Hammer of the Gods (2013)

Overrated and overhyped

Nice effects though.

How sad is this?

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Let's start by the title, the only way the gods subject is addressed in this movie is by the lack of faith of one character opposed to the faith of his allies and foes. In no way do the gods intervene. The "hammer" is just a reference to a person. Credits. Whenever a movie stops in the beginning just so we can all be informed of who is who... with their names appearing beside the characters, that movie better be something really special or else I get that funny feeling and just going to be wasting my time. The violence is fine, people tend to have brutal gory deaths when they are attacked with Viking swords and axes. Even the boromir-like-death gets a free pass. By the end of the movie there is some gratuitous boobs because whynot, not that I'm complaining but they bounce out of nowhere...get it...bounce...The acting is half good and I'm still wondering why would an actor reprise the same role in two unrelated pieces (tv show Vikings and Hammer of the Gods). On to the plot. This is what really destroys the movie. It goes no where, really. People die left and right for hardly any reason. The fellowship (let's call it fellowship) get's obliterated as soon as a seasoned Viking warrior acts like a child. Then half the movie has gone by and our group of merry m...erh... Vikings find this guy who is known to be practically invincible but has a trait that has to be included because you know, equality in representation and whatnot. Anyway all is good but turns out the only true thing about him are the rumors about is tendencies. Some people are fighting our heroes because whynot apparently. Then the Hammer of the gods gets his screen time. He is weird. And the group is cut in half because I guess the budget was running low or something. Someone who is implied to have been dead or missing for years is around but has a taboo fetish and she is very annoying. Was she like a priestess? And oracle? A consort queen? Who cares, she isn't around for 30 seconds screen time.Everyone has a nice meal and get back to the starting point. But this time they have less experienced men (since they died for nothing), a former slave woman in front of the ranks (because she can read, that is her only strong point). All this in a week maybe 2 weeks time period. They all went no where slow...and it's all on the main character who didn't listen to virtually every single person close to him (father, best friend, his own men) since the first minute of their troubled times. The landscape is gorgeous and very well captured most of the times...that's probably the best thing I can say about this.4/10...within the viking genre alone...maybe 6/10 being generous

Relaxing in front of the TV with nothing to do I came across this little movie that someone appears to have vomited into existence. The cinematography is actually pretty good, the score is OK in parts but a bit OTT in others, costumes are passable, even the script is OK. It all falls apart on the story and the acting.1. Actors - Yep, a collection of guys from the pub with the barmaid thrown in all happy to give making a movie a punt.The lead with his 2012 haircut consisting of perfectly clipper-ed sides, squared sideburns, layered top cut and hair gel - completely consistent with an 800AD Viking prince. He just cannot carry this part. Does not have the screen presence to make it seem credible. It looks acted. It looks like he's copying the clichés. You just don't get a feeling that he is this guy at all, he's just playing him the way other z movie actors have done.Grim - Yes that is the name of this character. You might perhaps have seen a comparable performance on the football terraces at Milwall. Short stumpy guy with an axe, screaming and hacking at people, charging into fights like a yob, just gives no sense of the reality of 800AD warfare. No character development, just one of the pub crowd playing a Viking as a football thug. I was glad when this character died.As for the rest, Hagan was pretty good (infact he seemed the most credible of all the cast), the rest very forgettable.2. The story - well, lets just say its a bit silly. There isn't much of a story. Prince goes looking for his brother as king lays dying. Cue chance to see the pub acting team go wandering across what looks like Wales having a Viking slaughter fest every few minutes.Right from the get go it is cliché. Vikings coming out of the mist. They meet a band of Saxons and kill all of them without losing any of their own. Cue shots of the main characters chopping down, one, then two, then three of the throw away Saxon non entities. Cool, we've established that these Viking guys from the pub can sort of swing a sword and that they are fighting the local blind, drunk, deaf crowd from the nearby hospice that only attack one by one.With the hospice Saxons now dead, the pub Vikings can growl and make silly smiles then head off to find the wounded king.Gosh, I can't say much more but this movie other than for the cast to put this on your CV/resume probably has the same career potential of a skid mark down the page.

I gotta say this movie i light years ahead of previous movies from the 50's or 60's. Scenery was wonderful, taking place in Saxon England. Historically, Bagsecg really did link up with Halfdan Ragnarsson for the battle against the Kingdom of Wessex. Halfdan and Ivar both Ragnarsson's were VERY successful in over running England. However... the writers toyed around with the TRUTH of Ivar the Boneless history and made him a joke, gay and just wandering about while the battles were taking place. THAT was a mortal sin.The other faux pas the writers made was jumping off about Hakan, apparently in a sexual relationship with Steinar's mother, his half-brother, with Steiner finding both living underground in a cave system with naked women and people who appear to have been leftovers from pagan England. They certainly were not Christians. That part of the whole story was a bit weird for me. However, I suppose it fits with the old man, Bagsecg, sending off Steinar to find the new King, himself, then leading on his return an army of 600+ to war on the Saxons.I liked that the sons of Ragnar were featured...somewhat in this movie, but they should have featured front and center with Steinar, not sidenotes. They were, the sons of Ragnar, a formidable force AND became major leaders of captured lands.If you're interested in a good adventure, some Viking action to fill the gap until the History Channel's new Season 2 of The Vikings is offered next Spring.. this movie will help a bit. But don't count on it too hard historically except to know there WAS a Viking King named Bagsecg, who DID win battles with Halfdan, a real Viking warrior.The acting is fine.. I know there's harsh criticism, but seriously its quite well done... This movie is NOT like the cartoonish jokes with huge gross inaccuracies like the Ernest Borgnine Ragnar of the 50's or The Long Ships with joke cracking idiocy. Its quite serious, character actors well chosen with each playing their parts seriously and convincingly, even and especially the Saxon soldiers and farmers. I WISH it had made a lot more money. They should really do another, better funded, better written sequel.

First, I want to say something about some of the other reviews, especially those pointing out its historical inaccuracy. If you want historically accurate Viking based stories, why are you looking for it in movies? Go read the Sagas of the Icelanders or the Snorri Sturluson Eddas.That aside, I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. Without giving away too much, it's mostly a story about Steinar's transformation during his quest to find his brother. It's not a groundbreaking original story but it still held my attention and kept me entertained. The acting is solid but the script is vulgar and unnecessary at times. It didn't take away from the movie but excessive profanity gets old quickly. We get it, they're Vikings, and they're rough around the edges.The whole tone of the movie seemed, to me, heavily inspired by Valhalla Rising but a lot less abstract. I'm trying to not say "dumbed down" because it's not overly simplified, but it's not a movie that you need to see more than once to understand. Unlike Valhalla Rising, which you can watch 10 times and still be lost by the end.Hammer of the Gods looks great, both in cinematography and overall quality, and it is just complex enough that its overarching themes, mostly regarding religion, aren't blunt/cheesy but also aren't confusing. If you want to see some dudes with swords, axes, and hammers duke it out on a quest through Britain with just enough substance to entertain, then I would definitely recommend Hammer of the Gods.