Let me start by saying that I was completely biased prior to watching Redbad: I was an extra on this movie and I had an epic time on set with cast & crew.
The selection process was quite interesting: on entry you received a piece of paper with an image of a sheep and an image of a power drill. The objective was to circle the sheep. If you did this correctly, you were dressed up as "Frank" (which I was). Those who had difficulty with the assignment were appointed as a Frisian extra.
Jokes aside: I really REALLY wanted this movie to be great.
But when the lights went on after 2 hours and 40 minutes the audience silently rushed for the exit.
It was not so good.
First of all it should have been at least an hour shorter. The pace was wrong: parts were tediously long, while other segments were rushed.
The principle "show don't tell" was seriously violated: characters were constantly stating the obvious: When Redbad tricks the enemy cavalry and the horses are swallowed by the rising water, he needs to point out that high tide is rolling in. DOH!
Having participated in the battle scenes I was hoping for something spectacular. Alas. The "biggest army in the world" looked to consist out of only a handful of soldiers. VFX clearly lacked the "MASSIVE" plugin (and were mediocre in general).
Some performances were below par, but I guess the dialogues did not help either.
I never quite figured out if Jack Wouterse as Willibrord was meant as a comic relief or as a raging psychopath.
The weakest part was clearly the story, which was inconsistent and fuzzy. Redbad washes up at a place where everybody speaks English, but only near the end of the movie it is explained that it actually was a Danish tribe.
Advice for William of Orange: start with a good script (content) and then dress it up nicely (instead of the other way around). Kill your darlings ( for example the tsunami of slo-mo/picturesque landscape/repetitive footage). And not every scene requires bombastic music! You cannot climax every other minute ;-).
This director can do better.
67 Reviews
Red-Bad script
wilcovonk3 January 2019
Had high expectations but the script ruined it. Acting wasn't too bad but because of the script it seemed funny some times. However the scenery and costumes were great.Overall a missed opportunity to make it a classic.
Slow paced, taking too many liberties with history and not much of an actual story.
e-vosseberg16 July 2018
Set in an alternate universe where Frisians speak perfect Holland Dutch (Odd considering Frisian is a recognized language besides dutch), the Frankish speak English and the Danish speak English is well.
It tries to tie together historical events, figures and legends that took place in the same period but often not in the same place. Then there are the long list of things that simply do not belong in that time period as they belong to the later middle ages like the weapons and castles. Much of how the historical setting is displayed is fictional or belongs to different time periods or different people.
This extreme artistic liberty with history could have worked out pretty well if it had created an actual engaging story. Unfortunately the movie does fail in that aspect by using all the movie cliches spread out in such a way that the halfway through the film we were left wondering if it was actually building up to something and basically got bored.
It doesn't help that the action sequences often made little sense where often the Frisians fighting would be surrounded and spread out only to suddenly be grouped together and victorious after a camera angle change.
It really is a shame as the acting itself was good (except for Frisians speaking perfect dutch without an accent), the imagery pretty, etc. There really is a hint of a potentially good movie in there if they had been more critical towards the story.
It tries to tie together historical events, figures and legends that took place in the same period but often not in the same place. Then there are the long list of things that simply do not belong in that time period as they belong to the later middle ages like the weapons and castles. Much of how the historical setting is displayed is fictional or belongs to different time periods or different people.
This extreme artistic liberty with history could have worked out pretty well if it had created an actual engaging story. Unfortunately the movie does fail in that aspect by using all the movie cliches spread out in such a way that the halfway through the film we were left wondering if it was actually building up to something and basically got bored.
It doesn't help that the action sequences often made little sense where often the Frisians fighting would be surrounded and spread out only to suddenly be grouped together and victorious after a camera angle change.
It really is a shame as the acting itself was good (except for Frisians speaking perfect dutch without an accent), the imagery pretty, etc. There really is a hint of a potentially good movie in there if they had been more critical towards the story.
Braveheart-wannebe
Field7820 July 2018
2015 saw the release of 'Michiel de Ruyter' (marketed as 'Admiral' in most foreign markets), which showed that director Roel Reiné could make the most out of a limited budget, with some really epic battle scenes as a result. Coupled with a decent cast and a nice historical narrative (allowing for some artistic impression, of course), it really made me curious to see how Reiné would do in his next project. 'Redbad' was announced sometime later, an epic about one of our lesser known heroes, as well as a call-out to everyone who wanted to participate as an extra in Medieval battle scenes (preferably with a horse). Sounded like a recipe for a Dutch Braveheart, but unfortunately, where Redbad is big in set-up, it fails in delivery because it wants to be too big for its own good.
MdR already made clear that 'subtlety' is not in Reiné's dictionary, but he got away with it because that movie was more of an engaging history lesson rather than a character drama anyway. Redbad, however, is the reverse. Despite a 160-minute running time, only a small portion of that is devoted to battles and action. This would be no problem if the remaining time would create a fascinating picture of its main hero and the people he deals with, but this is exactly where Redbad falls short.
