I haven't read all of the reviews, but I am baffled that those I did read didn't mention the biggest and most glaring problem with this movie: the laughably extreme shaky-cam action scenes.
I gave it a 2 out of 10 because of the good production values and a good recreation of how those times looked like, but the action is pretty much unwatchable and the writing is just bad, but I wouldn't have minded that if I would have gotten good action scenes.
It is just an disorientating flurry of shaking images and quick cuts and often I couldn't even tell what was happening. Even small action scenes without gore effects, like a short fist fight between two of the "heroes" are filmed as if the DP would have had an epileptic seizure and as if the stunt men would have been so shitty that the editor decided to hide what they were doing as much as possible.
I'd like to ask the other reviewers: Who cares about the historical inaccuracies when I can't even see the movie I'm watching?
Even other stupid mistakes that reveal a shocking ineptitude of the director and writer, like making "the heavy" (the Danish mercenary leader) look weak and inept in his very first fight at the beginning of the movie, are hardly worth mentioning. It is a bit like complaining about a hair in my soup after the waiter just puked all over my table. I just mention it because it shows that the guy making this movie wasn't just a misguided shaky-cam fetishist, but really simply doesn't know what he is doing.
This is just a huge waste of good actors, costumes and other production values. Like giving a Fabergé Egg to a toddler and watching him destroy it.
Even the dialog scenes are filmed badly, in unnecessary close ups that give you a feeling of claustrophobia, even when the scenes take place outside, under open skies. It really is baffling because it seems as if the director and the DP tried their very best to show the audience as little as possible of all the great looking sets, locations, landscapes and costumes they were given to work with.
I gave it a 2 out of 10 because of the good production values and a good recreation of how those times looked like, but the action is pretty much unwatchable and the writing is just bad, but I wouldn't have minded that if I would have gotten good action scenes.
It is just an disorientating flurry of shaking images and quick cuts and often I couldn't even tell what was happening. Even small action scenes without gore effects, like a short fist fight between two of the "heroes" are filmed as if the DP would have had an epileptic seizure and as if the stunt men would have been so shitty that the editor decided to hide what they were doing as much as possible.
I'd like to ask the other reviewers: Who cares about the historical inaccuracies when I can't even see the movie I'm watching?
Even other stupid mistakes that reveal a shocking ineptitude of the director and writer, like making "the heavy" (the Danish mercenary leader) look weak and inept in his very first fight at the beginning of the movie, are hardly worth mentioning. It is a bit like complaining about a hair in my soup after the waiter just puked all over my table. I just mention it because it shows that the guy making this movie wasn't just a misguided shaky-cam fetishist, but really simply doesn't know what he is doing.
This is just a huge waste of good actors, costumes and other production values. Like giving a Fabergé Egg to a toddler and watching him destroy it.
Even the dialog scenes are filmed badly, in unnecessary close ups that give you a feeling of claustrophobia, even when the scenes take place outside, under open skies. It really is baffling because it seems as if the director and the DP tried their very best to show the audience as little as possible of all the great looking sets, locations, landscapes and costumes they were given to work with.