Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Paul Magne Haakonsen I think I might have watched "The Vikings" way back some time in my childhood, because I do remember parts of the movie. I got the chance again to watch the movie here in 2017, so of course I jumped at the chance.It turns out that despite being from 1958 then "The Vikings" is actually a rather nice and impressive movie. And I reckon that it must have been some epic movie back in 1958. I mean, even just by watching it today, the production value and the accomplishment of director Richard Fleischer was just astounding. There certainly was a sense of adventure and grand epic about the movie."The Vikings" had a pretty impressive cast, which included two of the biggest Hollywood stars of the day; that being Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis, of course. Now, both of them are good actors and performed quite well, but for some reason it was just a tad difficult to really envision them as being vikings, as they had too much of a pampered beauty appearance going on. It was also a treat to see Ernest Borgnine in this movie.Storywise, then "The Vikings" was entertaining, for sure, but it felt a bit too scripted and predictable.Visually then this was a very impressive movie, and they had put a lot of effort into the costumes, the props, the sets, and so on, and that really paid off quite nicely. And the movie was filmed at some locations that really worked well and added so much flavor and atmosphere to the movie."The Vikings" has a good amount of action, drama and storytelling to keep most people entertained.If you haven't already seen "The Vikings", then you should take the time to do so, because it is an entertaining movie. And don't let the 1958 time stamp discourage you, because the movie really is impressive for its age and production.

ma-cortes This classic ¨The Vikings (1958)¨ by Richard Fleischer packs a big name cast as Kirk Douglas , Janet Leigh and Tony Curtis . Very well-done adventure movie following the exploits of a group of Vikings sailing on Dragon ships like serpents on the sea , the terrible Northmen led by Ragnar , Einar and Eric . All of them shouting a battle-cry to their awesome god of war , Odin ! This enjoyable picture packs adventures , thrills , good action scenes and being very amusing . But then a slave (Tony Curtis) and a Viking prince (Kirk Douglas) fight for the love of a captive princess (Janet Leigh) and assault an impregnable fortress . Adventure movie full of impressive battles , noisy action , fencing and breathtaking exteriors . Kirk Douglas is pretty good , he gives a nice performance as leader of a band of Vikings driving his ship sets sail for the unknown land in search of Britanny kingdom . Top-drawer cast as Tony Curtis , Ernest Borgnine and Janet Leigh and colorful British and Hollywood secondary casting such as Alexander Knox , Maxine Audley , Frank Thring , and James Donald . Furthermore , as narrator the great Orson Welles . Although full of stupid historical errors and unbelievable events , the film results to be really entertaining and overwhelming . Great location footage with sweepingly photography by the magnificent cameraman Jack Cardiff . Shot on location in Fort La Latte , Côtes-d'Armor, France , Brittany , France , Walchensee, Bavaria , Germany Hardanger , Norway and Lim Fiord , Croatia . Thrilling and evocative musical score by Mario Nascimbene . Well set , in fact screenwriters , producers spent some years researching the Norse civilization in preparation for doing this movie , this included the actual designs for the Viking ships they used and the breed of horse that they rode . The picture was handsomely shot and directed with verve and muscle by Richard Fleischer . Rating : Good , fine battle scenes and wonderful cinematography and locations make the movie a standout . This throughly amusing historical epic stands up to teens and adults viewings . Don't miss for Kirk Douglas fans .This basic costume epic belongs to Viking genre , such as : ¨Eric the conqueror¨ (1961) by Mario Bava with Cameron Mitchell , ¨The long ships¨ (1963) by Jack Cardiff with Sidney Poitier and Richard Widmark ; ¨ ¨The Viking queen (1967)¨ by Don Chaffey with Don Murray and Andrew Keir ; The Norseman (1978) ¨ by Charles B Pierce with Cornel Wilde and Mel Ferrer ; ¨The Viking sagas (1995)¨ by Michael Chapman with Ralph Moeller , among others .

ghent1 This is certainly an OK film considering the time of its making but it misses something to truly be on a par with such classics as Ben Hur, El Cid, Spartacus and others. Although its well intentioned somehow the movie cannot really convey a sense of reality. It remains to some degree tainted by the contrivances nature of theatre. Maybe it's the fact that many vikings do not truly give a fearsome impression, maybe it's the soundtrack, maybe it's something in the screenplay which doesn't entirely convince. Probably it's all of these and many more aspects, details which give this movie more of a Sound of Music feeling than an El Cid feeling. Of course the movie's worth the see for those interested in old films of this kind, but I wouldn't say it belongs in the inner sanctuary of your truly old-time classics.

