web
counter
 

Nasty, Brutish, and Short

By TK | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (27)



big_ValhallaRisingPic4.jpg

Here’s a few interesting facts about Valhalla Rising star Mads Mikkelsen. He’s one of the most successful actors in Danish history. He’s routinely voted in numerous women’s magazines as the “Sexiest Man in Denmark.” He’s a former professional dancer. He’s been knighted by the Queen of Denmark. I tell you all of these things because they seem so very at odds with the Mads Mikkelsen that Americans know — Le Chiffre in Casino Royale, the stoic but deadly knight in Anton Fuqua’s misguided King Arthur. And now, the somber, noble-yet-menacing lead in Valhalla Rising.

The other reason I tell you these little bits of nifty trivia is because, well, I’m trying to buy myself some time. You see, Valhalla Rising is a singularly unusual film. Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, best known for the excellent, unflinching Bronson, it stars Mikkelsen as an unnamed prisoner who is simply referred to as One-Eye (due to the fact that he, well, has only one eye, the other a hideous mass of scar tissue), captured by a ragged band of vikings in around 1000 AD, and used in primitive fighting games for gambling. He’s a mute (literally), brooding brute of a figure, a vicious fighter who bloodily destroys his opponents. Eventually, One-Eye escapes in a visceral, violent uprising and takes in a young boy as a companion. One-Eye encounters a group of Scottish Crusaders seeking to spread the word of God, and joins them on their quest to Jerusalem. Unfortunately, their boat ends up off-course, and the band finds themselves in a strange new land filled with unseen dangers, not the least of which is possibly One-Eye himself.

Valhalla Rising is peculiar for many reasons. It’s one of the quietest films I’ve ever encountered — if there are more than 100 words spoken in its 90 minutes, I’d be stunned. Part of this is due to a protagonist who cannot speak, but its also due to the writers’ (Refn and Roy Jacobsen) decision to make it a sparse, contemplative piece. In a way, there’s a certain logic to it that’s grounded in a dedication to realism that pervades the film — if one stops and thinks about it, it’s in fact quite likely that this small group of warriors and zealots would have little to speak about. As such, the film is full of long, silent shots of the group simply watching their surroundings, or trying to find the eventual unseen assailants. It makes sense. It’s logical. Unfortunately, it’s also somewhat dull at times.

Therein lies the greatest flaw in Valhalla Rising. It’s a film dedicated to being an honest (or as honest as one can be based on historical fact and generous assumption) portrayal of a particular time and place. That effort is appreciable in an artistic sense, and it’s aided by the fact that Valhalla is a visually splendid picture. Unfortunately, because there is surprisingly little action, and very little dialogue, the film drags — badly at times. The spectacular cinematography serves as an occasional welcome distraction from the at-times plodding story, but the film makers never quite manages to be arresting or compelling enough to overcome its slowness.

The story is in an of itself similarly enigmatic. The action movie fan will find him or herself bitterly disappointed after the film’s opening burst of violence — and make no mistake, the first five minutes are shockingly violent. One-Eye is a fearsome and relentless fighter who, when coupled with his own cleverness, proves himself a terrifying opponent. He tears out throats with his teeth, snaps necks, bludgeons brains out — all filmed with an unflinching lens. However, that crude violence is another part of the film’s dedication to realism. But once they move beyond the grisly beginnings, the story unfolds at a crawl, full of strange, red-tinged hallucinatory dream sequences from One-Eye’s mind that are either foreshadowing or memories — it’s never really clear. While the main thrust of the tale is One-Eye’s curious decision to accompany the band to the Holy Land, it never really digs its feet in and establishes itself with purpose. While Valhalla Rising is fraught with stark imagery and cryptic symbolism, it feels unfocused, and doesn’t tie it together enough to form a cohesive narrative.

It’s all strangely fascinating as well as frustrating to watch, because Refn is clearly a skilled director. However, in his quest to make a film that’s seen more as art than one would assume of its subject matter, he overreaches, and the film frequently staggers under its own pretenses. It starts to feel all too deliberate and forcibly arty, a cerebral exercise that’s a bit too consciously obtuse. It’s a shame, too, because it covers some truly intriguing themes, of religion, of intolerance, fears of the unknown, and of the Europeans’ need to spread belief by force. All this is set against the mysterious One-Eye, and Mikkelsen must play the anti-zealot, a brutally eloquent, silent voice of reason in the midst of fanaticism. To his credit, he’s excellent in his part, displaying a surprising amount of artistic deftness, considering it’s a non-speaking part whose range consists of either enraged, confused, or somber. And yet he makes it work.

