A Viking Saga: The Darkest Day

There are a lot of low rated reviews on here. I understand why. The poster artwork and indeed the title make it look as if this film is going to be very much like an episode of Vikings with lots of epic battle scenes. If that is what you are expecting, you will be disappointed. The story is a slow burner with more dialogue than action. However for me, this was no bad thing. A big theme in the film is that of religious belief and how it can make some behave, at best, unwisely. The violence of the warband isn't glamourised, but equally the idealism of the monks is shown as foolish. Both sides risk their lives for a book. A very beautiful book, but a book nonetheless, and faith is more than ink and parchment. We see also that both Christians and pagans misunderstood one another. It's only when the characters talk about belief that there can be better understanding. The main character is ultimately forced to questions how he approaches his beliefs, the final act having become something akin to a tale of revenge, something that would have been at odds with his training as a novice monk. Does he ultimately win if he has had to compromise his beliefs so much that he will kill? This film owes a slight debt at least to Brian Bates' wonderful book The Way of Wyrd, another story that examines belief in England at a time when Christianity and paganism overlapped. The cinematography is very muted; almost monochrome at times, but this only added to the bleak aspects of the story. I very much enjoy Vikings and The Last Kingdom but this is a different beast entirely; smaller budget, smaller cast, slower and grounded in what the characters say, rather than what they do. This is not the film for you if you just want action, but if you want something that will make you think about how raids impacted upon the people of Dark Ages England, this relatively short film is worth 90 minutes of your time. I plan on watching it again.

This story takes place in Great Britain in 793 AD and is based on true events, or so it claims. The Vikings have landed on the island and begin to pirate and plunder. Their king is obsessed with locating the "Holy Gospel of Lindisfarne." It is a powerful book which protects the island and will give the Vikings great power when they find it, although it really hasn't been helping Northumberland too much of late. Hereward, a young monk is tasked with saving the book in delivering it to Iona. The movie is consumed by him walking through the woods with various people while being hunted by some Vikings. The characters aren't that strong. I enjoyed the language of the film, "Dragon ships carried upon black storm clouds"...seeking the "Power of the White Christ." For those who loved pseudo history film such as "Centurion" this is a low budget version of that type of film. It was a film that is consumed with dialog, that leaves any coded messages to the viewer. The action is relatively sparse for a Viking Saga. It is a film I kept waiting for it to start, and then it was over. Parental Guide: 1 f-bomb, attempted rape, old male nudity with their junk a bit blurred.

The Darkest Day is a moody, atmospheric filmed play at times with some bizarre bits thrown in to differentiate it from a TV movie. The focus here is dirt, despair and oddly poetic dialogue. This is a Viking film that is as dry as they come. A deconstruction of sorts of the more romanticised depictions from other films of the cycle, yet the film itself displays many tropes, visual and audible. Lots of damp woods, hills that look like they were freezing to shoot in, and dialogue that bounces between modern and olde English liberally. However, it is these anachronisms i find that give the viking film cycle it's charm, especially when entires take themselves as seriously as this one does. It does have clout though. The production value is immense for the budget and there is a solid earthy look to this film. The cinematography is stoic, yet off balance at enough times to not let the picture sink into an idyllic, melancholy feel, and it's well graded also. Costume design is dynamic with each party involved in this little quest given a lot of personality through their wear. But also, the cast is a mixed bag of theatrical and robotic and there's too much talky talky to aggravate this. Overall, is as straight laced a viking film as they come. As drab and cold as the island it is set on. If you like you're historical drama to have an emphasis on the savagery and the suffering side, then The Darkest Day is for you.

VIKINGS: THE DARKEST DAY is another cheap-as-chips Viking movie hoping to cash in on the modern trend for all things gritty and historical. The budget quickly becomes apparent in the limited outdoor locations and small cast, while the script is nothing to write home about. A monk called Hereward (couldn't they think of a more original name?) saves a priceless holy book from a Viking attack and is thereafter pursued by bloodthirsty pagans, until he finds a skilled protector to look after him. There's a fair bit of action and movement in the story, but the cast members are limited and the small-scale story is simply nothing to get excited about.

