The 13th Warrior

Rating:
Summary: THE 13TH WARRIOR
Review: Based on Michael Crichton's adventure novel "Eaters of the Dead," John McTiernan's much underappreciated film is not only a worthy adaptation of Crichton's book, but one of the best action movies of the past fifteen years.

Antonio Banderas stars as an outcast Arab poet who falls in with a band of Viking adventurers. When word reaches the Vikings that one of their castles is under siege from a legendary foe too terrible to be named, their shaman dictates that Banderas must accompany the Norsemen on their relief mission or it will be doomed to failure. And so, the lucky number 13 in the flesh, Banderas embarks on an incredible adventure in which he must learn to fight or die, and comes face to face with the ultimate taboo: cannibalism.

This movie was not a blockbuster, but it should've been. The script is intelligent , the performances realistic, the sets lavish, and most importantly the action is just incredible. Moreover, the story is noteworthy for its largely credible depiction of Viking life, which may have been barbaric to some but which had its own unique and inimitable charm--which Banderas comes to slowly appreciate for himself, particulary Viking mead and Nordic women. The intense Norse belief in heroism and honor is prominent in this movie, and the Viking leader's last stand is both moving and powerful.

Crighton based his own novel on the ancient tale of Beowulf, and "The 13th Warrior" is a more than admirable retelling of that undying legend. Highly recommended to all action fans.

Rating:
Summary: The 13th Warrior
Review: The 13th Warrior, directed by John McTiernan, is the tale of young Arab ambassador Ahmahd ibn Fahdalan (Antonio Banderas), who's banished from his homeland for loving the wrong woman. On his journeys he meets up with an encampment of Norsemen who's King has just died. Fahadalan (Banderas) is swept into becoming the 13th man of a group burdened with having to travel back to their homeland to confront an evil threat that's bound in such superstition they're forbidden to speak its name. After being prophesied by a soothsayer witch that 13 warriors must confront the evil (and of course the 13th chosen man must not come from the north), Banderas is suddenly thrown in with these heroes (somewhat against his will). Thus, the Norsemen and Banderas engage in a Beowulf style journey into battle against insurmountable odds. I found myself becoming deeply involved with this group as they experienced their perils. I did read "Eaters of the Dead" and this movie follows it pretty closely. Weakness will be found in the the development of the characters and the Norsemen traditions and way of life... which the book describes in more detail. This single issue probably is the weak portion of the film... for the book having included these missing aspects... allows you to have a deeper understanding as to why Banderas and the Norsemen act as they do. However, even without those things I mentioned... this is still a good action/adventure movie. One that I would call a sleeper... for I had heard that it was not that good. Obviously, you will need to make the decision for yourself... but, this movie is definitely worthly of a decision. Beware of gore and violence... because this movie does have them... although, I was amazed that it did not reflect the portrayl of women correctly from the book... remember, this was Norse culture... women were possessions for all practical purposes. Other note worthly aspects... included the positive portrayl of Arabs... as being very well educated and mannered ... which was especially true during this time period. Finally, this is no "Braveheart"... but, alas, it was never meant to be.

Rating:
Summary: Another example of what happens when hacks ruin a great idea
Review: The idea of a culture clash between Moslem and Scandinavian civilizations is nothing new. "The Longships" with Sidney Poitier and Richard Widmark covered a lot of the same ground, even though it was campy and ridiculous. However, as laughable as The Longships was, it was actually a better movie and (believe it or not) more historically accurate! That's pretty sad.

Back in the 10th century, Ibn Fadlan (a real person) wrote an account of a Viking funeral he witnessed. In the 6th century, there was a Geatish hero named Beowulf (who was probably a real person: his uncle Hygelac was definitely real) who slew two ogres (Grendel and his mother) who stormed a king's hall and ate the inhabitants. Beowulf later became a king in his own right, but was killed by a dragon, but not before he slew the beast. Michael Crichton melded the two stories (in spite of the 400-year time span -no big deal) and in order to make it more plausible, changed Grendel and his mother into the "Vendol", a group of late-surviving Neanderthals who had had superhuman strength (Neanderthals were MUCH stronger than homo sapiens) and domesticated ponies. Crichton also changed the fire-breathing dragon into a column of torch-wielding horsemen. These ideas are so original and intriguing that I for one thought it would be nearly impossible to screw up even if the book was rather lame. It's a truism that bad books make better movies than good ones. Crichton and John McTiernan proved that a bad book can make a bad movie, too.