The good news is that Reiné shows his craftsmanship again when it comes to visual style. There is breath-taking cinematography at times, with wide landscapes and lush art direction that made me wonder where they were all shot. Some have criticized the harsh and desaturated quality of the image, but I disagree; the early Middle Ages were harsh times, and there is no objection to seeing that grittiness reflected in the atmosphere, as long as things are not muddled. Some also complained that the battle scenes were impossible to follow due to camera and editing, and because you can't discern between the two armies. I don't share these objections either; if you're into paranoid symbolism, you could argue that the baddies dress in blue and have a coat of arms that resembles a Facebook logo, so they're easy to spot. The battle scenes are not exactly of Game of Thrones quality (they probably couldn't make one episode out of Redbad's entire budget), but they still look pretty good: slightly chaotic without looking too rehearsed. There is some shaky-cam and quick editing, but nothing too frenetic. Nowhere did I get the feeling that it was unnecessarily disorienting, or that I lost oversight of what was happening on the screen.
The bad news is that as a storyteller or actor's director, Reiné still has a lot to learn. Like in MdR, he has cast a lot of television actors and has them converse in modern Dutch. That was forgivable for MdR, but it doesn't work here. For some reason, the farther you go back in time, the more ridiculous it sounds to hear historic characters use terms that didn't exist then (especially using regional accents). I have no principle problems with actors from soap operas and comedies dressed as feral Friesians (except for some unnecessary cameos like Birgit Schuurman), but if you give them texts like "no, YOU look like sh#t", then I get taken out of the movie, and I see the soapie again, not the character. Granted, you don't want the characters speaking in ridiculously pretentious verses like in Troy ("I am Ajax, destroyer of rocks" always gets a good giggle from me), but it must be possible to give the dialogue some sense of historic solemnity and gravitas, like in Gladiator, without becoming pompous or completely unintelligible.
It is almost fascinating to see actors of all ages and walks of life struggling with the contrast between their appearance and their texts, and most seem to compensate for this by overacting as if they were doing Shakespeare in a school play, turning every phrase into an emphasized one-liner. Strangely enough, this affects mostly the more seasoned veterans like Derek de Lint, but even he doesn't reach the painful depths of Renée Soutendijk, Egbert-Jan Weber and especially Jack Wouterse (who was apparently under the mistaken impression that he was comic relief). Jonathan Banks as Pepijn was obviously cast to give the movie some international appeal, but at least his "Medieval Mike Ehrmantraut" performance is one of the few that doesn't feel too misplaced.
The screenplay, apart from the dialogues, is my second grief. Not so much is known about the historical Redbad, so it is completely acceptable that they made up several elements for dramatic purposes, as long as that makes for an engaging narrative. That the superior Frankish army looks like a pretty unimpressive group of soldiers isn't a big problem (again, Dutch budgets). But in a solid script, the presented elements at least make sense or are properly motivated and balanced. The Franks are depicted as murderous zealots, which makes them uninteresting one-dimensional villains, probably used as easy comparisons to ISIS and a contrast with the noble Friesians (who historically must have been just as cruel at times). Redbad himself is presented as the Dutch Braveheart, including a "they may take our lives but they will never take our freedom" speech. He is apparently bound to lead his people to victory, and everywhere he comes, people hail him as their savior, but we never get to see why he is such a good strategist, and how he acquired those skills. Gijs Naber is a fine actor and he is doing his best with the material that is handed to him, but he still feels ill-equipped for such a tough role.
There are more annoying holes in the story and presentation. Why do the Franks speak English, where French would seem more logical? Why do Friesian tribes in Denmark speak English, the same language as the Franks, instead of something sounding more Dutch (like Danish)? Why are the place name captions in English, whereas the opening and closing texts are in Dutch? And a dishonorable mention for the way in which two of the battles in the movie are resolved; one involving the sea, and the almost laughable skirmish at the climax involving a spear.
Finally, the nail in this biopic's coffin is that it is constantly overselling itself with bombastic music and unnecessary visual tricks. Reiné's constant need for slow-motion shots is one thing, but his imagery is drowned in an ever-so-present score from a guy who probably thinks he is Hans Zimmer, and constantly abuses the heavy strings and low-frequency bass. I am not necessarily a supporter of the 'less-is-more' dogma, but here, even calm dialogue scenes that would call for two instruments and a soft choir are smothered in obtrusively epic music. The lack of subtle musical motives starts to feel like being kept awake all night by a next-door house party.
I am not mad at this film, and I certainly didn't find it the piece of wreckage that some make it out to be. It had some moments of visual grandeur, but sadly, an unmotivated screenplay filled with holes prevents most scenes from having the visceral impact that they could have had. Watching it was like grading a school essay where you add comments in red ink, and nearly every paragraph needs correction. I guess you could call it an engaging movie in that sense, but for the wrong reasons.
MdR already made clear that 'subtlety' is not in Reiné's dictionary, but he got away with it because that movie was more of an engaging history lesson rather than a character drama anyway. Redbad, however, is the reverse. Despite a 160-minute running time, only a small portion of that is devoted to battles and action. This would be no problem if the remaining time would create a fascinating picture of its main hero and the people he deals with, but this is exactly where Redbad falls short.
