Review of Erik the Conqueror

Everything is wrong in this film, but it's a masterpiece. Vestal virgins are mixed up with Vikings, the year is 768, and the Vkings are invading some Arthurian part of Cornwall, it seems, that is very Christian indeed, with bishops and clergy all dressed up like in a Shakespeare play, they use long bows and crossbows long before they were invented, and the Vikings even practice human sacrifices and weddings by bleeding a white bull - this is all anachronisms with myths and rituals and ceremonies all mixed up with bits and pieces from the Trojan war to Robin Hood, but it's the cinematography that counts. This is marvellous all the way, the film being a feast for the eyes from beginning to end, and even the story is quite good. There is nothing wrong with the actors either, they are all common standard picturesque prototypes, and the whole set-up and scenery compositions, the swashbuckling dialogue and the colourful clichés are all so flamboyant, so the acting does not have to be very qualified. Cameron Mitchell, usually villains or cowboys, is always an ace in B-pictures, and here he is allowed to play out his whole register including an infinitely prolonged Bogartian farewell scene. The girls are all overwhelmingly blonde and beautiful, and the queen could have been something for Sophia Loren.

Mario Bava is the man both behind the camera and the direction, and it's a splendid combination. Every shot is esthetically delightful to the eye, there are some gprgeous and gory battle scenes, and the finale is equal to the best of Tyrone Power and Errol Flynn. In brief, this is a grossly underrated masterpiece in its very kitschy way, and it could be the best Viking film ever made. It is certainly superior to the Kirk Douglas one.