Unlike some people, I don't get all caught up in languages and accents when it comes to movies as long as there is some sort of consistency. I don't fault movies made in the English-speaking world for using English as the common tongue. If all the people in a village speak with more or less the same British accents -even if the movie takes place somewhere that English isn't even spoken, I don't have a problem unless (as in Dragonslayer) the main characters speak American. That sort of thing ruins the suspension of disbelief. The accents in 13th Warrior didn't bother me. After all, contrary to popular belief, "Viking" refers to a profession -NOT an ethnic group. Many Vikings were Slavic, German, English, Scottish, Welsh, and especially Irish. So the diversity among the thirteen warriors rings true in a way.

The problem for me came with the sets, costumes and props. Of the thirteen, only three or four wear the sort of clothes, armor and weapons the Vikings would have worn. The leader wears 15th century plate armor (which would be like depicting George Washington in Kevlar!). Another wears Conquistador armor and carries a Spanish-style two-handed sword. Another wears Gladiator armor! This movie had a large budget, so there's no excuse for this kind of nonsense. I just hope these people don't make a Civil War movie: They'll show the troops at Antietam wearing chainmail and armed with M-16s! Just stupid.

The movie actually starts out promisingly. When the warriors (who are played very well, which is why it gets two stars) volunteer one-by-one, it is a great scene. But once the 13 warriors get on the boat, it's all downhill. Not only does the movie degenerate into a half-hearted rip-off of The Seven Samurai (right down to the last battle being fought in the rain), but it seems to have been chopped down to get the maximum number of showings per day at the multiplex. Why have thirteen heroes when only four get any kind of attention? Most of them have one or two lines and I kept thinking "Is this guy one of the group?". Too many characters + too little time and attention = bad moviemaking. Akira Kurosawa isn't just spinning in his grave, he's clawing his way out!

A great premise, a first-rate cast, a great score from Jerry Goldsmith and beautiful scenery in the Pacific Northwest are all wasted in the hands of hack moviemakers like Michael Crichton.

If you want to see a band of heroes save a village, watch "The Seven Samurai" or "The Magnificent Seven". If you want Muslim/ Norse culture shock, watch "The Longships". Sure it's bad, but at least it's bad enough to be unintentionally funny. The 13th Warrior is just plain bad.

Rating:
Summary: PLEASE MAKE A DIRECTOR'S CUT!!
Review: Am I even watching the same movie?? I've been reading a lot of the reviews here about 13th Warrior. I was especially interested in people who gave it a bad review. While I agree with some of the points - it must have been cut because it gets choppy at times (as if there's a section missing which causes a loss of continuity and leaves questions and situations hanging out there) - I enjoyed this movie immensely! I've watched it many times and have never gotten tired of it. The warriors have beautiful horses too, which are a pleasure to watch! I'd LOVE to see a director's cut with deleted scenes and all the great extras so many DVD's have (such as Pirates of the Caribbean) - I'd have to buy more than one copy!.

I originally bought the movie because I like Antonio Banderas in most of his movies, but I was very pleasantly surprised with the other actors - ESPECIALLY Vladimir Kulich (too bad he was in a mask in his role in the TV series Angel - he has such a great face), Dennis Storhoi, Dennis Southern, Tony Curran, and Clive Russell. These guys are excellent! Very different characters but equally entertaining. Other warriors (such as Neil Maffin) weren't in the movie enough to be able to form much of an opinion. But the story itself is great even if they did change it from the book (some of the changes are for the better). Yes, I did read the book too, and they could have fleshed the characters out more. But all in all, it's a very entertaining movie and one of my favorites to watch often. I liked it well enough to search out and buy a set of lobby cards from the movie, which I will display on my walls.

As for the language discussions in the reviews - it's a MOVIE! Lighten up! Definitely 5 stars, even if there are scenes missing. MAKE A DIRECTOR'S CUT!!!!. We'll buy it!!