The good news is that Reiné shows his craftsmanship again when it comes to visual style. There is breath-taking cinematography at times, with wide landscapes and lush art direction that made me wonder where they were all shot. Some have criticized the harsh and desaturated quality of the image, but I disagree; the early Middle Ages were harsh times, and there is no objection to seeing that grittiness reflected in the atmosphere, as long as things are not muddled. Some also complained that the battle scenes were impossible to follow due to camera and editing, and because you can't discern between the two armies. I don't share these objections either; if you're into paranoid symbolism, you could argue that the baddies dress in blue and have a coat of arms that resembles a Facebook logo, so they're easy to spot. The battle scenes are not exactly of Game of Thrones quality (they probably couldn't make one episode out of Redbad's entire budget), but they still look pretty good: slightly chaotic without looking too rehearsed. There is some shaky-cam and quick editing, but nothing too frenetic. Nowhere did I get the feeling that it was unnecessarily disorienting, or that I lost oversight of what was happening on the screen.
The bad news is that as a storyteller or actor's director, Reiné still has a lot to learn. Like in MdR, he has cast a lot of television actors and has them converse in modern Dutch. That was forgivable for MdR, but it doesn't work here. For some reason, the farther you go back in time, the more ridiculous it sounds to hear historic characters use terms that didn't exist then (especially using regional accents). I have no principle problems with actors from soap operas and comedies dressed as feral Friesians (except for some unnecessary cameos like Birgit Schuurman), but if you give them texts like "no, YOU look like sh#t", then I get taken out of the movie, and I see the soapie again, not the character. Granted, you don't want the characters speaking in ridiculously pretentious verses like in Troy ("I am Ajax, destroyer of rocks" always gets a good giggle from me), but it must be possible to give the dialogue some sense of historic solemnity and gravitas, like in Gladiator, without becoming pompous or completely unintelligible.
It is almost fascinating to see actors of all ages and walks of life struggling with the contrast between their appearance and their texts, and most seem to compensate for this by overacting as if they were doing Shakespeare in a school play, turning every phrase into an emphasized one-liner. Strangely enough, this affects mostly the more seasoned veterans like Derek de Lint, but even he doesn't reach the painful depths of Renée Soutendijk, Egbert-Jan Weber and especially Jack Wouterse (who was apparently under the mistaken impression that he was comic relief). Jonathan Banks as Pepijn was obviously cast to give the movie some international appeal, but at least his "Medieval Mike Ehrmantraut" performance is one of the few that doesn't feel too misplaced.
The screenplay, apart from the dialogues, is my second grief. Not so much is known about the historical Redbad, so it is completely acceptable that they made up several elements for dramatic purposes, as long as that makes for an engaging narrative. That the superior Frankish army looks like a pretty unimpressive group of soldiers isn't a big problem (again, Dutch budgets). But in a solid script, the presented elements at least make sense or are properly motivated and balanced. The Franks are depicted as murderous zealots, which makes them uninteresting one-dimensional villains, probably used as easy comparisons to ISIS and a contrast with the noble Friesians (who historically must have been just as cruel at times). Redbad himself is presented as the Dutch Braveheart, including a "they may take our lives but they will never take our freedom" speech. He is apparently bound to lead his people to victory, and everywhere he comes, people hail him as their savior, but we never get to see why he is such a good strategist, and how he acquired those skills. Gijs Naber is a fine actor and he is doing his best with the material that is handed to him, but he still feels ill-equipped for such a tough role.
There are more annoying holes in the story and presentation. Why do the Franks speak English, where French would seem more logical? Why do Friesian tribes in Denmark speak English, the same language as the Franks, instead of something sounding more Dutch (like Danish)? Why are the place name captions in English, whereas the opening and closing texts are in Dutch? And a dishonorable mention for the way in which two of the battles in the movie are resolved; one involving the sea, and the almost laughable skirmish at the climax involving a spear.
Finally, the nail in this biopic's coffin is that it is constantly overselling itself with bombastic music and unnecessary visual tricks. Reiné's constant need for slow-motion shots is one thing, but his imagery is drowned in an ever-so-present score from a guy who probably thinks he is Hans Zimmer, and constantly abuses the heavy strings and low-frequency bass. I am not necessarily a supporter of the 'less-is-more' dogma, but here, even calm dialogue scenes that would call for two instruments and a soft choir are smothered in obtrusively epic music. The lack of subtle musical motives starts to feel like being kept awake all night by a next-door house party.
I am not mad at this film, and I certainly didn't find it the piece of wreckage that some make it out to be. It had some moments of visual grandeur, but sadly, an unmotivated screenplay filled with holes prevents most scenes from having the visceral impact that they could have had. Watching it was like grading a school essay where you add comments in red ink, and nearly every paragraph needs correction. I guess you could call it an engaging movie in that sense, but for the wrong reasons.
Entertaining But Too Far From Historically Accurate
Freedom06028612 July 2020
This movie could have been better with higher quality screenwriting. There's an excellent cast including some beautiful actresses. The costumes were okay, and locations were very good.
But some of the writing is absurd. The Frisians did not sacrifice young women to Freya, burning them alive (another people hundreds of years earlier, the Celts, did sacrifice perverts and criminals to the gods by burning them in wickers). The Friesians although pagan were somewhat more advanced than as shown.
