![](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-djpsLGldWR0/Ti9td7cWsDI/AAAAAAAAAU8/59rgGffrjeI/s400/Valhalla%2BRising.jpg)
There are a lot of movies out there. Some are great, many are good, a great many are bad and some just leave you wondering what the heck you just saw. Such is the case with my recent (chance) viewing of Valhalla Rising via Netflix On-Demand.
Written and directed by Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn, Valhalla Rising stars Mads Mikkelsen (Casino Royale) in a quiet role. Literally – his character never utters a word. This is problematic because I, and the audience I viewed it with, still have no idea what the character's motivations were or why any of the events of the film actually happened. An important aspect of storytelling is the part wherein the audience is made aware of certain plot elements that serve to connect us with the characters and engage us with the story. This never happened in Valhalla Rising, replacing interest with confusion. In that sense, this film is sort of like those magic eye picture where if you stare at it long enough (or figure out how to relax your eyes' focus properly) you discover an image hidden within a seemingly meaningless swath of patterns and colors. The problem here is we saw the picture and don't know what it is.
The film's “setting” visuals are good, comprised of an endless stream of sweeping shots of what one might reasonably assume is a Nordic landscape; the cinematography gives it a very epic feel. Still, I am unsure as to where it actually takes place as that wasn't very clearly conveyed along with everything else. There are some brutal, but short, fight sequences and the rest is mostly a collection of close-up shots of weathered men staring off into the distance, pondering God-only-knows what. They do A LOT of that. Perhaps they too were wondering what was going on.
Here is what can easily be discerned from the film:
One-Eye (Mikkelsen) starts out as a slave who is forced to fight other slaves to the death. Is he really fueled by hate or just a will to escape his bondage? It remains uncertain, but a vision leads him to find an arrowhead which he uses to brutally kill his captors.
One-Eye and his boy companion come across a band of Christian crusaders who are headed to Jerusalem to fight for Christ. This is where you might think that this film might become like 13th Warrior, and you would be wrong.
One-Eye, having joined this literal ship of fools, sets out with them for Jerusalem only to end up lost in a thick fog for an unspecified amount of time. It is during this time that one of the group, believing them to be cursed by One-Eye's companion, attempts to throw him overboard only to be brutally killed by One-Eye. No one else seems to bat an eye to this development and they continue.
They end up somewhere that is definitely not Jerusalem that we can only assume is North America due to the natives, collectively go crazy (one man rapes another in the mud) with the story (if you can call it that) culminating in One-Eye ultimately sacrificing himself to the natives in a beating that goes so smoothly it can be assume to have been pre-arranged. Why? I have no idea.
It is absolutely confounding how little information is actually conveyed, using motion picture no less! Is their journey supposed to be a metaphor for hell (juxtaposed against their intended quest for God?) Is is supposed to be a metaphor for life's journey? Is is a metaphor for self-discovery? One might easily assume that the meaning bestowed is entirely unique to the viewer, but there just aren't enough concrete bits of information to go on to even begin to form a reasonable assumption. Maybe if One-Eye would open his mouth even once and share at least some of his thoughts, we'd know. He does appear to be the only character who knows what is actually going on at any given time. But he never does. He only speaks with his eye and we are as lost as what can only be described as the most incompetent group of crusaders ever. EVER! Perhaps the audience is supposed to share somewhat in their madness, but that is total speculation on my part.
Equally frustrating is the Wikipedia entry for Valhalla Rising which offers no additional explanation whatsoever, but merely serves as a recap of the scenes of the film. Very insightful!
I will give credit to the film for being a (relatively) short 90 minutes. They could have dragged it on and on very easily I'm sure. Yet, how this film manages a 70% Fresh rating on RottenTomatoes is a true spectacle of wonderment to me and those I viewed it with.
In reflecting on Valhalla Rising, I conclude that as a film it is either the result of inadequate narrative style or extremely pretentious on the part of Refn. If the intent is to be an art film, maybe pretentious is the right word. If the intent is to be an interesting and engaging story, it is as incompetent as its character's, save One-Eye. Actual silent films communicate more than this one. I'd rate it, but I still don't know what I'm judging. ???