Rating:
Summary: Ignore the film critics
Review: Michael Crictons Eathers of the Dead, based on the medieval epic of Beowulf, and put on the screen under the title, The 13th Warrior, was probably the best action movie in years, simply because the action and focus wasn't dependant on a lot computer special effects; instead, the various characters were the center of the story, all of which were portrayed with real flesh and blood performances. The main character, Antonio Banderas plays the Arab ambassador Ahmahd ibn Fahdalan (sp?), an actual historical figure whose observations of the Norse he encountered in what is the modern day Ukraine are among the few actual writen documentations we have of the Vikings. In the (fictional) film ibn Fahdalan assists a group of Vikings to fight off a semi-mthyical enemy in their native Scandanavia. Although initially forced to join them against his will, he soon becomes personally commited to their cause. The enemy they fight against is the Wendor, which in both Crichton's book and the film are not a mythical beast like the Beowulf epic's Grendal, but a surviving group of pre-historic hominids (apparently cro-magnon). Both novel and film follow a parallel course with the epic, although a lot was edited out that would have given the movie some greater depth; several times the concept and role of fear are mentioned and it's obvious there had been some previous discussion about this, but it's just as obvious most of these dialogs had been left on the cutting room floor. Be that as it may, what remained was a good adventure story told with a constant and dynamic pace. The characters may have not been given all of the development some critics could have asked for, but that's arguable. Banderas's character by the end of the film had found almost a new and deeper commitment to living his life meaningfully. And besides, how many people substantially evolve over a 48 hr period, which was the time frame for the bulk of the movie. Furthermore, most critics bombed this movie because of what they considered the implausible plot of Vikings fighting pre-historic hominids in medieval Scandanavia. Which just goes to show you how much film critics know about anything. The mastedon, a smaller version of the wooly mamoth, was still around in Siberia at the beginning of recorded history (circa 3000 B.C). Crodiles, alligators, and sharks were around for millions of years before the first hominids and are still hanging in there, long after cro-magnons and neanderthals have disappeared. So Chrichton's idea of some non-homo sapien cousin or ancestor of ours still surviving in the primeval forrests of the early middle ages isn't all that implausible, especially when the human population of Europe at that time was a miniscule fraction of what it is today and nobody has any clue exactly when our hominid ancestors disapeared. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a species long thought extinct proved to be very much alive. So, despite some admittedly glaring historical inacuracies in the film, put away your pre-conceptions, ignore the critics, and enjoy this very human film that's untainted by a lot of cloying special effects.

Rating:
Summary: Stunning and Spectacular!
Review: The 13th Warrior is an incredibly great film. It combines John MctTiernan's gritty action with Micheal Crichton's beaufitul story telling. It is based on Crichton's book Eater of the Dead. It follows the book very well, only changing a few minor parts. The film follows an Arab Ambassdor who is banished from his home for loving the wrong woman. On his travels he encounters a group of Northmen - vikings. Unknowingly he is chosen to be the 13th warrior (hence the title) among a group of twelve viking warriors. The travel northward to repel the eaters of the dead, who threaten the viking's land.

As I said this movie is fantastic. The plot alone makes you want to see the movie. It is a great epic. Not as good as say Braveheart but still an extremely satisfying movie. The battle scenes are done excellently, especially the last one. The only thing that faulters this film is its character development. The characters themselves are introduced too quickly and the viewer doesn't have time to properly 'get to know them'.

This is only a minor element though. The rest of the film is endlessly entertaining. Highly recomended and one of the best epics in years! Also if you like the movie read the book. It is even better than the movie.

Rating:
Summary: Intelligent, Imaginative, Well-informed, Well-interpreted
Review: Anyone at all familiar with Anglo-Saxon literature, especially Beowulf, the Norse Sagas and the account of Ibn Fadlan, will quickly understand that this is a superior and intellectually sophisticated piece of creative film-making. Although it telescopes history from the 6th to about the 13th century, and throws in quite a chunk of what at best might have been folk-memory from a far earlier millenium, this doesn't bother me. It scores heavily in the accurate realization of the social values and fatalistic life philosophy of this period. Particularly good is the extreme pithiness of these Northeners' take on life. Let's be clear on this: these men were amazingly tough, but they weren't stupid, they were generous in spirit, and they had high concepts when it came to how a man should conduct himself. They just didn't believe in wasting words, or indulging in a lot of useless clever talk. They lived their lives in a harsh environment, at the very edge of a totally untamed natural world. The characters are excellently acted, and the direction is highly skilled. The location was effectively atmospheric, although a little too North American to be convincing --- the Denmark of Beowulf is in fact almost dead flat, although the idea of a cave behind a waterfall was imported from Iceland. The language question was very deftly handled. I didn't know they were speaking Gaelic, which somebody wrote, but they were certainly speaking Danish and Norwegian at times. Virtually all Northeners during this age could understand each other, although they would have spoken with varying accents. It seems tragic that the footage has obviously been mindlessly mutilated by what must have been a bunch of utter morons, the equivalent of all the dullards who have panned the film. Far too much is left unexplained and unresolved: the role of the nasty fellow called Unferth in Beowulf, for instance. I would very much like to see everything totally restored as the director originally intended it. It looks like almost an hour's worth has been chopped away.

Rating:
Summary: What happened to "The 13th Warrior?"
Review: Film director John McTiernan's "The 13th Warrior" is such a frustrating film. There's much to love about this robust viking epic, including a handful of terrific actors with an appealing presence, excellent period detail, memorable battle sequences and a fantastic musical score by the always-dependable Jerry Goldsmith. But why did the studio editors have to cut this film to pieces?!

