User reviews

What can I say, this movie is a solid 4 star movie. Best intentions are evident. But from the beginning you can tell this is a low budget flick. Costumes are simple, and sets are as well. Each actor looks like they just came from having coffee at Starbucks...no need for any prep before shooting the next scene. That said the acting itself isn't half bad. The story is charming and fans of the time era will enjoy some things about it. But overall just a solid 4 stars at best.

It's good to see when movies are trying. Even when you feel they are failing at least there was effort. And there's a lot of effort here. If that makes it into your review or vote is a completely different matter of course. As you can see, I tried to stay objective about it, even though I commend the filmmakers for trying and going places with the story they're trying to tell.

Having said that, it still won't be a satisfying view for most people. It's not so much the actors or the costumes, but the overall feeling that the scope might have gotten out of hand in perspective to the realities of what actually was available. Not a party movie, but something for indie fans all over the world

Through the vikings probably deserves some of the disgraceful film made about them, we as an audience do not. Well, to be honest, the film only has "viking" in it's name since there are no actual vikings in the film. Somewhere in (I assume) 8th century Scandinavia, two warring clans plan to unite through the marriage of the princess Tasya and the king Wolven. Tasya childhood friend Erick "the blessed" has the hots for Tasya, a feeling that is sort of answered, but not enough for Tasya to abandon her promised to be. Unfortunately, the dastardly Völsungs (no relation the mythological clan, but nice touch) frequently carries out sacrifices of princesses to the Midgard Serpent, Loki's dragon-seed. Since king Sigvat of the Völsungs has no children his soldiers nabs the princess in the process. Now it's up to Erick and Wolven to set their differences aside and rescue the princess.

It's the standard story. Nothing special, but can be a fun adventure for a Friday evening. To bad the film is so badly made. The fight scenes are under all standards for a film even of this budget. The editing does not even try to hide the baffling feeble choreography. Seeing that this is a low budget romp, some special effect failures are to be expected, but this film does not even try to work around that. We have a storm that is obviously shot in a studio. Guys, could you not even had intern splashing water with buckets? It's the driest storm ever! A little extra effort could have pushed it to an at least acceptable level. Is a little more effort to much to ask. Now, the acting is really uneven. But in the case of the leads I do blame it on the director and not the actors. Harry Lister Smith and Jenny Boyd are pretty convincing as childhood friends with a scent of romance. You can see that they do have some acting chops, they are just in a bad movie. Same goes for Oliver Walker as Wolven. Anya Taylor-Joy was in the sensation that was The Witch, but I have not seen that yet. But she is not very good in this film.

As stated above, the script is pretty standard, through there is a minor twist which is neat in it's own little way. Then the scenery is really nice. Mostly, the costumes seem to be roughly accurate. Most of the clothes, armors and helmets are pretty authentic to what I've seen in museums and books. That's not to say that this film is historically accurate. A high medieval castle is dropped in the middle of Scandinavia in the freaking 7th century and is painfully out of sync with the rest of the iconography of the film. Then, they have a male character called Hild. Talk about not doing the research...

If you are looking for a so bad that it's good viking film, Viking Quest is what you look for. Through not good at all, it's never boring. Like Troll 2 or Death Academy or any Ed Wood film, it's a charming bad movie. So grab your cowhorns, pass the mead and have a laugh.

This film is awful the costumes are shabby and the script is even worst. The male lead doesn't even look old enough to shave and comes off a bit camp to me. It might have something to do with the dark makeup around his eyes.

Now i know this film didn't have the biggest budget but to make a film this poor is just wrong.

I got about 10 minuets in to it and started skipping ahead to see if it got better and it didn't so i turned it off.

I think if your going to make a film like this try not to cast everyone with that just stepped out of the spa look.

I have given this 1 out of 10 as i couldn't get in to it or even finish it.

In summary

The casting is poor. The script is poor. The acting is poor. The story is awful. This film is a waste of time and money and should have never been made.

What a letdown. Was expecting to see Johnny Drama kill in this movie. Obviously I was disappointed. The massive talent that Johnny Drama brings to any role he takes on can lift even the weakest of scripts to great heights. I imagine his history of going on strike had something to do with the director not wanting his involvement. Their loss. His ability to create characters that are so immaculately constructed and take an audience on a journey they were surely not prepared for is a thing of beauty. Tis a shame we were left to wallow in the misery of what was so ungracioulsy bestowed upon us. It is my deepest hope the Drama has the opportunity to bring his talent to the franchise, and quite frankly build back better what has been destroyed by this travesty of film.

