Blood of Beasts

The ambition was there but not carried out well. Wigs, modern dresses, and bad acting keep this from being an endearing tale though it doesn't prevent it from being watchable. What really weighs it down is the highly overdone trope of spirited princess being more courageous and brave than warriors, even calling them cowardly in righteous indignation. Many comments are made about not being a son, not being able to do what men do, but even in her dying breath, she will obey the laws of their people when Agnar challenges Sven for her hand. Historically, such gender expectancy was rare when seemingly pushed by men, as patriarchal systems put structure and roles on men, not women, and women of royalty pushed feminine culture with such expectancies for the women of their societies, more than men did, even having girls yearning to be able to marry up and be honored above others. This actually hasn't changed. The choice of Jane March as Freya, to world a sword and battle a beast, also made this less believable because she can barely lift a sword in real life with her frailty.

Jane March at age 30 is no Viking teenage princess.The hair was bad. the CG flames were bad. The speech was nowhere near Scandinavia. The end was less than completely satisfying. But I'm glad to have seen this film. Jane March is a beautiful actress, and some of her scenes were fine ("And yet you live!"). The rest of the cast, the Beast, the story...not superb, not amazing, not surprising. And yet, more than just satisfactory. The Beauty and the Beast story is a healthy perennial, and this has some interesting variations thereon. I got this as a Netflix rental, and I was pleased enough to share it with my family and watch it a second time. Worth watching, not a disgrace to the actors, directors, film-makers. Good costumes, not disgusting, a quirky production. Loved the musical score. Solid workmanship with some charm.

We rented this movie for fun, and what a blast it was! The cover looks like Lord of the Rings, which is why it was rented. The acting was alright, some were worse than others. But that's to be expected in a movie like this. The sets were good, for the budget they were on. Costumes were not completely historically accurate, but they were alright. Sven's fringe braid thing was fugly, and I wanted to cut it off. The wigs though...the best damn thing in this movie. Who designed them I don't know, but damn, they were hideous. Fugly, fugly, fugly! Overall it's an okay movie, um maybe play a drinking game while you're watching so that it seems better than it really is? Though if you have a rule where you take a drink every time a bad wig is on the screen, you may die.

"Blood of Beasts", also known as "Beauty and the Beast" was definitely not what I expected by the end of the film in a positive way. I actually found this movie listed on IMDb quite by accident-- but at the time it was not yet released on DVD, so I eventually forgot about it until I saw the DVD on ebay just a few days ago. I am all for the underdogs of film, but since the DVD was going for so much on ebay, I went down to my local video store and was pleasantly surprised that they had it there. So I rented it!

The Bad Points: I will say that the cover of the DVD is going to throw viewers off immediately. The cover has a very "Lord of the Rings" feel to it, so many may rent the movie thinking this is going to be another great epic film. It definitely is not. This must have been a very low budget film for several reasons. One, almost every male in the movie wore a wig or some sort of fake hair, and the only reason why I am pointing this out is because it is THAT obvious. Second, there is virtually no accents in the film, perhaps they couldn't afford a speech or language coach. Third, the costumes were all wrong...very bad, actually (oh, and the weapons were very fake looking such as the swords and daggers). Fourth, the scenes where there is fire...well, I guess they couldn't afford MAKING fire or setting things on fire so they computer generated it-- again, the only reason why I mention it is because it is THAT obvious and detracts from the film. The only thing that I think they did well with as far as special effects is how they chose to portray the Beast. They obviously didn't have a lot of money to use high tech computer effects so instead they used some interesting makeup and an animal hide costume. That may not sound great, but I rather see that then a bad computer generated beast. Plus, this Beast somehow reminded me of the cannibalistic creatures from the movie "13th Warrior."

The Good Points: So now you are probably wondering why I scored it a 6 if it was that horrible. Well, the truth is, it wasn't THAT horrible. I base most movies on the actual story-- 65-75% story/acting and 25-35% special effects/physical attributes of the actual movie. I understood from the beginning that the movie was going to be low budget, and I was expecting the story to be basically the same old Beauty and the Beast tale that we are all used to. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the end of the movie-- it has a neat twist that I am of course not going to spoil for anyone. The story itself starts out a little typical, but by the time the movie progresses about halfway through the film, you sort of feel your heart strings pull at the actual love story and the Beast's hopeless position. And again, the ending was a tad bit unexpected, therefore I think it makes up for the horrible wigs, lack of accents, and bad costumes. It's a shame that they didn't have more money to put into the film; it definitely would have strengthened the story itself.

So in conclusion, I recommend the movie for the story, not the special effects or accuracy of the accents and costumes. If you find yourself board on a weeknight or weekend and you don't go into the movie expecting too much from it, I think it can be enjoyable. I hope this helps! May Odin guide you!

A Viking-era retelling of the Beauty and the Beast storyline, with the pretty Jane March (STALKER) playing a character about 20 years younger than the actress is. This was retitled BLOOD OF THE VIKINGS in a bid to draw in a new audience, and I'm glad I wasn't misled by that new title.

In any case, this is rubbish. It's pantomime-level stuff with production values weaker than an average episode of XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS. The story sees a group of loyal Vikings taking a voyage abroad, where the king is killed and a woman's lover lost. Later they travel again, where they find a brutal monster capable of killing the most seasoned warriors. Could it be the woman's lover, trapped in a sinister curse?

Needless to say this is all complete nonsense, loaded with anachronisms and an almost entire lack of understanding of the era in which the story is set. It works best as a fantasy, but even then it's poor stuff indeed, with some of the most horrid action choreography you'll see. The hair extensions have to be seen to be believed. March, the most experienced actress in it, gives a poor performance equalled by the miscast Justin Whalin, who once starred in THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN but now has no career.