When watching this action movie, any viewer with half a brain can tell that multiple scenes must have been left on the cutting room floor. Supporting characters disappear without a trace, continuity is fragmented and illogical, the ending is abrupt and unsatisfying. At one point the vikings are traveling by ship, the next they are riding cross country on horseback.

So it's a pleasant surprise that even after such annoying studio interference, "The 13th Warrior" still succeeds on several levels. Based on Michael Crichton's novel "Eaters of the Dead," a whimsical interpretation of the Olde English tale "Beowulf," this film (like the book) changes the dragon into a cannibalistic horde of viscious warriors terrorizing a remote village. A ragtag group of vikings, in the best tradition of "The Magnificient Seven," soon come to the rescue with unwitting Arabic ambassador Ahmed (Antonio Banderas) in tow.

Several great scenes will stay with the viewer, among them Ahmed's touching dalliance with a willowy viking maiden (who disappears by the film's end), Ahmed's humorous camaraderie with his new viking friends, Bulvine's (Beowulf's) fatal stand prior to the final battle, and Omar Sharif's brief cameo at the film's beginning.

Bulvine's viking burial, which should have been one of the ultimate highlights of this film, is shown as if an afterthought during a far too brief montage. The relationship between Bulvine, aging warrior king Hrothgar and Hrothgar's wife (played by the talented Diane Venora), also appears to have been a victim of impatient editors. With the recent success of the "Lord of the Rings" films, it's obvious viewers have no complaints about sitting through a finely detailed epic fantasy, so it comes as a rather sad note that what could have been an equally superb fantasy film has been so severely butchered.

I would love to see a Director's Cut of "The 13th Warrior," with the missing scenes added. John McTiernan has proven his action muscle in the past with the underrated "Predator," and the creative "Die Hard." "The 13th Warrior" is a good film, and I enjoy watching it repeatedly. But with each viewing, I realize with frustration this should have been a great film. As a fantasy fan, I have been sold short by an unimaginative Hollywood system.

Rating:
Summary: John McTiernan's The 13th Warrior
Review: Loosely based on Michael Crichton's novel "Eaters of the Dead," this is a triumph in the pre-gun action film genre.

Antonio Banderas plays an Arab who joins up with twelve Viking warriors recruited to fight what seems to be a band of cannibalistic monsters who are wiping out whole villages in the Norse land. Along the way, Banderas learns their language and begins to help the warriors, who doubt his fighting abilities because of his small horse and smaller sword. After repelling an attack, the warriors decide to track the cannibals back to their cave, where they kill a priestess. After making it back to their adopted village, they wait for the climactic, gory, and vengeful battle.

I think I liked this movie so much because it jumped feet first into the mayhem, and yet kept the picture centered around Banderas and the warriors. "Jurassic Park III" jumped into the mayhem, but then started killing characters off so fast, you did not care. Here, Banderas provides a solid anchor to the film, and his compatriots are very likeable.

Another plus: no forced romance. Banderas has a purely physical fling, but we do not have a Viking fall in love with a cannibal (ouch!) or Banderas discovering his paramour in his saddlebag at the battle so she can prove even women can fight people eaters. The story is very straightforward, think of it as a remake of "The Magnificent Seven" crossed with "Quest for Fire." Another plus is the fact that the Vikings do not suddenly invent the world's first grenade or a machine gun that shoots horse dung. They have swords and arrows. They fight with swords and arrows.

The location filming in British Columbia is breathtaking. The movie is very cloudy, dark, and grim, and this works. Jerry Goldsmith's score enhanced the creepiness of every scene, and McTiernan proves he can direct some excellent action film that have more behind them than just explosions (like the first "Die Hard", although avoid "Nomads").

I think the studio marketing department screwed up this film. I expected a weak comedy about peace lover Banderas trying not to fight in a war. The ad campaign never mentioned who the enemy was, or even what time period this took place in. I think action and Crichton fans will be impressed with this film. I know I was. I highly recommend "The 13th Warrior."

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gore, mild profanity, and adult situations.

Rating:
Summary: Great movie, but missing alot.
Review: I saw this movie maybe 8 times on the TV and once in the movies theatre. I really loved the bad ass Viking characters. They were big, tough, and smart. One thing that appealed to me is that they wore armor from different places around the world (rome, spain, germany,etc), and even under danger they were always laughing. BUt just like the book (eaters of the dead) the characters werent explored. ya heres Ewogoth, kills a bunch of guys, then dies. There is little depth to the characters or the nordic ways. Both of those are what i want. And yet for some reason i really like this movie.