James Hitchcock "The Vikings" is essentially an epic, even if it is rather shorter than most films in that genre, set in the Dark Ages rather than the more normal worlds of the Bible or the Greco-Roman classics. The story is loosely based upon Norse sagas (legendary, but with a basis in the real history of ninth-century England) about the struggles between the pagan Vikings and the Christian Anglo-Saxons for control of the Kingdom of Northumbria (today's northern England). Some epics from the fifties, such as "The Robe" or "The Silver Chalice", took the simple view of the "Chanson de Roland" that "Christians are right and pagans are wrong", but not this one. The film's main villain is the cruel and treacherous Christian King Aella and the Vikings, while fierce and warlike, nevertheless have their own code of honour. As was common with epics, the plot is a complicated one. It revolves around a pair of half-brothers, Erik and Einar, the sons of the Viking chieftain Ragnar. Erik is also, unbeknown to him, the long-lost rightful heir to the Northumbrian throne currently held by Aella. (Northumbrian laws of succession must have been rather loose. Erik is the son of the widowed queen of Aella's cousin and predecessor, who conceived him when she was raped by Ragnar- a rather daring storyline in the days of the Production Code. Such a parentage would not have given Erik a claim to the throne of most European monarchies). For most of the film the two men do not know that they are brothers- indeed, they regard one another as rivals and enemies, a rivalry intensified when both fall in love with the same woman, the Princess Morgana, who also happens to be betrothed to Aella. Ragnar, Erik, Einar and Aella were all historical individuals, but the film is not noted for its historical accuracy. Indeed, because the history of this particular period is so sketchily recorded, any film about it would be bound to involve more speculation than hard fact. In reality the Vikings and their Saxon enemies, both Germanic peoples, had much in common, apart from in the area of religion, but in the film the two sides are portrayed as being quite culturally distinct. The Vikings are shown as Dark Age barbarians, whereas the Saxons are portrayed as having a much more advanced culture, with their architecture, armour and costumes being those of the High Middle Ages, several centuries after the date at which the events depicted ostensibly take place. If, for example, the Saxons had had stone castles like the one shown here, they would have had much less difficulty in repelling the Viking raids. Kirk Douglas not only starred in the film (as Einar), he also produced it, a double he was to repeat two years later with "Spartacus". Apparently creative differences led to Douglas falling out with the director, Richard Fleischer, with whom he had previously collaborated on "20,000 Leagues under the Sea", both blaming the other for what they saw as the film's failure. I was, however, surprised to learn this, as I have never considered "The Vikings" to be a failure at all. Certainly, it was a major success at the box office. Fleischer was a director whose films varied widely not only in subject-matter but also in quality. He made a number of films far worse than this one, "Red Sonja" being a particularly egregious example, and only a few better, notably "Ten Rillington Place". "The Vikings" combines exciting adventure with an engaging human drama, and is wonderfully photographed by the famous cinematographer Jack Cardiff against some striking natural scenery, mostly in the Norwegian fjords, although Aella's castle is actually in Brittany and some other locations are in Croatia. (Cardiff also worked as a director, and was later to make his own Viking epic, "The Long Ships"). Douglas and Tony Curtis as Erik both make dashing heroes, and there are also good performances from Curtis's real-life wife Janet Leigh as the lovely Morgana, Ernest Borgnine as Ragnar and Frank Thring as the villainous Aella. (Curtis and Leigh also starred together in another mediaeval drama, "The Black Shield of Falworth"). The film may not quite have the depth or grandeur of "Spartacus", one of the finest epics ever made, but judged by virtually any other standards it is a pretty good one. 7/10