Redbad's life was very different than shown in the movie - he was an older man when he won his victory over the Franks at Cologne, and the Friesians were allied with the Saxons not Danes at that time. Redbad had ruled the Frisians for at least 20 years before that battle. He had never been exiled or put out on a boat to die.
Charles Martel was a fierce warrior but not an evil man, he did not murder his little nephew as shown in the movie. And neither were Pepin nor Saint Willibrord as cruel and vile as shown in the movie. Although he is killed in the movie, in reality Willibrord died in 739, 20 years after Redbad's death in 719.
This could have been a great movie, if the much more interesting REAL history was shown instead of a silly storyline we've seen too many times in other movies.
But some of the writing is absurd. The Frisians did not sacrifice young women to Freya, burning them alive (another people hundreds of years earlier, the Celts, did sacrifice perverts and criminals to the gods by burning them in wickers). The Friesians although pagan were somewhat more advanced than as shown.
Redbad's life was very different than shown in the movie - he was an older man when he won his victory over the Franks at Cologne, and the Friesians were allied with the Saxons not Danes at that time. Redbad had ruled the Frisians for at least 20 years before that battle. He had never been exiled or put out on a boat to die.
Charles Martel was a fierce warrior but not an evil man, he did not murder his little nephew as shown in the movie. And neither were Pepin nor Saint Willibrord as cruel and vile as shown in the movie. Although he is killed in the movie, in reality Willibrord died in 739, 20 years after Redbad's death in 719.
This could have been a great movie, if the much more interesting REAL history was shown instead of a silly storyline we've seen too many times in other movies.
Good cinematography and acting, a bit too much revisionist history.
chippewa-5769229 March 2019
Enjoyed Redsbad, but with s grain of salt. It seems that this genre of film (Vikings, The Last Kingdom, etc) insist on portraying the Nordic, Danish, Frisian, whomever) as superheros on the battlefield. As a student of history, I can acknowledge their prowess (even with the need to exaggerate the tiny percentage of women who actually engaged in battle or raids) within limits. It seems that Saxon warriors or Frankish troops are relegated to incompetent or unskilled (scene after scene of some Nordic warrior slaying 4-5 enemy combatants) in so many of these films. It must be remembered that they too where warrior cultures which eventually subjugated these invaders, a task which could not be accomplished without military acumen. The portrayal of the Christianization of pagan peoples also seems greatly exaggerated. Were there abuses and at times over jealous clerics and nobles, naturally, however to paint such a skewed portrait in a film attempting to convey historical events may lead the less scholarly viewer to accept this without question. The perspective in production after production of painting pagan, bellicose, raiding peoples as "noble savages" while casting Christianity in a negative light seems more a reflection of the producers and writers' agendas than fact. I look forward to these same film makers creating a series of films illustrationing the centuries of slaughter, slavery and forced conversations at the hands of Mohammed and his religious descendants, though they would likely be prevented for fear of the Muslim response.
Too long
cannavacciuolo29 June 2018
Interesting story, very nicely filmed ( high contrast/ desatuarated imagery), decent acting all around, nice battlescenes but nothing you haven't seen done before ( and better done), nice looking leadactors.... but the movie is way to long... it would have benefited greatly from some sharp editing. It could have been easily 30 min shorter en much the better for it.
I caught myself glanzing at my watch a couple of times ...
To many unneccesary long scenes and other scenes could have benefited from from some added time
All in all ok but not great and certainly not a sensation ( even by Dutch standards)
All in all ok but not great and certainly not a sensation ( even by Dutch standards)
If you take 'red' out of the title, then you've got it right
TheSmallDeth5 July 2018
I know this movie is already known for it's duration now but let me state once again: this movie is WAY TOO LONG. This shouldn't be a problem if indeed most of the shots were interesting but sadly, this isn't the case. Instead you get bombarded with multiple slo-mo nature/animal/close-up shots.
Furthermore i have to say the story is a bit of a mess. Sometimes you get to know something huge about a character and it's never even slightly mentioned before, it's suddenly just out there and after that you've gotta deal with it yourself, character development is pretty 'bad'. Also it feels like some actors were put in there because they're 'famous' (if that's the right word for it), they just had a few lines and they deliver them very POORLY. Jonathan Banks was the most positive aspect in this whole movie.
Besides all the above: the battle scenes are fine (nothing you haven't seen already), i think the CGI is pretty good for a dutch movie and it has some gory moments which will keep your eyes open (i had mine closed for a while).
Long story short if you like long movies A LOT, historical movies A LOT and you like vikings A LOT then you'll enjoy this, i'm sure of it. Otherwise i really recommend you to watch the Vikings TV-serie because it's a lot better/fun/hardcore and basically covers the same christian/viking struggle in a better way ( a better way to invest your time).
I hope you'll have a good time if you still decide to go, can't assure you that you won't be looking at your watch a few times or trying to find out when the movie's going to end. Cheers
Furthermore i have to say the story is a bit of a mess. Sometimes you get to know something huge about a character and it's never even slightly mentioned before, it's suddenly just out there and after that you've gotta deal with it yourself, character development is pretty 'bad'. Also it feels like some actors were put in there because they're 'famous' (if that's the right word for it), they just had a few lines and they deliver them very POORLY. Jonathan Banks was the most positive aspect in this whole movie.
