Severed Ways - The Norse Discovery of America

Yeah, it's a movie review.

Calling this a movie is to say the least generous, to say the most a travesty of film.  I'd say spoilers but since I'd recommend this ONLY to the Cinematic Titanic gang, and even that group would be dumbfounded by this piece of crap, they aren't truly spoilers.

The Norse Discovery of America.  I'm a history person, my girlfriend would say history turns me on.  So be it.  I like history.  Actually, I love history.  So when she popped up in front of me (after bending over and showing off that ass, oh my yes) and showed me the title I was game.  The Norse Discovery of America, woohoo!  This can't be ALL bad can it?  All this movie was, was an excuse to watch director/actor/writer and more Tony Stone take a shit on film, which he does early on in this one.  Unfreakingbelievable.  2 Vikings got stranded in America in 1007.  Yeah ok plausible.  They dink around for a while then decide to head for Newfoundland where they know there's a base.  Ok, again, plausible.  Tony Stone and companion head north.  They run into missionaries.  Ok mAAAAAAAAybe.  The story plays out like Blair Witch, the Viking version.  It's a character story, about characters you can't possibly care about, even if you're from Ballard or Minnesota/North Dakota.  Tony and his pal have the charisma of Dick Cheney on a hunting trip.    They wear helmets without horns, Skraelings are involved, and there are runes on various objects.  Besides that, it could have been Adam Sandler and Jack Black running around in the woods during an SCA weekend.  (yeah, the acting was THAT good) There didn't need to be a dialog coach, there were MAYBE 30 words uttered, in 'norse', with the appropriate english subtitles at the bottom of the screen.  Just the subtitles usage of the english language was laughable, and not in a good way.  Staring at a tree off camera and looking bored, or tired, or constipated, or befuddled, isn't acting Mr Stone.  In this case it's just bad, and not the fun kind of bad turtles like.  It's not nuclear, but that's only because Al-Qieda or some Palin-Teabagging-Jim Gibbons-esque cult might steal the isotopes this off this site, like the Chinese spam it.  Avoid this movie at ALL costs, no matter how drunk you are. 


11 Comments

Did you like this post? Vote Up or Down.
0

Will do, although I like movies that are so bad they're good but

TMundo's picture

...not movies that are so bad they're bad.

The Postman is an example of a good one, wow, he rebuilt america on a lie, YAY!

Someone here mentioned Hudson Hawk, yeah, hat was something fun.

But so bad it's bad, is just... ughh!

I'd like to think

gamerarocks's picture

I am somewhat of a connoisseur of bad movies, and this one falls FAR short of making it to that status.  As far as Severed Ways is concerned, a good bad movie is as lofty an aspiration as the moon is for any earthling since Gene Cernan.

But hey, if watching a blond guy with long hair pretend to be a viking, take a dump in the woods, and wipe his ass halfheartedly with 3 leaves, catapults a flick into that for you, knock yourself out.  But then again I watched 'The Crew' with Viggo My name isn't Aragorn! Mortensen on a boat, sorta, and that was actually worse than this, somehow.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

By the way, I saw Russell Crowe's Robin Hood is directed by the same guy who did Gladiator.  That's NOT an early plus.  

One out of four people is freakishly stupid.  If three of your friends are normal, then it's you.

 

Actually, real viking helmets didn't have horns.

FearlessFreep's picture

Do they meet St. Brendan?

 

Sure they did. Here's one.

RidingFool's picture

Real vikings wear horns

And here's another.

Another Viking helmet.

Which is precisely why

gamerarocks's picture

I included that with the realistic portion. 

One out of four people is freakishly stupid. If three of your friends are normal, then it's you.

 

"300" should be included in bad history flicks

Rajah's picture

The gay overtones and the inaccuracies made it hard to sit through.

Yah gotta be kidding me, another movie about Robin Hood?!?! How many does that make it?

I'd have to disagree

gamerarocks's picture

from the standpoint that it wasn't trying to be a history flick, more of a live action cartoon that had the proverbial 'some' basis in fact.

And yes, another Robin Hood.  Supposedly before Sherwood and Nottingham..........? 

One out of four people is freakishly stupid. If three of your friends are normal, then it's you.

 

The most glaring inaccuracy in 300

FearlessFreep's picture

The soldiers not wearing chest protectors so they could show off their pecs.

 

I'd rather watch a movie about Dennis Moore

Rajah's picture

Who gives lupins to to the poor

 

 

Hmmm, yeah 300 was a comic/graphic novel brought to life...

TMundo's picture

...and altough I do believe in the existance of giants, long ago, some of that stuff was out there indeed.  However, for me, sin city and 300 were all about the camera shots.  Every shot was supposed to be like a moving comic book frame.  I'm still not sure if I liked the film, it seemed to be all olver the place, but best if I give it another viewing.

Robin Hood has been played out.  Th guy that filmed gladiator (I assume we're not talking about the boxing flick) didn't do an awful job, but I think that if another Robin Hood is to be done, it should be done in a weird and unusual way.  Not the normal hero stuff.  Prince of theives was interesting with the crusades and jail scenes and MAID MARION WAS HIS COUSIN?!!!!!! I know that was common back then but this is cinema, clean that stuff up!  Men in Tights was cool, and Dave Chappelle got his start as well, but of course it got carried away.  I never saw the stuff with Errol Flynn.

Historical flicks with innaccuracies?  Well I would think The Patriot would have had a few.  Did Glory have inaccuracies?  Has anyone seen The Alamo?  Is there a basement in the Alamo?  Ask Pee-Wee Herman.

Personally

gamerarocks's picture

I attribute giants, dragons, and other mythological beasts to our forefathers attempts to piece together sense out of bones/skeletons they found.

Robin Hood has been beyond played out.  Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland set the benchmark long ago, and that effort hasn't been close to being challenged since.  Russell Crowe (and yes the director from the Russell Crowe 'Gladiator') have a lot of baggage with me for the historical abomination that was Gladiator (yes the roman one still) and although I'll probably see it, I'll wait until it arrives on DVD to rent at this point.

Pretty much all historical flicks have innaccuracies, whether for convenience, budget, lack of interest, lack of research, or whatever.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails, sometimes it doesn't matter, and sometimes it can't save wretchedness.  In the case of Severed Ways, the attempt at costuming to make the vikings look like vikings made no difference; it simply had the appeal of a leper, or Kate Gosselin.  Oops, unnecessary attempt at a distinction.  Anyway, innaccuracies are a matter of what you can tolerate personally and what end a movie's enjoyment.  Kind of like Spielberg retouching Star Wars.  It either works for you or makes it suck.

One out of four people is freakishly stupid. If three of your friends are normal, then it's you.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.