With a budget of almost 21 million, Viking was the third most expensive Russian film. What exactly can you expect for that kind of money? More of the same old, pretty much. It better be the proverbial 100 dollar bill to be "liked by everyone".
My feelings prior to watching “Viking” were mixed to say the
least. Cautiously optimistic but mostly skeptical. A part of me rejoiced at the
prospect of seeing Russian history marketed to a global audience. At the same
time, I knew not to expect anything too authentic, too meaty, too technical or
scholarly that would alienate average viewers. Of course, the script and the
execution had to be stripped of everything too ethnic, too Slavic, to make it
more palatable for those who know very little or nothing about Russia’s
conversion to Christianity in the 10th century and the complex man
behind it. For one, the title is misleading. It prepares you for a Nordic saga.
And it is a Nordic saga to an extent, as it features certain Nordic warriors on
the Russian territory. The title is slapped on to attract those viewers who
normally would not give a Russian historical a chance. I am not going to judge
the marketing team too harshly. My biggest complaint is that there is nothing
imaginative or innovative about the cinematography. Maybe I am jaded from
seeing too many CGI effects. “Viking” combines the same proven tricks that you
expect in a superhero movie. The same washed out color scheme with occasional
splashes of blood. The hunt sequence in slow motion in the opening scene. Female
characters played by actresses with highlights and spray tan. Contrived sex
scenes showcasing girl power to placate the feminist viewers. If you are not
preoccupied with historical accuracy, if you gulp those Xerox epics on HBO, “Viking”
is another predictable, forgettable, generic Hershey kiss to shove into your
mouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment