Historical film means this. This is called historical.

Certainly the best and most accurate film ever made about the Middle Ages ..... This movie also has all the elements of an action movie.

In my opinion , the big problem with the propagandas of Hollywood instruments is that they have not seen movies , correctly !!! For example, someone who wants to make a brave lamb , someone who wants to make a Vikings , or he wants to make a Michael Mann movie whose name I do not have in mind right now, or actually Make a Marvel, must sit bored on this master beautiful masterpiece as 721 times ( the number calculated according to the main movie time) watch it 721 times and then make a movie . If the audience didn't have millions to make a fuss , then you can say whatever you want. I think whatching this film 721 times ( main parts of the film ) is obligatory for any filmmaker and filmwatcher in this genre ( or a film with this power) Also, the action scenes of this movie are cinematic and this is important . In the other words they are real.. It is also not achieved by tying two tigers on both sides of the field.

Well, the movie's cover/poster definitely was interesting enough to catch my attention. And I figured that with the movie's 7.8 rating on IMDb, in this writing moment, then I would be in for something grand here.

And I will admit that I was excited to see what writers Sjón and Robert Eggers had in store for me here with the 2 hours and 17 minutes that the movie ran for.

However, I must say that while "The Northman" was watchable, it was ultimately just another run-of-the-mill Viking-inspired movie, for better or worse. Sure, it was a watchable movie and entertaining enough for what it was. But don't get your hopes up for this one. If you've seen other Viking movies, or TV series for that matter, then you already know what you are in for here. Yeah, director Robert Eggers didn't deviate much from the how-to-make-a-Viking-saga-movie blueprint.

Visually then "The Northman" was interesting, as it definitely felt like an era-appropriate movie. I did like the props, costumes, sets, scenery, etc., because it definitely looked and felt like what is usually associated with the Vikings era.

"The Northman" has a good cast ensemble, with the likes of Alexander Skarsgård, Nicole Kidman, Claes Bang, Ethan Hawke and even Willem Dafoe. All great talents, sure, but some of them do raise a wondering sensation as to why they were cast for a Viking movie. But on the other hand, I will say that casting Icelandic singer Björk for the movie, despite being a minor role and appearance, was just phenomenal.

Something that didn't sit well with me in "The Northman", was the fact that it was English language based. Sure, I understand that from a wider appeal to the audience approach. But it just feels wrong having Vikings speak English, it just takes away from the atmosphere and the believability. And also the supernatural aspects were somewhat baffling to me. Sure, I understand that the Valkyries are a part of Norse lore, but having a pale woman with retainers on her teeth screaming and sitting on a flying horse just doesn't really work.

I was expecting more than just your average generic Viking movie from director Robert Eggers, and I was somewhat disappointed when the movie just turned out to be a run-of-the-mill Viking movie. It could and should have been so much more, especially for a production of this magnitude.

While "The Northman" is watchable and entertaining enough for what it turned out to be, then this is hardly a movie that I will be returning to watch a second time.

My rating of "The Northman" lands on a six out of ten stars. It is the atmosphere, the brutality in the movie, and some of the performances that managed to snag the rating up from five to a six star rating for me.

I went into this movie without having seen the director's previous work. I guess that probably would have given me some context on what to expect.

This movie was gory, yes. It had some 'shocking' scenes, if you're used to only watching PG movies all the time. But it was far from earth-shattering.

You pretty much get the Hamlet vibe within the first 20 minutes. Heck, the avenging king is named Amleth, an anagram for Hamlet. You don't learn anything about anyone who is affected in that time, or develop any kind of emotional empathy for the characters, you just know you've seen this plot point before.

Then later, predictably, the young king has developed into a fierce but anonymous warrior. Somehow, he is able to swim the frigid waters to sneak on a tiny boat that no one seems to care he just popped in.

We soon learn the kingdom that was claimed by the brother, is now in the hands of someone else. This is where the movie REALLY loses its punch. I mean, the whole point of the revenge tale was for the young king to reclaim his thrown from his murderous Uncle. Except the Uncle is no longer in charge of the kingdom. He's a farmer (?!).

After this the movie tries hard to keep itself relevant when trippy scenes and the occasional gory moments. But it really has no purpose. You don't care about the young king re-claiming his throne. After a while, you don't care about the queen, his mother, because she turns out to be just as untrustworthy.

The only enjoyable part of this film is the scenery. The acting, the plot, everything else, just does not make you feel invested in this movie. The finale was meh, nobody really cares 'everyone' dies. A pointless movie.