In fact, all of the performances are quite remarkable. Perhaps it’s due to the limited amount of dialogue, which somehow adds extra weight to the rare spoken word. But everyone from the unnamed boy (Maarten Stevenson), to Gary Lewis, who plays the leader of the band of Crusaders, hits their notes just right. That, combined with the film’s acute attention to detail, makes it perhaps far more engaging than it should be. That attention to detail, incidentally, is remarkable. Beyond the scenery, accents and dialogue, the costume design is perfect and, perhaps most unusual, everyone is dirty and kind of ugly. There’s no Orlando Bloom-esque beauty to be found here. It’s a grungy, filthy, hardened group of soldiers, replete with gnarled features and knife-cut hair.

All of this means that Valhalla Rising ultimately suffers from its storytelling, because frankly, it’s a pretty impressive directorial effort in most ways. But it fails perhaps the most important test of a story — despite its efforts to be artistically and intellectually stimulating, it frequently comes off as self-indulgent and, sadly, simply boring at times. It’s a shame, too, because it’s a gorgeous film filled with strong performances and unique perspectives. But in the end, it hurts itself with its interminable pretentiousness.

Originally review back in May, this review is being republished ahead of the movie’s limited release this weekend.

TK writes about music and movies. He enjoys playing with dogs, raising the dead, and tacos. You can email him here.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Pajiba Love 22/07/10 | Following Review | Welcome to a World Without Rules









Comments

The review only makes me want to see it. Is that what you're trying to do to me? Is this some clever reverse logic trick?

Thanks to Thor and all the gods for something different for a change.

Posted by: Robb at May 25, 2010 2:16 PM

So you're saying they needed to bring in Ridley Scott for a weekend?

I'll give it a chance. Mikkelsen is good in everything -- see Clash of the Titans. And I dug Bronson enough to give Refn some leeway.

Posted by: Fredo at May 25, 2010 2:20 PM

I'll definitely see it (once one of my sources gets a copy) If only because I really liked what Refn did with Bronson.

Posted by: admin at May 25, 2010 2:33 PM

Considering the film is only 88 mins long it felt like 3 hours plus when I watched it.
That said I didn't hate it, it's well worth a watch, but it's definitely a strange one!

Posted by: ej at May 25, 2010 2:53 PM

"Unfortunately, it’s also somewhat dull at times"

That's all you really need to know. Insignificant humans against vast landscapes is good for 15 mins at the most. Violence? A good forty. But after that, you need something else, which this movie doesn't have.

Posted by: elzupasmonkey at May 25, 2010 2:56 PM

When the boat veers off course, did anyone manage to work out where they ended up? I'm still unsure...

Posted by: Y at May 25, 2010 3:10 PM

This review has me thoroughly intrigued. I watched the trailer on youtube and something about it reminds me of The Mission which was also a sort of slow, beautiful movie that had moments of significant violence. There's something about these types of movies that fascinates me. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that American directors don't make movies like them, ever...I don't know. Whatever the case I totally want to see this movie and now may have to go home and watch The Mission again.

Posted by: JenVegas at May 25, 2010 3:55 PM

I like this review. It reminds me of Jarhead, which is, in fact, boring much of the time. But that's the point. Life, and by extension, war are mostly boring, briefly interrupted with horror, and then quickly return to being boring.

I love everything about medieval history, a time when humans were just raw in Europe, but with this weird memory of not being that way. it's not primal, it's feral, a return to the wilderness after having been tamed.

so yeah. i will see this. also, someone needs to do a movie about Lindisfarne.

Posted by: Johnny Von Awesome at May 25, 2010 4:19 PM

"When the boat veers off course, did anyone manage to work out where they ended up? I'm still unsure..."

I reckoned America.

One helllllll of a veer, that's for sure...

