Vikings

When I was in primary school, I developed a fascination with Vikings. This is why I went to visit the Jorvik Viking Centre in York on my recent road trip around England.

So when I noticed that there was a show named Vikings on Lovefilm Instant, I got excited and decided to watch it as surely 4,083 Lovefilm viewers who have given it an average rating of 4.5 stars can’t be wrong.

The show is exclusively on Lovefilm, as are some new shows that Amazon has commissioned in a move to try to capture part of the TV market and compete with Netflix. Netflix have recently acquired the rights to the latest series of Arrested Development which is a much smarter move as it already has an established fanbase. Lovefilm are gambling on the fact that the fact the show is created by Michael Hirst who also produced the successful Tudors and the general appeal of the era.

I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with Amazon. Lovefilm has been a blessing. Living on my own, it keeps me occupied when I get a bit bored. I am able to stream a random film on a whim. I also love my Kindle. I didn’t think I would, but it’s amazing to be able to download a book and start reading it 30 seconds later. It’s also a lot easier to hold than a big book and the fact that lots of classics I haven’t read are available to download for free appeals to the snob in me who wants to have read these classics.

However, I hate the fact that Amazon is killing off books, bookshops and other local stores and has barely paid any tax. I’m conflicted. Anyway, I digress.

So when, I was at school, I liked the Vikings. They had cool hats, cool boats and even cooler beards. Along with the fact that I need to hide my bum-chin, I think Vikings may have been my inspiration for having had a massive beard throughout most of my adult life.

Watching the show, I discovered that either our teachers glossed over or I forgot about the fact that Vikings spent most of their time raping and pillaging. This now sits uneasy with me. There wasn’t too much mention of it in Jorvik either.

I’m not saying that this is predominant in the show, as it also focuses on the internal politics of the Northmen, but it is a large part of what happens over the course of the nine episodes.

To give a summary of the show, without meaning to give away any spoilers, it focuses on Ragnar Lodbrok who frankly is the only character’s name I can remember as it is the only one that is said over and over. Ragnar may or may not have been a genuine historical figure but is known for his raids upon the British Isles.

He is obsessed with going west, so much so that I was expecting him to start blasting out the Village People hit. He convinces a bunch of his compatriots to join him and go against the orders of the Earl who forbade it. Upon arrival in Britain, they find a town of priests who they barbarically slay with Ragnar capturing one and eventually turning him into his slave.

The priest acts as the voice of the 21st Century Western moral compass, discussing with Ragnar the issues of rape and slavery. I’ve been struggling to decide whether this character is necessary. It feels like it is spoon feeding us what we should think rather than allowing us to make our own judgements.

Later in the series, there is a baby whose father is unknown. Rather than get in Jeremy Kyle, they claim it is a god who fathered it. This is symptomatic of the show where it sprinkles mentions of Norse gods and mythology throughout the show.

Some parts of it are fact, some are fiction and it can be a difficult line to tread. The show is reasonably enjoyable to watch but I think they are wobbling along the line and perhaps by doing so they will please neither viewers who want historical accuracy nor those who want a bloodthirsty drama.

Vikings is enjoyable enough but not worthy of 4.5 stars and has made me reassess my fondness for Vikings.

Please don’t waste your time watching Man on a Ledge

The cover is actually the best thing about the film

Lovefilm recently sent me the film ‘Man On A Ledge.’ I don’t recall ever adding it to my rental list and now I am beginning to suspect that someone who dislikes me hacked into my account and added it on there.

The first time the disc came through, it was unplayable. I should have taken this as sign. Instead, I returned it to them with a note advising them of this and they sent me another copy above my rental allowance which was nice of them.

I watched the film last Sunday and it was one hour and forty two minutes of my life that I am never getting back so I thought I would write this to prevent anyone else wasting their time watching this piece of drivel.

To give you an idea of why you might be suckered into watching this, here are a few excepts from reviews on Lovefilm:

“This clever thriller takes you on an entertaining ride and isn’t all it seems to be.”
“Intriguing thriller”
“This film, with a solid cast and a decent script, is original, intriguing, fast-paced and genuinely entertaining. I really, really enjoyed it.”
“Such a clever thought out plot!! no dull moments, a very good, gripping film, really enjoyed it. Would even watch it again”

All of these, coupled with an average rating of three and a half stars is probably enough to convince you to watch it.
The trouble is, it’s all a bunch of lies from a bunch of lying liars. If you genuinely haven’t been put off by my rants so far, I should warn you that the next paragraph will contain spoilers. Ok, here is the plot of the film:

A man is imprisoned for stealing a diamond that was never actually stolen. He escapes whilst attending his brother’s funeral and stands on the ledge of a hotel room threatening to jump using the media circus as a distraction whilst his brother and his girlfriend (who predictably become his fiancĂ©e in the final scene of the film) break into the building next door 

That’s it. Ok, there are other things happening as well, but I don’t think that counts as being “a clever thought out plot.” Seriously, I could get a bunch of eight-year olds to write a film and it would be more exciting. 

I don’t ever remember watching a film where I cared so little about every single character. None of them had anything interesting about them or were portrayed with any sort of empathy.

Then the script… the dialogue is so poor, it is almost as if the person who is writing it has never had an actual conversation in their life and had to guess at what people say in conversations.

And the acting is so so so horrendous. When I was 11, I played King Herod in my school’s nativity. My evil laugh was so poor that the audience laughed at it. In comparison to the actors in this film, however, that was a performance of De Niro or Pacino standards. 

The really frustrating thing is that I can’t stop watching something. I’m a bit OCD and when I start something, I have to finish it. I don’t know why but I do. So, after realising about 2 minutes into the film that it was going to be dull as dishwater, I knew I had a further 100 minutes of torture to endue.


I cannot stress enough how bad this film is. This has beaten You Got Served which I once forced Lewis to watch (possibly as punishment) when we were both off sick from work one day. I think by the end of that film, we were both ready to call into our respective offices and tell them that we’d had a miraculous recovery and were on our way in.

This film was so bad that it left me wishing that I was the one up on the ledge so that I could jump and end the torture.