Rating: 
Summary: The Battle Scenes are New and Good
Review: THE 13th WARRIOR was trimmed down from a much longer book and longer filmed version. Some reviewers say this has hurt the movie. But really, the only good thing about this movie is the new battle scenes, battles we haven't seen before by Norsemen on horses wearing bears' heads. Quite scary to see a horde like this coming at you! And a wonderful restraint from doing fantastic things. What you see is what really might have happened. Good guys get killed as well as bad guys. The movie is a bit slow between battle scenes, and the incipient love interest goes nowhere (nor should it). Further trimming down might have helped, but the scenery was so well filmed that it kept your interest (like the first technicolor Westerns). Bottom line: a solid three-star movie, worth seeing but not worth writing home about.
Rating: 
Summary: An ...imatation of Beowulf type story
Review: I have read Beowulf and several related stories and the only thing this movie has in common is some names. O.K. maybe a boat delivers the crew. But it never delivered an Arab that looks like Zorro. Lots of slashing makes this movie attractive to people that like to see bloody bits of Vikings lying around.
One bright side is the scenery of the Canadian coast.
Rating: 
Summary: I HAVE TO DISAGREE
Review: Having read a couple of the other reviews here before I got onto my own I was AMAZED at how many people actually seem to love this film. I saw this in the cinema and walked out wandering what ... I had just seen. It seemed like a patently ridiculous waste of money which could have been spent on worthier ideas. Then, reading the reviews, I hear that it is based on an original historical myth/event and I wonder whether this makes up for it being such a bad film...hmmm....Why do I think the film is bad? Well, let me count the ways... poor acting, sketchy plot, dull and predictable dialogue, lack of any humour of worthy merit, bad costumes, set design.... I could probably go on but I think you can see my general opinion here already. Frankly, if I were to be channel surfing and it was on TV, I wouldn't even waste the 90 odd minutes of my life that it would steal from me in my watching it. However, this returns me to my original quandary... does the fact that it is a 'true story' legitimise the plot, especially if (and I am taking other people's word for it here) it is an accurate interpretation of Michael Crichton's translation, as being something you must accept. I say no and the reason being that I still don't think it is a good film. Just because it might make a good book or a good legend doesn't mean that it naturally translates to film. In fact, that was critical to my dislike because the feeling you had as you watched the film was that it was moving far too fast through far too many events, not allowing any time for us to get involved with any of the characters or to create any kind of emotional bond with them. I simply didn't care about what was happening. As someone who has not read the book (I am not a Crichton fan either) this film on its own is no way in the slightest going to make me want to look any further... sorry guys
Rating:
Summary: Underrated epic adventure
Review: Ibn Fadlan (Antonio Banderas) has made the mistake of falling in love with the wrong woman and is thus sent as ambassador from the medieval court of Baghdad to the furtherest reaches of the known world (along with Omar Sharif in a cameo role). At a river in Russia they come across a band of fierce, hardened Vikings, so fierce that even Tartar bandits fear them. Banderas and Sharif join these Viking warriors during a funeral for their king. The Norsmen are soon called upon by another Viking kingdom for their help against an 'ancient enemy'. It's a tale not unlike the old westerns or even 'The Seven Samurai'. 13 warriors are chosen to go help this distant kingdom but only 12 warriors can be Norsmen. The 13th warrior is, well, you know.... When they arrive, they discover that the kingdom is under attack by a large tribe of ferocious cannibals who dress up like bears. The goal is to destroy this mysterious tribe and save the kingdom - and that's pretty much the whole movie. Sure, the plot is simple and the dialogue spare. But the images are strong with its fire lit chaos and authentic, heavy weapons. Director John McTiernan did well using the narrative power of the story to evoke a world where human settlements are fragile but human solidarity is not. Based on the Michael Crichton book 'Eaters Of The Dead' (and the epic poem Beowulf) The 13th Warrior is a good old fashioned blood and mud war film. A primal tale of stoicism and self-sacrifice. Worth checking out.
Rating:
Summary: Cool, but...
Review: This movie was pretty fun to watch but after thinking about it a little bit, it seems they left out a lot of detail. For one thing, they just kind of gloss over the whole part of the main character being kicked out of his kingdom. Could have used a little bit more info here... Next, the battle scenes are cool, but why is this group killing the Norse people? Was it just for their heads? Or was it something more. Got me. Also, what happened to the prince? After his buddy gets killed, he's gone from the film. Anyway, if you turn your brain off and enjoy the action, you'll like the film. Just don't start thinking about it once it's over!