Based on a noted event, the Anglo-Saxon Abbey on Lindisfarne Is. off the coast of Northumbria, England is attacked and ransacked by Scandinavian marauders. It reflects the Norse transition from the Vendel era to the Viking era. The case cover depicts a horned helmeted, leather strapped, bulked up warrior -- none of that is actually true. The cinematography is really quite good, the period dress and appearances quite accurate, and the absence of any real bling for modern viewers is understandable in a film where realism is intended. Real Vikings, after long ocean voyages, were quite filthy with mostly poor diets and just not always the clean blondes people have been raised to expect. A point that another mentioned is doubt the Vikings wore chain-mail as depicted but actually they did, even before the Viking era, and it's always been a point of contention between historians as to how that came to be. Possibilities including contact with remote people like the Romans or Sarmatians who were already wearing it. The film is more of a human interest story as we follow the few actors almost like a documentary. I don't recall hardly any special effects and the military action people might expect from the cover is limited. Before you view or purchase perhaps have a look at some of the trailers on YouTube. As a history nut I really enjoyed it

**Warning spoilers ahead** I was totally going to give it nine stars up until the last 25min, then it just got a little to cheesy. As far as production and action goes I give it an A but the acting at times could be a little corny. And as far as the ending goes they really could have done something to make it a little more believable. I mean come on, he just picks up a sword and starts swinging it around like he has been doing this his whole life. I would have like to had seen something a little more original when it came time for the "saving the day" part. And am I the only person that noticed the angle of the arrow that went through his neck?? Didn't know arrows could fly at 33degree angles. Well at the end of the day did it keep me entertained and would I suggest it to friends and the answer to both of those is a solid yes. For a lazy Wed afternoon it definitely kept me interested.

The Viking era lasted roughly 300 years from about 790 to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. The word 'Viking' comes from the Old English wicing, meaning pirate. The Vikings were Norse plunderers from what is modern-day Norway and Denmark who preferred to prey upon undefended rich monasteries in Britain and nearby regions. Their speedy longships gave them terrifying mobility. By the time an army was raised against them they had moved on to other raids. I bring this up to point out that the supposedly mighty Vikings were not noble warriors, but rather lowly brigands who preferred weak, defenseless victims. "A Viking Saga: Decision Day" (2013) drives this home and details a Viking raid on a monastery (mostly off-screen) and the subsequent pursuit through the haunting grey woods as the Viking chieftain seeks a priceless holy book in the possession of two monks who escaped the monastery. The sluggish, grim tone is akin to that of "Valhalla Rising" (2009), but I slightly prefer this one due to the potent theme, which addresses the folly of absolute pacifism vs. the wisdom of limited pacifism. The former stupefying-ly refuses to resort to physical violence under any conditions whereas the latter resorts to violence only when necessary and justified. The young simpering monk in the movie, Hereward (Marc Pickering), represents the view of absolute pacifism while the noble warrior, Aethelwulf (Mark Lewis Jones), represents limited pacifism. The monks adhered to the gross misunderstanding that revolves around Christ' teaching to "turn the cheek." The Messiah was referring to a backhanded slap to the face, which was an insult in that culture. In other words, we could all save ourselves a lot of trouble in life if we learn to ignore the antagonism of various morons who would like to divert our focus and ruin our day. The Old Testament teaches this as well: "A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult" (Proverbs 12:16). So Christ was talking about giving an antagonist a break for the sake of peace in situations of personal offense; he was NOT referring to cases of criminal atrocities, which is what Viking raiders were guilty of committing. After all, why else do you think Christ allowed his disciples to carry swords, as chronicled in the Gospels? The bible says that governments are "God's servants" for good in the sense that they protect citizens from criminals and their military protects the people from foreign attack; in short, they "bear the sword," meaning that they possess the power to punish and even execute criminals or foreign raiders when justified (see Romans 13:1-6). Relating this to the movie, the monks were the government of their area and they in essence "bore the sword." As such, they would be perfectly justified in annihilating the Norse thugs from the face of the earth. It's a lesson Hereward needs to learn IF he and his remaining loved ones are to survive. One last thing: Someone commented on how the Vikings are effectively depicted as diabolical fiends, which is true to a point. They're also portrayed as mere men, who can be slain as easily as any other. This was a good call by the director in light of how Vikings are often depicted in a mythical super-heroic manner, which is light-years from the truth. They were wretched human pillagers, brutal murderers and sadistic rapists who deserved slain on sight. Speaking of which, the movie poster (and DVD cover) is thoroughly misleading and the clueless producer(s) responsible should be shot (not literally). The movie runs 1 hour, 28 minutes and was shot in Neath Port Talbot area in South Wales, Britain. The UK production reportedly only cost around $132,000, but you wouldn't know that from viewing the movie; it looks more like a $2 million production. GRADE: B/B-

