Kamikaze Girls

IFFR 2010: VALHALLA RISING review

by Eight Rooks, February 2, 2010 6:14 AM


Nicolas Winding Refn seems to see Valhalla Rising as a tone poem of sorts, but the acclaimed Danish director's seventh feature film is more one long atonal scribble. A grim, brutally violent action drama about a Viking war party who accidentally stumble upon the New World a long time before Leif Ericsson carved himself a place in history, some impressive location shooting and a striking display of commitment to his role from star Mads Mikkelsen can't make up for a general lack of substance and a pervading air of seriousness so unrelenting it borders on farce.


Mikkelsen plays One-Eye, a fearsome warrior, mute and scarred, held captive by a mountain clan who employ his capacity for emotionless savagery in gladiatorial contests where One-Eye's jailers earn a steady stream of money off his ability to make sure his opponents leave the ring feet-first. When a chance opportunity leads to One-Eye escaping slavery, he joins up with a Christian warband looking to make a name for themselves in the Crusades, but a seemingly supernatural fog drives them a long, long way off course.


Refn is obviously out to imbue Valhalla Rising with elemental significance, from the stoic opening title cards to the immensity of the Scottish mountains that serve as a stand-in for some unnamed tract of Scandinavia. The thundering score makes it very clear there will be few, if any laughs coming. One-Eye is a force of nature in every sense, violent and implacable, his fighting to the death taking place in a sea of mud.


The problems start when it becomes apparent there's little or nothing to the film beyond this constant, oppressive struggle for survival. Nothing as in not simply a lack of complex plot development or convoluted back story and so forth, but the absence of any depth at all, whether conveyed by the characters or (despite what Refn seems to have intended) the landscape itself.


One-Eye is angry; he slaughters people; he says nothing. For all but maybe ten minutes of Mikkelsen's screen time this is all the viewer gets. The Danish star tries valiantly, and sells the physicality of the role seemingly without effort but other than that there's virtually nothing for him to communicate.


The other members of the cast fare no better - lacking in any real screen presence to a man, they haven't a prayer of doing anything convincing with the tissue-thin material they've been handed. Restricted to speaking English, they could be from anywhere across half of Europe - nothing here makes this specifically Norse beyond some offhand references to the spread of Christianity.


The absence of substance lends the whole production a stiff, forced theatricality, never more obvious than in the extended sequence confined to the longboat in the fog. What should be a tense, nail-biting stand-off along the lines of a bloodsoaked medieval take on Hitchcock's Lifeboat descends into nervous comedy. Flat, portentous line readings, a monotone colour palette and overbearing attempts to scare the audience silly prove equal parts tedious and farcical.


Next to a film like Tian Zhuangzhuang's The Horse Thief or Lu Chuan's Kekexili, Valhalla Rising has neither a real sense of place nor of any deeper meaning. Tian and Lu steep their windblown landscapes in a detached, otherworldly mysticism which is clearly feeding into the characters' motivations and continuing development on multiple levels, something plainly obvious even with the bare minimum of dialogue. Refn gives us nothing beyond this is a violent landscape where violent men kill each other violently, like some tourist guidebook to the inner circles of hell.


And in similar vein Terence Malick's The New World also contained its fair share of artistic indulgences, the director waiting hours for just the right balance of natural light, the tides, birds moving across a shot and all the rest of the rumours. But part of Malick's genius stemmed from his rock-steady understanding of pacing, the need to balance staring at the view with an explanation of context, the better to elicit an emotional response. The New World's expository monologues actually made Colin Farrell of all people a creditable philosopher-poet. Valhalla Rising barely has a shred of poetry in it, visual or lyrical, from start to finish. Refn presents us with hardly any reason to care about what's happening, let alone to be moved by it in any sense.


Valhalla Rising is hardly a bad film, clearly made by people with talent, and taken in isolation the different parts of it leave a lasting impression - hear the score separately, view individual stills or see the trailer and they seem to promise a great deal. But there's nothing here to meld those parts into any kind of convincing, compelling whole. The cast do nothing to push the audience to react one way or the other, the landscape just sits there, the violence provokes little more than nervous giggles, the whole enterprise doesn't seem to have much point. When other directors have gone over very similar ground and Refn does so little to set Valhalla Rising apart, much less do anything better, his film is very difficult to recommend.