Rating: 
Summary: absurd adventure film
Review: Credit the makers of "The 13th Warrior" with at least trying to revive that moribund genre of the late 1950's and 1960's - the truly wretched, utterly inane warring-barbarian epic, wherein hordes of badly dressed huns, tartars and Vikings smash away at each other with swords and scimitars to no discernible point or purpose. That such a film is even attempted in this day and age speaks volumes about either the box-office bravery (should the folly succeed) or financial foolishness (should it fail - which it did) of the movie's corporate backers. Antonio Banderas, who will assuredly not count this as one of the finest hours of his already mediocre film career, stars as a foppish, weak-spined Arabian diplomat who is exiled from Baghdad for an inappropriate dalliance and finds himself an unwitting and reluctant member (the 13th warrior) of a band of Norsemen who have been sent out on a rescue mission to help defend a northern village from attacks by a mysterious malevolent force that comes charging out of the forest on misty nights. In typical '90's fashion, the filmmakers are not content to play straight with the subject matter but must imply all sorts of supernatural elements, presumably to keep skeptical and more sci-fi oriented modern audiences from hooting the material off the screen. All those scoffers who deprecated "The Blair Witch Project" for not providing enough of a glimpse of the horrors implied therein get their comeuppance in this film since the mysterious terror in the woods here turns out to be literally a bunch of guys dressed in snicker-inducing bear suits. The screenplay is a confused mess, replete with important characters that are dropped without any explanation and actions that seem, at times, entirely lacking in motivation. About the only new ground this tedious action film manages to break can be found in Banderas' main character who emerges as rather a cowardly ninny at the beginning, but who, alas in more typical fashion, ends up rallying with the other boys to help save the day. Still, credit the film with trying to smash the mold of pure blue heroic protagonist at least part of the way. And, perhaps, far from incidentally, the film affords an opportunity for an aging Omar Sharif to hoist himself back onto a camel and roam the desert as he rediscovers his "Lawrence of Arabia" roots after all these years. It is a sadly nostalgic sight. All of which only goes to show that even the most minor diversion shines forth in a major way in a film otherwise utterly devoid of all interest as "The 13th Warrior."
Rating:
Summary: SAD...
Review: AS a fan of action, epic and medieval movies, of course I'd rent on the spot a movie directed by McTiernan, with Banderas as the main star and based on a Crichton's book. But, apart the amazing fighting sequences and good performances by the Norsemen, there's no history here.
Rating:
Summary: disappointed
Review: I watched the 13th last August with my ex-girl friend, who greaduated as a BA of English Literature. Having studied _Beowulf_ when she was in college, she loved the film. But I was conservative about it. The most visible difference between the movie and the novel was the viewpoint. The book was composed as two parts: ibn Fadlan's 1st person narrative, and the scholar's voice in footnotes that acts as a 3rd person omniscient (or smartass) viewer. The movie only follows ibn Fadlan's line. Its viewpoint was closer to _Beowulf_, many of Crichton's inventions were removed, something as the Neanderthalian hypothesis. The movie was designed to be a testosterone-rich saga. Ibn Fadlan turned to be a he-man in nearly no time. You can see him display his masculinity in front of the Vikings shortly after he was kidnapped. You just don't have the idea why and when he became stronger, and was willing to fight for these babarians. (Hint: watch for the quickest language lesson in the history of movies.) To sell the movie as a superhero film, they omitted some flavorable parts in Crichton's original. Say the whale part. Why should these Vikings fear a whale? Wasn't a whale supposed to be a kid's best friend? Didn't you see _Free Willy_ before? But the whale part was one of the most interesting part in the _Eaters of the Dead_, and came straight from the first paragraph of _Beowulf_ (whale-road as the ocean). It made the film less tasty to skip the whale part. As the movie's title implied, the show was focused on the 13th warrior solely. Throughout the film, the rest 12 of them were neglected, including Buliwyf, the one created by Crichton as his own Beowulf. You didn't know much about him, not to mention the others. Some warriors remained faceless and nameless until they died. Then you learned about their names postmorten. And after the show, you still didn't have a clue about how many of them survived. All you could see was Antonio, Antonio, and Antonio. That's why the movie bugged me most. Otherwise it was viewable. And I'll very probably see it again. It was entertaining. But that was all. It could be better if the film was more complete. I mean the edition showed in Taiwan was only about 95 minutes long which was 20 minutes shorter than the US edition. It was rated R in the US while PG in Taiwan. So it was clear that I did not see the whole picture.
Rating:
Summary: Strong beginning, weak finishing...
Review: This movie begins like any true epic should. An outcast (Banderas) is forced to join a tribe/clan of post Celtic warriors (the Norsemen) who have to prevent a herd of beast-headed men from decapitating and destroying their homeland. As an adaptation of Crichton's "Eaters of the Dead" I was prepared for an intense and action oriented tale. Well, it was action oriented that's for sure. In fact, I hesitate to say this but, I think that the film actually was too burdened with all of the action sequences that were crammed into the movie. Of course the film was created and designed to cater to a younger primarily male audience to sell tickets and make sure that the theaters were packed (which we know did not happen.) Unfortunately this catering left too little room to thoroughly develop the characters. Banderas started of as the anti-hero thrust into a situation where he didn't belong. He was the underdog, the weakling that everyone roots for (like in the movie "Lucas", weird reference, but it fits...) When all of a sudden his character creates his own weapon (scimitar) and becomes a ferocious warrior. I don't buy it. The battle scenes and decapitations are very well done, and gory at that. The film is worth viewing if you enjoy a good fight and the whole good vs. evil theme. But if your read the book, or are a Crichton fan, you are probably going to be disappointed with this film.
Rating:
Summary: Gets Better With Age
Review: The movie was a bit of a flop at the box office, but I suspect it will find a better life at the video store. Many people were disappointed because they expected an action-packed Banderas vehicle set in a sword-and-sorcery world. What they got was a very unusual film where characters speak in several languages. I had mixed feelings when I first saw it. But I've watched it several times on video since then, and I like it better each time. I suspect it will still be standard viewing when the rest of the '99 box office has been forgotten.
| 