Posted by: elzupasmonkey at May 25, 2010 5:55 PM

Mads is in it, will be watching.
I like long strange films. They're like abstract art; experiencing abstract paintings are different from experiencing another type of painting, etc.

Posted by: diane at May 25, 2010 7:38 PM

aw, man. Gonna watch it for the purty anyway.

Posted by: koj at May 26, 2010 12:22 AM

Watch "after the wedding" and "adam's apples" for the best mikkelsen. he's a great actor. and he these are very interesting danish movies.

Posted by: martian at May 26, 2010 10:15 AM

Adore Mads, an all-round super cool man.
He seems to do well with whatever is thrown his way. Versatile and yummy, yes.

Went to the Valhalla Rising premiere last year and was super impressed.
A visual film..eerie, evocative of time and space; not all blah blah blah, like some N. American films.
Definately different than the usual Hollywood fare. Most welcomed indeed.


Posted by: JaneSpotting at May 26, 2010 11:35 AM

Nice review. I'll definitely check it out once it hits DVD.
That King Arthur film may have had its faults, but I liked it, and Mikkelsen's Tristram, my favorite character of the bunch, had a lot to do with it. One cool cat, that guy.

Posted by: Rykker at May 27, 2010 4:54 PM

"truly intriguing themes, of religion, of intolerance, fears of the unknown, and of the Europeans’ need to spread belief by force"

You'd better check your history: Islam didn't exactly spread its brand by handing out marshmallow Peeps to gain converts.

I get pretty fed up with the Leftist anti-European/anti-American, anti-religion crusade in film and other media.

When are we going to see an expose on Islam and its bloody history? Probably never, because no one has the minerals to make it without receiving death threats.

Posted by: Harrumph! at July 16, 2010 10:23 AM

I wouldn't call Valhalla Rising an "expose," so I'm not sure how you got around to calling out Islam. Most major religions have a bloody history, it's just apparently easier to ignore when its our religion being discussed.

Posted by: Markus at July 22, 2010 2:33 PM

Now that I've seen it allow me to add.

The ending is fucking weird.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at July 22, 2010 2:37 PM

Welcome back to American Bandstand. And now, a new song by Gary Lewis and the Crusaders. They're a band that hit their notes just right.

%%% Hun elsker jer , ja , ja , ja %%%

Posted by: BWeaves at July 22, 2010 2:38 PM

See "Flame and Citron" for more yummy Mads, WWII-Danish-Resistance style.

Posted by: jeanne at July 22, 2010 2:38 PM

*rubs eyes*

A re-post? What?

Posted by: Lauren at July 22, 2010 2:39 PM

i really did like this movie, i watched it twice felt like i needed to just to fully appreciate it .

Posted by: gilp at July 22, 2010 2:58 PM

>>it frequently comes off as self-indulgent and, sadly, simply boring at times

A lot like Scandinavia itself.

Posted by: Adam at July 22, 2010 5:38 PM

I feel like this will be much the same experience I had with Stalker, which I enjoyed though only in a very abstract and strange sense, and which I was in a very specific mood in order to tolerate. So at some point, I will probably pick this up. But it will be with extreme caution, and a very contemplative setting.

Posted by: Kalexal at July 22, 2010 6:30 PM

I wanted to like this film, but the pace was sooo slow. Flashes of violence nonewithstanding, the brooding and contemplative atmosphere was dull. I understand artistic experimentation; I applaud how a director is true to his purpose, but this film concerned itself, too much, with one element. I agree with TK. I think it was a detriment to ignore the storytelling and emphasis more on the artistic element.

Posted by: Tallulahc at July 22, 2010 7:52 PM

I got way too high before watching this movie the first time and I spent the next two (or however many it was) hours staring in stunned silence. I've watched it twice more since then and I still don't know what to think about it except to say that Mads Mikkelsen is absolutely captivating even without saying a word.

Posted by: Tilly at July 25, 2010 1:15 AM

Good film. Think Aguirre, Wrath of God and Stalker rather than Braveheart.

Posted by: Paul Bowes at July 25, 2010 3:07 PM

It's not the easiest film to get a handle on, but there's something great about how unashamedly wigged-out and strange it is.

Posted by: ringtones at September 7, 2010 2:47 PM