The Northman

Eggers doesn’t get in a hurry and he gets off on the symbolism of the numerous dream sequences, but he never finds the time to explain and depict the key twists in the protagonist’s decisions in proportion to their importance. This is due either to unfortunate editing or to the screenplay by a filmmaker who knows how to do a lot of things, except for the most important thing, which is to tell the story in a dramaturgically complex way and to work sensitively with its motifs. The Northman entertained me with its spirit of a bloodthirsty wolf, visuals, distinctive cinematic world and cruelty of the likes that we don’t see in the current mainstream due to its incorrectness. But the more time that passes since I saw it, the more I see it rather as a boldly presented B-movie with embarrassing content than as an “art-house epic”. (21/04/2022)

A distinctive creative vision. A dark, brooding historical fresco full of evil, prophecy, violence and pagan gods. Formally, everything is fine, script-wise and dramaturgically it is not so well put together. Some story twists and character motives are insufficiently explained and grasped, so the attempt at an artsy historical drama doesn't quite work, although it should be noted that it is presented in an unusually bold, uncompromisingly dark way, with no shortage of violence and brutality. But that alone is not enough. (17/12/2022)

Eggers’s take on Hamlet conceived as Conan the Barbarian with a bit of Norse mythology thrown in. This also describes the reason that The Northman is fascinating and why, at the same time, it doesn’t achieve the aura of revelation like the director’s previous two films. Whereas The Witch and The Lighthouse were supremely distinctive and original works, The Northman remains a variation on a familiar story. Therefore, viewers may be less absorbed in the narrative and less impressed by the wow effect that they would get from watching something essentially new and more aware of the finesse of execution and adaptive shifts. On the other hand, Eggers’s formalistic signature – from the well-thought-out long shots to the expressive design – is awe-inspiring in and of itself. The film also successfully evokes intense physical experiences by drawing viewers into a world of pagan mythology and merciless brutality. Eggers has stripped Hamlet of its Shakespearean literal insight into the protagonist, but that doesn’t mean that he has dispensed with its tragic or even topical elements. The fatal flaw of his Prince Amleth does not consist in the character’s indecision or any other character trait. Eggers bases his narrative on the contrast between personal will and supposed predestination, which he reveals as an extended arm of the patriarchy as a system of hereditary egocentrism built on self-destructive ideals of masculinity. These are motifs that Eggers had already explored in his previous films, though it is necessary to recognise that he depicted them there in more dreadful and disturbing outlines. (17/04/2022)

An animalistic raw Hamlet revenge fest that takes a considerable step back after a riveting opening half hour. Not necessarily to a worse film, no, but to a different one. For me it's a shame, it looked better in the first part, and in the second, it has too much competition with many similarly conceived films. Either way, there's no need to worry, even the more audience-friendly Eggers is still enough of a maverick with a vision that's not for everyone. Though they could (and should) have avoided that “Snyder look” at the end. (14/04/2022)