Besides all the above: the battle scenes are fine (nothing you haven't seen already), i think the CGI is pretty good for a dutch movie and it has some gory moments which will keep your eyes open (i had mine closed for a while).
Long story short if you like long movies A LOT, historical movies A LOT and you like vikings A LOT then you'll enjoy this, i'm sure of it. Otherwise i really recommend you to watch the Vikings TV-serie because it's a lot better/fun/hardcore and basically covers the same christian/viking struggle in a better way ( a better way to invest your time).
I hope you'll have a good time if you still decide to go, can't assure you that you won't be looking at your watch a few times or trying to find out when the movie's going to end. Cheers
Not bad....
panosk-1946910 November 2018
Interesting film about the Legend of Redbad. I really liked the settings, costumes and some fight scenes although the film's soundtracks is a let down.
The director could have done better by cutting many insignificant scenes which are boring. Good overall.
Fragmented, historically inaccurate, politically correct nonsence.
dangermous8 November 2018
To the writers credit they did show the Franks forcing Frisian conversion to xtianity with the sword including forced baptisms. They went all PC by showing 'saint' Boniface as quite innocent whilst his teacher did all the bad things like forced conversion and chopping down Thenors Tree. History records Boniface as the slime guilty of these crimes. I guess the filmmakers didn't want to offend a 'saint'?
Redbad is famous for his resistance to forced conversion to xtianity and the occupation of his peoples lands by the Franks. He took over from his father who was sympathetic to xtianity. Redbad could not live with his fathers weakness. In the film his father was a committed Odinist and Redbad was a character with sympathies towards xtianity. They even had him marrying a xtian!! I guess the writers didn't want the hero being anti xtian?
When learning that none of his ancestors would be in heaven Redbad famously said "I'd rather spend eternity in hell with my ancestors than in heathen with my enemies". In the film they had him saying "it's not what you believe, it's what you do with it" in sympathy for christianity!!!!!!! Whilst the real Redbad wasn't all good or even as loved by his people as portrayed in this film they have taken some serious liberties with history here!
From the outset the 'pagans' were talking about mass sacrificing their young women because they had a couple bad years growing crops and a flood. There is no record of this? Where did they get this idea from? I suspect they just wanted to make the 'pagans' look bad. Historical sources attest that prisoners of war and criminals were the normal sacrifice to the gods when humans were killed. They were given a choice to die of their own free will with some honour or die a horrible death. A lot of them would chose to face their death willingly so that they had a chance of a good afterlife and being buried with honour. In the account of Ibn Fadlan (a traveler who observed the Rus) it is mentioned that a female thrall sacrificed herself when her master died. This is also backed up by the evidence in the Oseberg ship burial. Adam of Bremen provides an account of men and women willingly sacrificing themselves at Uppsala in Sweden but this is a second hand account and it's written by a xtian. However, there are no historical accounts of Germanic peoples 'mass' sacrificing their young women, born of freemen as depicted in this film.
During this film there were at least 5 or 6 battle scenes. They portrayed every warrior as owning a sword and some had an axe as well. I don't recall seeing a single spear in the whole film!!
At one stage in the film Redbad was banished from his tribe. He washed up on a shore and was taken in by another tribe as a thrall. Being upset regarding his banishment he didn't speak to the people that had taken him in or even tell them his name. He just kind of walked around and did manual tasks for them. Anyways after one battle where another tribe attacked them Redbad was made a freeman and the kings daughter asked him to marry her lol (obviously an 8th century feminist!) . So, he went from unknown thrall who refused to speak to a prince after ten minutes of sword fighting on the beach!
Throughout the film I noticed beautiful waif like models playing the female roles in the film (no problem with that). However, they were all fighting in the battle scenes just as much as the men! I doubt some of these women could lift a sword let alone swing it for an hour of fighting, killing several stronger, bigger men in the process. One scene had a line of women shooting the Franks with large bows. I'd guess the bows had 70Lb draw on them but those waif like models kept firing away for the duration of the battle! They must be stronger than they look. Whilst women certainly learned and were able to defend themselves there is no evidence that they fought in battles to this degree. In all the archeological digs that have investigated battlefields 99.9999% of the bodies were men. No amount of feminism can argue with that.
The film was mildly entertaining, but for anyone with even a hint of historical knowledge this film will be difficult to watch!
Redbad is famous for his resistance to forced conversion to xtianity and the occupation of his peoples lands by the Franks. He took over from his father who was sympathetic to xtianity. Redbad could not live with his fathers weakness. In the film his father was a committed Odinist and Redbad was a character with sympathies towards xtianity. They even had him marrying a xtian!! I guess the writers didn't want the hero being anti xtian?
When learning that none of his ancestors would be in heaven Redbad famously said "I'd rather spend eternity in hell with my ancestors than in heathen with my enemies". In the film they had him saying "it's not what you believe, it's what you do with it" in sympathy for christianity!!!!!!! Whilst the real Redbad wasn't all good or even as loved by his people as portrayed in this film they have taken some serious liberties with history here!