Atrocious. The dialogue and acting are laughable. The special effects and fight scenes amateurish and some of the worst haircuts since the 80s. The lead actor's resemblance to a young Paul Gascoigne didn't help and his attempts at moodiness came off like a sulky teenager. The accents were also quite bizarre. Some of the cast seemed to be either Scandinavian or East European whilst some of the henchmen sounded like cockneys. I would say avoid this at all costs but it does have a certain car crash attraction in that you almost can't believe it can get any worse. It does. The whole film is a couple of degrees off being a Pythonesque parody. No-one escapes from this film with any credit.

Another cheapo film from the SyFy channel and another clunker.

A peasant boy named Erick is captured by the Vikings and raised by them. As an adult he fights with them as a warrior.

The Vikings find an ancient egg in a monastery and are attacked by a dragon. It seems Erick is part of an ancient prophecy destined to battle the dragons.

Ben Cross is the only notable actor that gives the film some respectability. There is nice location shooting in Bulgaria and some passable special effects of the dragon at the latter part of the film when there is some action.

The lead actor does look like Paul Gascoigne's thinner and more sober younger sibling but it is a dreadfully dreary film.

Quite possibly the worst TV production ever. Wooden would be an undeserved compliment to the acting and the script lacks itself. Should be studied by aspiring actors, directors and producers as an example of what not to do.

I found this to be very watchable and fun.

Is the acting a ten...nope...

Is the story a ten....nope....

Is the film enjoyable...YES!!! It tells the tale of a Hero, Eric, who thinks he is blessed by the Gods, his love of his commoner friend who is a beautiful women is meant to marry a prince to unite clans. But can Eric win her affection and are their wrinkles that make their union a bad one? Is there someone else more virtuous.

I know clichéd, but so is every film. Once you watch the movie, you figure things out, but is that bad? Every movie, you can figure out the ending, as it is usually a 50/50 proposition, someone lives or someone dies or a mix of both.

I did find it silly, but for a small budget movie, it is acceptable and do not be a snob. Don't expect, Citizen Kane, but expect Viking Quest, made to be made for TV. The TV goofiness is fun, sometimes illogical, but once you sit down, know what to expect in terms of budget you can forgive the bad acting and script issues and accept it for romance, adventure, small budget and a very likable hero.

I look at the grand scheme of things, for this type of TV movie, it was pretty good, obviously it's not an award winning masterpiece but not something one should dismiss. It is not LOTR or anything that will blow your mind, but will entertain and may end up liking its charm.

Men will like it, snobs will not, and I am a man, I enjoyed the plot and forgave the acting, while amateurish, enough emotion was conveyed that made it worthwhile.

If you are a snob, I can see this rating as a 5 out of 10.

For me personally, 9 out of 10 for a small budget Viking/Hero movie, it was good. The movie was a tad long, but the payoff was worth it and it left me satisfied.

"Viking Quest" succeeds surprisingly well as an ambitious, exciting take on Norse mythology. Although its ambition exceeds its budget, it has a good, brisk pace and lots of excitement and action. With a few minor flaws, the script is well written and acted, most notably by Oliver Walker (Atlantis) and the two supporting female players. The hero is a bit disappointing but Mr. Walker, thankfully, puts him in the shade throughout most of the story. The film is far better than a host of the other attempts at this type of theme being done these days. It's not "The Vikings" or "The Long Ships" or even "Prince Valiant" but it comes reasonably close for those who enjoy remote historical period adventure films or mythic themes.. Recommended.

The accents may not sound terrible Viking but it's a good romance story - an inspiration for all those spurned by their childhood sweetheart :)

For a low-budget movie, with an unknown cast (in majority), movie is not half as bad as i expected. If you accept the movie for what it is, a TV movie and accept the fact you're dealing in a fantasy/myth atmosphere, you will enjoy it.

I saw Last Knights the day before and let me tell you, the story was way better than that movie, even with such a amateur production. Colorful, well-paced, some "it's so bad its good" moments here and there, acceptable CGI (wolves are almost on par with Twilight).

If it was a mute movie in black & white from the 20s, it would be a classic, since its a TV movie with limited resources from nowadays... its a fun movie if you keep an open mind and can see the "Monty Phyton" behind all this silliness :D

Fun to watch, recommend a look, 6 to upgrade rate a bit, worth a 5