the audience applauded

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Recently shown again for the first time in many years, "The Vikings" definitely holds up as a rattling-good, old-fashioned, action- adventure epic. You know exactly what you're in for right from the start when a movie begins with a brutal raid in which a Viking hacks to death the King of England and then rapes the Queen beside his mangled body. Hey, What's not to like?Let it be understood right from the outset that "The Vikings" is definitely not a "chick-flick". The story takes place in "The Dark Ages", which is another way of saying "The Good Old Days". In other words, the era before women became "empowered" by means of political correctness, daytime talk shows and court-issued protective orders. According to "The Vikings", the 9th Century Norwegians treated their women in about the same fashion as did the prehistoric Cave-Men, to whom the Vikings were apparently closely related. In one scene, in which the heroine is about to be brutally raped by a Viking, the best defense she can come up with is to say, "I'm not going to lift a finger to help you" (as if she believes he would care!). In another scene the Vikings administer an ingenious trial to determine whether or not a certain woman has committed adultery (as if any of them don't!). They stick her head through a wooden target, at which her drunken husband proceeds to throw battle-axes. If he manages to cut her braids, but miss her head, then her innocence is proved and she's allowed to go free. Sounds fair to me!The movie does have a plot, involving the rivalry of enemy half- brothers. who aren't actually aware that they are related, over a captive English princess. However, that is merely an excuse for the action, of which there is plenty. According to the filmmakers those old-time Scandinavians apparently spent most of their time getting drunk, screwing and killing people. There is a lot of the latter. Among other highlights there are eyes torn out by hunting falcons (they do love eyes!), limbs sadistically hacked off with swords, a guy chained up in the sea either to be drowned by the rising tide or eaten by crabs (whichever occurs first), and a guy thrown into a pit of ravenous wolves. But, after all, in the Middle Ages they didn't have any internet or television, so they had to make do with more primitive forms of entertainment. As for the quality of the production, "The Vikings" had an excellent cast and the production values were absolutely first-rate. It was filmed on location in Norway, which looks simply spectacular. In addition, the movie was made before the advent of blue screens or CGI special effects, so everything you see was actually done by somebody. In fact, some of the stunts look pretty dangerous, and one can only wonder how they were ever done at all.All in all, as epic film-making, "The Vikings" is about as good as it gets. This unaccountably and undeservedly neglected classic movie is definitely worth another look.

United Artists THE VIKINGS (1958) is one of the great epics of the fifties. Based on the book "The Vikings" by Edison Marshall it was produced by Jerry Brasler for Bryna Productions (Kirk Douglas' own company which he named after his mother).Beautifully photographed in Technirama and Technicolor by ace British cinematographer Jack Cardiff more than 4000 multinational performers and technicians worked on the giant production. Filmed on actual locations in the mountains and fjords of Norway the picture is well remembered for its scenic beauty and authentic sets. The splendid screenplay was put together by Dale Wasserman and Calder Willingham and Richard Fleischer directed with a deft hand an all star cast. The picture is also notable for the fine polished narration spoken by an uncredited Orson Welles. Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine) is the savage Viking chieftain who with his Viking horde rape and pillage along the English coast. On one such raid he rapes an English Queen who later gives birth to a boy they call Eric (Tony Curtis). But his existing son Einar (Kirk Douglas) is unaware he has a half brother and grows to hate Eric especially after the Vikings attack an English ship and abduct the princess Morgana (Janet Leigh) whom both sons desire. Sometime later Eric rescues the princess from the Viking camp and in a small boat makes a dash for England with Ragnar and Einar in hot pursuit. During the chase Ragnar's ship goes aground in the fog but Eric saves him, pulls him aboard and takes him to England as well where the treacherous king Aella sentences Ragnar to die in the dog pit. Later Eric returns to Norway to muster Einer and his men to attack the English castle where Morgana is being held and to avenge Ragnar's death. The picture ends in a marvellous set piece as the Vikings take the castle after a blistering well staged battle and Eric and Einar battle it out to the death in a terrific sword duel atop the dizzying castle parapets.Performances are superb from the entire cast. Douglas himself is a standout in his own production. His facility for knockabout action is a joy to behold. His prowess and unerring skill at stunts is well revealed in THE VIKINGS exemplified in the taking of the castle sequence. Here Douglas, under fire from rocks and arrows, charges and leaps across the open moat grabbing onto the axe handles which his men had already thrown and embedded in the underside of the raised drawbridge. Then using the axes to grip he clambers up and over to let the bridge down. It is a stunning and spectacular piece of stunt work! Again in an earlier scene Douglas can clearly be seen doing what is known as Dancing The Oars whereby he hops from oar to oar outside the ship for the amusement of the camp. Excellent too was Tony Curtis! Here was the emergence of Tony Curtis the ACTOR which manifested itself in Burt Lancaster's "Trapeze" (1956), with Lancaster again in "Sweet Smell of Success" (1957) and then in "The Defiant Ones"(1958). Gone were his pretty boy days at Universal International the studio he started with and where he would become their top pinup male star alongside a young Rock Hudson and Jeff Chandler. Also a standout in THE VIKINGS is Ernest Borgnine giving a powerful portrayal of the Viking leader Ragnar - a part he was born to play. Others in smaller roles are good too such as Alexander Knox as the Friar, Frank Thring as the sly and dubious Aella, James Donald as Egbert the English traitor and Janet Leigh (Mrs. Curtis at the time) as the princess.My only problem with the movie is the staid and laboured music score by Italian composer Mario Nascimbene a composer who never really distinguished himself in anything he did. Despite the haunting and echoing motif that sings out the two words of the film's title on a giant elephant tusk the colourless tinny sounding score is quite insipid and uninspired. It is surprising that a composer the calibre of Miklos Rozsa or Dimitri Tiomkin - two men who could score such epics in their sleep - were not approached to work on Douglas' picture. Their involvement would have added immeasurably to the film giving it a greater buoyancy and density. However, the score not withstanding THE VIKINGS is still a great movie and remains one of cinema's finest blockbuster epics.

"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

I first saw as an impressionable youngster in 1969, a Star Movie on UK ITV – in not so impressionable middle age it still impresses me: it's a wonderful adventure film. And even with that (afaik) it maintained a remarkable authenticity in the portrayal of the Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons, their customs and manners.Bulging plot basically has Norse buck Kirk Douglas and apparent Saxon Tony Curtis after Welsh Princess Janet Leigh, for ransom, supremacy and passion. It really is a roller-coaster ride, so many, and I really mean too many things happen. A few quick favourite episodes: there's a rape at the beginning that's pivotal but simply glossed over; Douglas's eye is torn out bloodily by a hawk, later roaring drunk he still manages with his other eye not to hurl an axe into his erstwhile girlfriend's head; ever-boisterous Ernest Borgnine gets ripped apart by wolves; Curtis is nearly snapped up by crabs, later his hand is chopped off by the cracked English King; apart from all that (and more) there's a complicated storyline too.There can't be many films more swashbuckling and adventure-bound as this – it shows its age occasionally as decidedly pre-cgi cartoonery, no bad thing, and there are occasional slip-ups as Odin only knows. And seeing Dandy Nichols in it always jarred! But all in all I advise don't hesitate, it's bags of fun and a colourful voyage of entertainment.