From the outset the 'pagans' were talking about mass sacrificing their young women because they had a couple bad years growing crops and a flood. There is no record of this? Where did they get this idea from? I suspect they just wanted to make the 'pagans' look bad. Historical sources attest that prisoners of war and criminals were the normal sacrifice to the gods when humans were killed. They were given a choice to die of their own free will with some honour or die a horrible death. A lot of them would chose to face their death willingly so that they had a chance of a good afterlife and being buried with honour. In the account of Ibn Fadlan (a traveler who observed the Rus) it is mentioned that a female thrall sacrificed herself when her master died. This is also backed up by the evidence in the Oseberg ship burial. Adam of Bremen provides an account of men and women willingly sacrificing themselves at Uppsala in Sweden but this is a second hand account and it's written by a xtian. However, there are no historical accounts of Germanic peoples 'mass' sacrificing their young women, born of freemen as depicted in this film.
During this film there were at least 5 or 6 battle scenes. They portrayed every warrior as owning a sword and some had an axe as well. I don't recall seeing a single spear in the whole film!!
At one stage in the film Redbad was banished from his tribe. He washed up on a shore and was taken in by another tribe as a thrall. Being upset regarding his banishment he didn't speak to the people that had taken him in or even tell them his name. He just kind of walked around and did manual tasks for them. Anyways after one battle where another tribe attacked them Redbad was made a freeman and the kings daughter asked him to marry her lol (obviously an 8th century feminist!) . So, he went from unknown thrall who refused to speak to a prince after ten minutes of sword fighting on the beach!
Throughout the film I noticed beautiful waif like models playing the female roles in the film (no problem with that). However, they were all fighting in the battle scenes just as much as the men! I doubt some of these women could lift a sword let alone swing it for an hour of fighting, killing several stronger, bigger men in the process. One scene had a line of women shooting the Franks with large bows. I'd guess the bows had 70Lb draw on them but those waif like models kept firing away for the duration of the battle! They must be stronger than they look. Whilst women certainly learned and were able to defend themselves there is no evidence that they fought in battles to this degree. In all the archeological digs that have investigated battlefields 99.9999% of the bodies were men. No amount of feminism can argue with that.
The film was mildly entertaining, but for anyone with even a hint of historical knowledge this film will be difficult to watch!
Great movie
anemarius8 August 2018
I think some reviews here are very very very negative. It is an interesting story told by the movie, its somehwat unknown in the Netherlands because its has been partly erased from the history books. I can understand people who say the movie is too long, but that didnt annoy me. Redbad is underated in my opinion.
Great Epic that could be even better
davish_wulf-125 January 2020
Redbad was an unexpected epic on the stale state of today's cinema.
Epics are on shortage, both in quantity and quality, this one was quite above average.
Acting wise it's not bad, main character has charisma enough to carry the movie and overall not bad. If you compare it to "Vikings" seasons 4,5 and 6 (Ragnar's sons), this guy would give the main "toons" there a run for their money - at least he looks the part.
The movie, although based on the Frisian warrior, has a "Viking" feel to it, from the weapons to the costumes and art, it has a Viking theme overall.
Fights were also not bad, they had some great moments and looked realistic at least, compared to the average low budget movies out there with over the shoulder cameras and messy combat, some solid combat here with nice head to head battles.
Horses were a must, I saw a scene of a horse stumping the shield of a warrior with is feet, great action overall, but there were also some silly moments, like a shield-maiden head stumping a warrior with a helmet on.
Some plot-holes and nonsense choices around half an hour in, that made me afraid of being another silly movie, but keep the faith cause it gets better.
Negative points... a bit too long, mainly because of too many slow motion scenes that could have been cut to half (or even more) - could the series that came after (based on this movie) be the reason?
Sometimes I had the feeling if I put a heavy metal song over some slow motion scenes, you would get a quite good videoclip.
Music wise, goes from great to repetitive, during half an hour I though I was watching a Christopher Nolan Batman with repetitive rythm, not necessary at all.
Overall, a solid movie, rare this days, with quite a large cast, setup and wonderful, wonderful photography and landscape.
A bit shorter, less slow motion scenes and bit better CGI here and there, would make this a masterpiece, as it stands it's a very watchable Epic.
7 for the effort and up the rankings. A realistic 6, could be a 9 with better script and less slow motion scenes.
Meandering Viking flick
Leofwine_draca25 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
RISE OF THE VIKING is yet another European offering that's happy to riff on the popularity of the VIKINGS television series and adopt a bland, generic look and feel throughout. This exists as both this overlong movie and an even longer TV miniseries; this version seemed to be dragged out endlessly so I hate to think what the miniseries would be like. It's a Dutch flick that goes through the motions in depicting conflict between rival tribes; there are the requisite helpings of sex and gore, battle scenes and intrigue, plotting and treachery. The whole thing has a digital look and feel and never surprises once; the lack of real aims and narrative drive makes it feel meandering.
Top 5 things I hated about this movie
sophie_zaaijer21 October 2018
Ok...
5. The pace. By God, this movie took ages. The story could have have easily been told in half the time.
4. The dialogue. The whole movie consisted of cheesy oneliners, and I don't think there was a conversation longer than ten lines throughout the whole movie.
3. The acting. Sorry.
2. The music. The same semi-epic dramatic music plays throughout the whole movie, taking away from whatever emotion or development was actually happening. It is sad, he is a hero, we get it. This actually irritated me the most.