I understand all about film budgets and how the costs of locations play a large part in getting a film off the ground. That said, I've also spent a great deal of time on Lindisfarne (Holy Island, as it is now called) and I know its history as I've placed a story, a screenplay, and a magazine article there. The Lindisfarne raid by Vikings in 793 was a smash and grab affair sacking whatever riches were in place on the altar of the church. The Vikings' knowing anything about the illuminated book called the Lindisfarne Gospels is far-fetched to say the least and attaching the Vikings' concept of magical significance to that work of art is idiotic. The opening sequence on the beach at Lindisfarne looks nothing at all like Lindisfarne. In fact, no filmed setting---especially those used by the History Channel for re-enactments or for their Vikings television program---has ever looked like the real Linsdisfarne. In this film, for the two monks to have escaped the Viking raid on foot to the mainland of Northumberland from the island of Lindisfarne, they would have had to cross a treacherous stretch of mud flats and quicksand at low tide. The same would be true of Vikings following them. It couldn't have and wouldn't have taken place. What's more, the landscape of Northumberland is hardly grey as portrayed in this film but exceedingly green. Even if two monks were seeking refuge for their holy book, they would hardly try to cross the width of Britain to get to Iona but instead head down the coast to Bamburgh, scant miles from Lindisfarne and both a fortress and seat of power during and long before 793. The film's discussion of signal fires having been lit in order to seek the protection of guides for a journey across Britain never would have happened since there was no time for such nonsense because the raid most likely took place at dawn awakening the sleeping monastery. The whole premise simply doesn't hold in this long-winded draggy mess in which even the local saint being discussed as associated with Northumberland is all wrong. Lindisfarne is strongly associated with Saints Aidan and Cuthbert. It would have been either or both of those who would have been talked about by the film's characters. The writer-director apparently did no homework at all for this project other than to cull the same old historical passages used at the beginning of this film and used ad nauseam (and without understanding) whenever Lindisfarne is mentioned in movies and television programs. The writer-director would have been much better off fictionalizing the places and the whole story, making it all much more visually interesting, and speeding up the storytelling. None of that would have impacted his budget in the least. And what's with that awful horned-helmet artwork on the poster?

This title should be better that's it's under 5 rating. I think it's well done. Very well done. It deals with a narrow subject, in a narrow time, a savage time really. A small cast, and little no set production and only minimal costume design, this things are made up for with excellent photography, camera work, sound, acting and script, the hallmarks of talent and skill combined to make a low budget epic that will build it's own reputation and appreciated in time. It is worth seeing and is not terribly long. It's length is correct and could have been expanding upon with longer beginning and longer ending frankly. I think it was shortened for cinema.

This film is really a hidden gem. The writer and director drive home their point that Christianity reigns supreme over all the old gods (demons) once worshiped in Angleland (England). 'Become my wrath' says Jesus in a vision to the monk protagonist, and here we see God infusing his authority in those who have been specifically called to maintain peace through the use of force. A beautiful, subtle scene is when a Pictish girl from Northumbria reveals to the monk that she and her people had accepted Christ before the heathen Vikings came and wiped out her village, she alone remaining and taken as a sex slave. The themes in this film are as relevant for our own day as they were for some of our ancestors then. I deeply recommend this film to all Christians, and then to any person who may want to know about our desire to uphold the power of the Gospels as the Light for our dark world. Christ has risen from the dead; and through death he trampled upon death, then granting life to we who lived in the tombs. This film is a glimmering beacon of hope in a great sea of terrible story lines which come at us all the time like bloodthirsty Vikings.