Blood of Beasts (2005)

Very Cool!!!

Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

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.

Absolutely awful. Everything from the "acting" to the discount Renaissance Faire costumes is laughable. Nothing is period or even remotely historically accurate as far as Vikings go, but I'm not sure that was the intention of the "filmmakers," if we can call them as such. I can't help but imagine a prepubescent D&D nerd behind the camera.Add alcohol or some other intoxicating substance, however, and the movie instantly becomes hilarious.If you love to mock movies MST3K-style, then this is the movie for you. With a budget of approximately $50, the producers were able to whip up a tour de force of epic foolishness. It behaves like professional porn, but without plot or tolerable acting, and fails to deliver even one decent sex scene.Watch this movie with a group of friends and plenty of beer goggles. It is not worth watching under any other circumstance.

This movie is not great, by any stretch. It is the story of Beauty and the Beast retold from a vaguely new perspective.Having said that, its not as bad as it first appears. Sure, the costumes suck...it is obvious that this is a film with a very low budget.But the acting is decent, and there were even a few that stood out. The writing is decent. And the directing was obviously quite good. He/she did quite a bit with very little money spent. Even the production was decent. Not spectacular, by any means. But certainly could have been worse.So, does it top my A list? Not a chance. But if you are looking for a movie that is a pleasant diversion, this may be the ticket.

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.