1. The characters. They were so flat, after almost 3 hours I still have no clue who these people are and why they do what they do.
Also, plot holes, and a weird ending.
But
It looked very pretty and viking-y and awesome.
5. The pace. By God, this movie took ages. The story could have have easily been told in half the time.
4. The dialogue. The whole movie consisted of cheesy oneliners, and I don't think there was a conversation longer than ten lines throughout the whole movie.
3. The acting. Sorry.
2. The music. The same semi-epic dramatic music plays throughout the whole movie, taking away from whatever emotion or development was actually happening. It is sad, he is a hero, we get it. This actually irritated me the most.
1. The characters. They were so flat, after almost 3 hours I still have no clue who these people are and why they do what they do.
Also, plot holes, and a weird ending.
But
It looked very pretty and viking-y and awesome.
Blonde Women Are Better Warriors
bemyfriend-401842 February 2021
And better at war. They looked great! And what fun, watching them crushing kings and stuff. But wow, the filmmaker sure hates Christianity. One of our reviewers gave this film one star; because it didn't hate on Christianity enough! He wrote it as "Xtianity". Single minded dude. Only thinks of one thing. And he didn't even mention the blonde warrioreses.
Waste of time, money, actors, effort, space, extras etcetcetc
ZongedroogdeTomaat27 January 2019
Good hopes for this movie I had, cause another historical movie (Michiel de Ruyter) by this director was all right. This is something else. It's a mess. I couldn't believe this movie was taken serious and turned it off halfway.
I'm not bothered by a bit of artistical liberties and I know it's not a documentary, but this insults the viewers. Almost nothing is historically correct. Castles, full armour, halberds didn't exist in that time. People wouldn't accept a WWII movie with soldiers walking around with AK47s. Though the early middle ages are not as well known to people it is kind of the same. It is misinforming people. Nowadays it is easy to check what the early middle ages looked like. So could the director have done. And there are lots of historians and archaeologist who would gladly help in advising. Probably for free.
He shouldn't have called it Redbad if it was meant to be some kind of fantasy action movie. There where high expectations for this movie. I was also looking forward to it. There aren't many big movies about Dutch history. And it had a big budget for Dutch standard. Waste of money.
This director should be ashamed and go back to Hollywood to make B-movie crap again..
top familiar
Kirpianuscus21 July 2020
Its basic din is only be another vikings film. All is familiar, predictable and, as Christian, your faith has not the best image. But , sure, the recipe must be respected and the good fight scenes, the reasonable cinematography and the closet - ups are enough for some interest. It is not a bad film but it has, în obvious way, its precise target. So, decent heroic story, with live drops and few full spoons of justice.
Shameful treatment of a fascinating period of history
Survive_Kino15 November 2018
The main problem with this film isn't historical inaccuracy, but that is one problem. I won't go into details of how inaccurate this film was historically, but here's a summary; clothes are a ridiculous mix of History Channel Vikings tier biker gear and renaissance fair women's gowns, men in eyeliner and not wearing helmets in battle. "Shieldmaidens" (eye roll) galore and modern atheist/humanist attitudes toward religion and sacrifice among the actual pagans!
Even with all the nonsense, which removes any historical value, the film could at least have been a fun but silly action movie, but it isn't. Very bad script, poor acting and a lack of characterisation or originality in the plot all make this film very weak. The narrative arc flops about like a landed herring, some unimportant scenes drag on for no apparent reason, often with bombastic score serving the place of dialogue. It isn't convincing as a historical drama in the first place but the characters aren't convincing in any other respect either.
I waited a long time to see a film about Redbad of Frisia, who is an interesting historical figure, but this is just terrible. There even appears to be some appeal to regional Frisian patriotism of the modern era, and a nod to the fake history of Oera Linda, making the goddess Freyja (Frya in Oera Linda) a principle deity whom the priestess refers to as "Earth Mother" which is not a name the real goddess was ever known by, but which is the name of her Mother in the hoax manuscript of the 19th century which some Frisians actually believe to be authentic and which depicts Ancient Frisia as a matriarchal utopia.
Even with all the nonsense, which removes any historical value, the film could at least have been a fun but silly action movie, but it isn't. Very bad script, poor acting and a lack of characterisation or originality in the plot all make this film very weak. The narrative arc flops about like a landed herring, some unimportant scenes drag on for no apparent reason, often with bombastic score serving the place of dialogue. It isn't convincing as a historical drama in the first place but the characters aren't convincing in any other respect either.
I waited a long time to see a film about Redbad of Frisia, who is an interesting historical figure, but this is just terrible. There even appears to be some appeal to regional Frisian patriotism of the modern era, and a nod to the fake history of Oera Linda, making the goddess Freyja (Frya in Oera Linda) a principle deity whom the priestess refers to as "Earth Mother" which is not a name the real goddess was ever known by, but which is the name of her Mother in the hoax manuscript of the 19th century which some Frisians actually believe to be authentic and which depicts Ancient Frisia as a matriarchal utopia.
"Redbad" - pretty good!
jaybizman29 December 2020
If you liked 'Vikings' and it's ilk, you'll like Redbad.