At Mubi

7 Comments

user-pic

This film has an immediate feel and impact, The scenery is very refreshing from the normal films I watch.
After a few minutes I realize theres more to this film than meets the eye.
It has a very violent and graphic buildup within the first 10 minutes, with barbarians causing great harm to others, this may appeal to you but to others It might cause offence.
The first dialogue does not appear for the first 12 minutes, just the sound of the high winds and men killing each other.
THe life these people live is very harsh as is it seems there laws and judgements.
The scenery and photography is very beautiful at times, mingled with a lot of gory deaths which are unpleasant, its a kind of heaven and hell mix.
This movie is split into parts with the first part lasting approximately 20 minutes, Part 2 is called Silent Warrior.
It certainly has a grip on the viewer, you just dont know what is going to develop and it keeps you watching, as long as you can stomach the gore, and there is a lot of gore.
One Eye who has only one eye, not coincidental, has done something wrong.
The clan are punishing him, but he manages to escape by killing his captors, he escapes with a boy and comes across another clan.
Notice a group of naked tribewoman, it rings a bell back to cannibal holocaust.
The dialogue throughout this movie is very well written, and spoken very well.
He befriends this nicer clan who swear to help him find his loved ones.
Part 3 comes in at 29 minutes, its called Men Of God.
The sound is very eery, the clan are on a boat in the middle of know where, not much is happening they look tired and in some sort of thought.
They think the boy is cursed and a warrior tries to kill him, but one eye kills the warrior.
Part iv, the holy land is next at 43 minutes into the film.The boat finally gets some where, it is light and drums are slowly beating.
Forests loom up from either side, they finally exit the boat and go onto land.
One Eye and the tribe find a dead woman I believe, some sort of ritual has taken place.
Part V - Hell, The men are hungry with 3 dead and half starved they share a flask of water, and ponder how to take these lands.
One eye has visions of sadistic ritualistic beatings,some men roll around in the mud while others choose to wade through water in a slow and awkward way, while one eye builds a rock statue that falls down at every effort, music at this point becomes louder more ambient and echos.One eye manages to build his structure to completion.
A man in a lucid trance covered in a brown mud appears covered with some strange symbols.
The clan are upset because they think one eye led them to no where, a clan member tries to kill one eye, but one eye kills him and a few more with an axe, more gore for effect.One eye the boy and the rest of the clan climb a green hill, the music is now faster with heavy over tones.
Theres a small amount of conversation at the top then one eye and boy go and meet a clan of brown covered tribes people, they all carry some sort of swinging weapons.
One eye walks into the middle of the brown covered tribes people, they clobber him to death.
Theres no more sound from this point on and the film ends with a shot of the boy and some clouds.
At times this film goes very quiet, dont fall asleep at this point because strange things start to happen.
One eye certainly enjoys killing people and he does this a lot during the film.
You may start thinking about the old ways and how we all used to live in caves, you may think of taking up hiking, but deep into this film you may find another story line that is not spoken or acted, one that is subconsciously awake.


Two minutes on wikipedia and the author could have educated themselves on 11th century history. The Vikings were settled in Scotland at this time and some had picked up the language and the religion. Hence, pagan viikings in scotland with scottish accents. Not that historicity is important in piece like this but its much more accurate than in a lot of films that get swallowed whole-sale by critics.

user-pic

'The author' doesn't think it would have made a whole lot of difference had he known, given the film still lacks any kind of identity or narrative drive beyond people hitting each other over the head repeatedly. Refn himself has basically said he didn't really care about making a 'Viking' film, so he obviously believes the imagery he used is enough to invest his narrative with emotion and subtext regardless of whether or not it's historically accurate. I don't agree. I know what the film's supposed to be about, I've read the other reviews, and I don't think it works. I point out the lack of any kind of background beyond 'here's a bunch of miserable guys living on a mountainside in the rain' as one more way the film falls flat, not so much because it is or isn't a credible representation of 11th century history as because it's one more reason I couldn't have cared much less what was going on.

And ten dollars and ninety minutes and the poster above could have watched The Horse Thief and seen how to do a film with exactly the same kind of themes and general visual language properly. See, I can be sarcastic too. ;-)

Seriously, I don't know where all these Film Critics are coming from, or how old they are. But frankly, I would appreciate a little more insight, maturity and "trade" from them.

If Valhalla Rising is not a masterpiece of Art Cinema, I don't know what could other film be.

Eight Rooks, I think your review could not be any nearsighted and infantile. You bombard us with a lot of references to other movies and technicalities trying to make a point of what you think of the film, while you fail to do the most evident, which is to grasp the potent metaphors beneath the immediate, obvious layers of the film.

I wonder if you ever watched a Lynch film??? I guess you might have made a "positive" criticism on them just because everyone says Lynch is genius (while probably few saw the same about Winding Refn yet)?

If Lynch is genius (he is for me and some other, you know), then Valhalla Rising is a step further to genius on Refn's behalf.

user-pic

Let me make it very clear to you; I know what the metaphors are supposed to be. I don't think they work, and I think most of the things Nicolas Winding Refn says are supposed to be there might as well not be really there at all. I don't say the film is about a violent man who kills other people in violent ways because I can't see what the director is trying to put below the surface; I say it's that simple because I don't think the things below the surface mean anything important at all. I don't think the parallels to a Christ-like figure or the immensity of the surrounding landscape or whatever add anything to the film.


I talk about those other films because as far as I'm concerned they do exactly the same things Nicolas Winding Refn is trying to do here only they do them many times better. The Horse Thief is about a man living in a harsh, wild landscape who has to do terrible things to survive, and who goes on a journey of self-discovery over the course of the film. Every major set piece in it has more emotional, historical and spiritual significance than the entirety of Valhalla Rising. There is no scene, no subtext, no image in Refn's film with the staggering power of the halfway point of The Horse Thief, where the hero sacrifices nearly everything to try and hang on to his one reason for living, only for it to not be enough. Valhalla Rising gives me no reason to care what happens to any of the cast on any level; it gives me no significance to attach to anything any of them do; it gives none of them any character arc beyond a half-formed moral choice out of nowhere that doesn't amount to anything.


I'm partly typing all this because I'm bored, but I'm also fed up with angry little trolls who seem to think everyone on the internet who doesn't agree with them is just doing so for the hell of it. I thought long and hard about this review, the same as I do for any review I write. I saw the metaphors, I saw the deeper layers, I thought they were poorly written, meaningless or barely there. And yes, I spent a lot of time talking about other films. Because I thought they were better.


If you want someone to just give a blunt rundown of exactly what happens on screen and go on and on about how brilliant it is, then... I don't know, do IGN still review films?

user-pic

Oh, and I've never actually watched a single David Lynch film, either. Nice try, though.

I actually completely agree with the review, over-ponderous and desperately attempting to convey a sense significance that simply is not there. Just finished watching the blu-ray, it's very Lars Von Trier esque in some respects, I remember suffering through one of his films "dogville" again another overly introspective hodge-podge of portentousness.


Leave a comment

Related Posts with Thumbnails