of individual impressive scenes, it all melds together into a seamless, escalating narrative of personal redemption, of one man's passage from darkness onto light.A film like this, heavily based on real, historically sourced events, always runs the danger of predictability for someone like me who is very familiar with the history and archaeology of the era. But here the script, although only depicting events firmly rooted in the actual primary sources, reinterprets these sources using the very reasonable assumption that history is written by the victors. Thus, a main villain of the chronicles is shown in a much more sympathetic light, and the main character is not shown as all-conquering hero but as a weak, conflicted human being - which makes him infinitely more relatable. The titular "Viking" narrator, on the other hand, is portrayed as a blood-thirsty savage, which is what I would expect he was. Still, as far as I can tell - and trust me, I know the subject quite well - the script remains firmly supported by the historical record down to its smallest details. The only slip I could really find was the presence of a dromon upstream from the Dnieper rapids. The scriptwriter does merge two competing historical versions of a pivotal event into a third, intermediate one which not attested in the histories, but I honestly do not mind this.The first thing that impresses is obviously the gorgeousness and variety of the landscapes. Yet the sets, the costumes, the props are just as impressive - in their detail, their historical authenticity and the gritty realism the exude. I saw nothing that didn't seem in place and most things I saw had actual archaeological parallels. This all creates a breathtaking atmosphere, beautifully illustrating the leitmotif of the movie, namely the contrast between northern darkness and southern light. The casting is very good, and the acting is passionate yet earnest. Of course there is not a great amount of talking, fitting with the depiction of a simple, brutal time. The acting of the foreign-language actors, on the other hand, is a little bit stilted and hammy. All in all, the film makes the similarly named "Vikings" series look and feel in all respects like a high-school play. In terms of emotional power I would put "Viking" right up there with the Kurosawa masterpiece "Ran".The film has unfortunately got a lot of bad reviews in Russia from small-minded chauvinists, who presumably think that all their ancestors were silver-clad knights living in gleaming palaces and speaking exactly the same language they do. And this is very unfortunate, since this is as close to a Russian national epic as you can get, a great tale of the very beginning of the Russian nation. In essence it tells of the time of the joining of different peoples - Norse and Slav - Balt and Finn - into a single, greater one, with Greco-Roman civilization as the mortar.

As a person who loves Nordic legends, the movie title interested me and with high expectations i decided to watch. After first 30 minutes i was completely disappointed, since the movie was not about vikings and Nordic culture. It turns about to be about Kievan Rus, and only Nordic related story was the group of vikings invited to fight for the movie Hero (Vladimir). However it is not a reason to name the movie as "Viking". The second disappointment was the movie story which was unclear and uncertain. There happened a lot of actions without a certain purpose. Now after 2-hour movie watching i can not say what particularly was this movie about, whether it was about fight between brothers or it was about Christianity. In addition to these there were several elements which were not related to either Russian or Nordic culture such as boats with Greek elements, roman legionary clothes of warriors, and of course the fact of metallic water pipeline, which was invented in Russia after 12th century. As a conclusion i would suggest movie creators to conduct a research before misrepresenting the story.