It may be a tad long at just under 3 hours,
but there is quite a bit to cover.
All the way back to the 5th Century we find a Chieftain's son (Redbad) from Frisia (Northern Netherlands), who of course is a good guy, which is the reason his vile Uncle hates him.
Throw in a Frankish (French) invasion and the battles are on - and they are pretty good. Our hero (Redbad) goes thru many trials and tribulations but he meets a tall blonde warrior and marries.
Most of the action takes place near the end - so don't skip it. I give 'Redbad' a solid 7/10.
All the way back to the 5th Century we find a Chieftain's son (Redbad) from Frisia (Northern Netherlands), who of course is a good guy, which is the reason his vile Uncle hates him.
Throw in a Frankish (French) invasion and the battles are on - and they are pretty good. Our hero (Redbad) goes thru many trials and tribulations but he meets a tall blonde warrior and marries.
Most of the action takes place near the end - so don't skip it. I give 'Redbad' a solid 7/10.
...and 10 stars for myself managing to watch it by the end
dan-enachi11 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Better than almost anything starring Nicholas Cage!!
waynekearney21 May 2020
I actually really enjoyed this film. I expected much less than what they delivered. The set designs were amazing and for the most part the acting was above par. I particularly liked the cinematography, the shots were spectacular and really sucked me in, it alone is well worth a watch. Obviously the history was a bit jumbled, but much less than most Hollywood pics. I actually loved the use of Dutch in the film and feel that it lent a lot to my over all submersion into the world. My guess would be that most Americans will hate this movie because of the subtitles alone; they are very slow readers. I didn't mind at all. I'm going to watch it again this weekend!! Marvelous job!! Look what $8,000,000 can get you when you get creative instead of Hollywood.
The Rise of the Viking
CinemaSerf7 August 2023
If you have watched any of Michael Hirst's "Vikings" series then you will probably find this to be a potted version of some of those stories condensed (though it doesn't always feel like it) into 2½ hours or so. Essentially our eponymous hero (Gijs Naber) is the Fresian lord who is constantly at war with "Pepijn" (Jonathan Banks) who is the king of the Franks and his sworn enemy. The narrative focuses on the weaponisation of Christianity by the latter as a means of subjugating - frequently quite brutally - all who do not accept the doctrines of the Papal legate who insists on baptising everyone - on pain of death. What ensues here isn't actually a bad film, it's just long and plodding with some mediocre acting and a script that uses ten words when two would have done. The action sequences look good and there are plenty of them as the battle ebbs and flows, the advantage constantly switches from North to South and the violent nature of the all conquering church is laid bare for us to appreciate - and that's quite a plausible exposure, too. If someone had taken a razor blade to it and shortened it by forty minutes to so, then we could have had a decent action adventure based on a rich seam of history and mythology, sadly it all takes just too long; there are too many unnecessary sub-plots and there is even a bit of romance to ensure the pace is well and truly nobbled. I like the genre and it's watchable enough, though just a bit disappointing.
Half of the film is in slow motion!
evanski-125-8735312 February 2019
As a lover of history, i was very keen to watch a film about this moment in time, places and peoples. I read a lot but never seen a film about the wars and christianization of the northern Germanic peoples, by the Franks. There are many films about the Vikings or the Anglo-Saxons but none about the Frisians. But unfortunately this film is very disappointing and simply bad. Flat characters, bad acting, ridiculous script! The main character does things or goes to places for no reason whatsoever, nobody understands why. Who wrote this ridiculous script!? He was actually paid to write this?! And the funniest! Half of the film is in slow motion! i guess for dramatization purposes?! There are many 10 minute scenes in the film in which one just watches something that could easily be shown in 10 seconds! Never seen this before! Very tiring and bad film and not worth even wasting more words about it.. It's a shame, especially for lovers of history and historical epics..
Nice try but sloppy and confusing. At best.
meelaleks6 January 2019
I had high hopes for this movie, but... sigh.
On the bright side: it features really nice scenary and atmosphere, decent (though not historical correct) costumes and the camera work is most of the time solid, even good at times. Dutch films do get better the last two decades! But sadly these are the first and last positive aspects imho.
The dialogues are almost silly, mostly combined oneliners actually. And worse: they are confusing... aside from the fact that voices are unclear mosr of the time: the Franks speak English instead of French or even German? Scandinavians speaking English makes more sense (Modern English is partly Danish after the invasion of the vikings) but since the Franks also speak English in this movie its odd. Also silly: the castle in Reims. Overgrown with gras, nobility living in dungeons? Really? Lol! If you have to work with a low budget there must be other options..
Moving on: the main characters somehow never seem to touch you, they have flat personalitys and frankly I couldnt care less what happend to most of them. Redbad's role is one of the few exceptions, maybe Freya's as well. And why, WHY, do Dutch movies always need nudity, sex or rape scenes? Geez.
As for editing, it also irritated and confused me to no extend. Some scenes last for ever and ever while other scenes end before they serve their purpose. The movie desperatly needs cutting and re-editing, if only to get the battles right. Combine all of that that with way to much and loud bombastic music and the quality dropped even further. Maybe when cut to under 100 minutes it would have been better. Who knows. Instead it was turned into a mini series on television, making it even longer. Wow.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
