Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

It's not too bad. The effect the makers of the movie were going after is interesting. In some ways it is like a stage play. The dialogue is exaggerated and complex. No niggers in it, which is always a huge plus for any movie. And as far as I watched (I had to stop because I ran out of time), no faggots, either.

It tells the familiar story of a prince cheated out of his crown by an uncle, who murders his father and marries his mother (Hamlet, anyone?) Many people don't know that the plot of Hamlet was based on historical events. Shakespeare was a bit like a Viking himself -- he raided history and folklore for his plots and made them his own.

The only aspect of the movie I don't like is its portrayal of the Vikings as extremely savage and barbaric. They are presented like a tribe of niggers, when they bark and dance around a campfire, for example. I'm sure the director has niggers in mind when he did this scene. But the Vikings were never as low as the level of niggers in Africa. They were skilled craftsmen and poets, builders, farmers, fishermen. They lived a hard life and they were tough as iron, but they weren't complete savages. This aspect of the movie is untrue to life.

But the entire movie (what I saw of it so far) is more highly colored than real life. It tries to be mythic, and to a great extent, it succeeds. It's an interesting movie, worth watching.

It's not too bad. The effect the makers of the movie were going after is interesting. In some ways it is like a stage play. The dialogue is exaggerated and complex. No niggers in it, which is always a huge plus for any movie. And as far as I watched (I had to stop because I ran out of time), no faggots, either. It tells the familiar story of a prince cheated out of his crown by an uncle, who murders his father and marries his mother (Hamlet, anyone?) Many people don't know that the plot of Hamlet was based on historical events. Shakespeare was a bit like a Viking himself -- he raided history and folklore for his plots and made them his own. The only aspect of the movie I don't like is its portrayal of the Vikings as extremely savage and barbaric. They are presented like a tribe of niggers, when they bark and dance around a campfire, for example. I'm sure the director has niggers in mind when he did this scene. But the Vikings were never as low as the level of niggers in Africa. They were skilled craftsmen and poets, builders, farmers, fishermen. They lived a hard life and they were tough as iron, but they weren't complete savages. This aspect of the movie is untrue to life. But the entire movie (what I saw of it so far) is more highly colored than real life. It tries to be mythic, and to a great extent, it succeeds. It's an interesting movie, worth watching.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (5).
[–] • 0 pt

Some very minor spoilers, doesn't take away from watching the film. (reading the entire linked article has more spoilers so you may want to skip it https://screenrant.com/is-the-northman-based-on-a-true-story/ and https://irlending.com/2022/04/24/the-northman-the-real-story-behind-the-brutal-viking-movie/)

>...Robert Eggers has previously included elements of true stories in his movies - even when leaning into the more bizarre moments of his films - and thus The Northman is in many ways set up to follow this blending of dream-like events with reality.

>The Northman isn't directly based on a true story, instead being written by Robert Eggers and his writing partner for this film [Icelandic novelist and poet] Sjon Sigurdsson, to be based on an Old Norse myth and folktale as opposed to being taken directly from reality. This folktale was Vita Amlethi. Vita Amlethi was a tale passed down through generations by word of mouth, not being officially recorded until around the year 1200 as part of Saxo Grammaticus' extensive history of Danish rulers and their history. The basics of the story are what provided the inspiration for The Northman, as well as the basis for other famous stories throughout history, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet.

>Vita Amlethi, the Norse folktale, translates into The Life of Amleth. While Amleth isn't necessarily based on a true historical person, the folktale passes down the legend of the character. While the story of The Northman takes the basis of this legend to inspire its story, the main character of Amleth is almost directly taken from the Norse tale. In Vita Amlethi, Amleth is a young Viking prince who lives happily with his father, Horwendil, and his mother, Gerutha. Horwendil's brother Fengo, however, is driven by a jealous hatred of his King Horwendil, and murders him, taking Gerutha as his own wife. This drives Amleth into a life-long rage, vowing revenge against his uncle for the crimes committed against his family. It's unclear whether the character of Amleth is based on any kind of real events or people at the time, but either way, the figure is the basis of the main character of The Northman, played by Alexander Skarsgard.

>...One of the defining elements of The Northman that link the film to reality through Norse myth is the inclusion of the Valkyries and Valhalla. In Norse mythology, the Valkyries were a host of female figures responsible for guiding the spirits of deceased Nordic soldiers to the afterlife. One of the prominent afterlife locations in Norse myth is Valhalla, a majestic hall located in Asgard and ruled by Odin. Valhalla was seen as a great honor for a warrior, living out their afterlife days in the hall of Odin and signifying an honorable death in battle.

The second half of the movie was better than the first imho, but the first half set the stage for the initial forging of the character of Amleth. I agree that more than a few of the scenes unfold like a stage play, especially some of the rituals.

Regarding Viking brutality, one person's perspective: https://bavipower.com/blogs/bavipower-viking-blog/were-the-vikings-really-brutal

Also this comment (more in the thread) https://www.quora.com/How-brutal-were-the-vikings?share=1

> Alvin John Ronnfeldt , former Teacher (1993-2016) Answered 4 years ago · Author has 1K answers and 412.3K answer views Very brutal. There have been a lot of really evil people in history. In fact, about every nation and ethnic group committed some pretty awful deeds on a large scale. But the kings of brutality are the Vikings, the Nazis, and the Mongols. Some anecdotes to illustrate: a viking was given the nickname “Baby Lover” because he refused to join in the viking’s favorite game - tossing children of enemies in the air and seeing if they could catch them on the point of a spear. When Scandinavia got their first kings, the kings outlawed vikings because they plundered their own people as often as foreigners. If a viking was killed in a fight, all his male relatives were duty bound to avenge him, then the other side’s relatives came back to avenge HIM - except in the cases where the Thing arranged payment of wergelt, the whole country was constantly feuding. (Imagine if the Hatfield's and McCoy's existed across the whole US) The Vikings often killed slaves, prisoners, unarmed people, just because they felt like it. Humans that were not Vikings were not human. All male Vikings were expected to prove themselves in battle, so they had to start wars just to prove their valor.

>Some history revisionist have tried to prove they were not so bad, but they take their facts from a later age after the Vikings had passed. There is a difference between the time of the Vikings and the time of Feudal Scandinavia.