IMDb > Hammer of the Gods (2013) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Hammer of the Gods
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Hammer of the Gods More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
Index 54 reviews in total 

69 out of 91 people found the following review useful:

A Solid British Film No Less Historically Accurate than "Vikings".

7/10
Author: alan-51-111974 from Hong Kong
17 August 2013

I'm Welsh, so forgive me if I fail the US spell-check.

Firstly I'm bewildered, amused and dismayed by many of the comments: "Funny British Accents" (they're English accents), followed up by "Would be OK in Trainspotting II" (which is a Scottish film with Scottish accents), yes there are three countries in Great Britain. It's not called Great because it's great, it's to distinguish it from Brittany in France, formerly known as Little Britain after some Britons fled the Saxons and colonised the area. There's a bit of history for you.

Then we get into the historical accuracy of it all... and "Vikings" is held up as a better example, when most of "Vikings" is historically wrong.

Unlike "Vikings" this is a fantasy, it's not supposed to represent history, it's also not a Hollywood film, it's a "British" (English) one, that's why everyone talks with a "Funny British Accent".

There's also a fair amount of Old English and a snippet of Old Welsh, I don't think I've heard those languages used on film before.

It's main flaws are in trying to pander to the U.S. market (make it simpler and dumber)... yet it has strong performances throughout, a great lead in Charlie Bewley, fantastic settings, a solid although somewhat bipolar score, solid cinematography and a half-decent script.

People lap this stuff up in Game of Thrones yet as soon as you fix something which is obviously a fantasy to a point in history it get's pulled apart?

It's a solid 7. I'd have given it a 6 yet I find my patriotism roused by indignation at ignorance.

If you want to find something that completely lacks historical accuracy, only happened a couple of hundred years ago yet is revered as a great film, please watch Lincoln.

Was the above review useful to you?

44 out of 67 people found the following review useful:

No thunder...

3/10
Author: stefgrig from Greece
2 June 2013

I tried to like "Hammer of the gods", tried really hard. But it reminded me of a bad version of the excellent series Vikings, having none of what is good about it.

No character is developed enough, the action feels cheap and forced. Focus is lost constantly throughout the movie , and the story lacks cohesion. Violence serves no purpose, it is uninspired and dull , even disturbing at times. It is very disappointing to see a classic story and a chance for something good , wasted as much.

Acting is not so bad, I kinda liked Eliot Cowan (Hakan) and Clive Standen (Hagen) whose role is the same as in Vikings, and hes rather good at it. The rest felt direction-less and anemic.

They should have copied Vikings more.

Was the above review useful to you?

56 out of 92 people found the following review useful:

Absolutely rubbish!

Author: rightwingisevil from United States
4 June 2013

don't even think this film worth writing a review. the whole movie is full of endless but clueless killings, weapons such as knives, swords, axes, daggers....except guns or machine guns are ridiculously used to create absolutely purposeless close combats. clueless masks wearing by clueless foes, modern-day costumes, haircuts....whatever you want to see are here. the dialog also put you forward to modern time, because even the word 'logic' is used by Odin believers who use Greek philosophic reasoning. this film obviously is cashing in with the hot TV series 'Viking(s) to lure more viewers, only the main character has been replaced by a guy who doesn't have blue eyes, long braid and rarely sneering with a ironic cunning smile. but his best friend, his loyal brother-in-arms, who later was killed by his sword, is the same actor who played similar role in 'Vikings'. this pathetic adapted copy also clueless put a absolutely pointless female character in it. the only thing i appreciated very much is the scenery, the beautiful cinematography that shows us the amazing wildness of the mountains, high plateaus, lakes....the cloud, the mist...they are just beautiful (my 2 stars is for the cinematography only) until ruined by this endless killings, battles and close combats. my English grammar turned even worse just by writing this pointless review for a pointless film. i rest my case.

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 48 people found the following review useful:

Better than I thought it would be after reading these reviews!

6/10
Author: steeledan
1 July 2013

I don't understand the rating this movie has on here right now! This movie is as good as sooo many movies in this genre with much better scores. (i.e. Kingdom of Heaven, King Arthur, Robin Hood, etc...)

Yes, okay, the casting choices weren't great (the main actors were great, although unknown, but the female roles were all poorly cast)and the story was, a little, thin, but this movie gains points from me for it's atheist message.

It was also shot very cool and the soundtrack was AWESOME. I hope the success of this film encourages more independent style period pieces in a market dominated by the big companies.

Was the above review useful to you?

30 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

A gritty Viking quest story, only failing to entertain

6/10
Author: siderite from Romania
2 June 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The film started well with a bunch of Vikings coming to reinforce their military presence in Britain. Immediately, though, they learn that the king is dying, hence the quest. The actors were a bit weird, but I thought it lent veracity to the whole misfit Viking group concept. There were some intrigues and possible betrayals, beautiful scenery, actual Viking behaviour (haven't met any, but I could believe this was something they did) and high production values. It was all set for greatness.

And then it faltered. I don't know exactly when it did, but it did and the rather brutal finale did almost nothing to shake the feeling that something is terribly off. Perhaps the different pieces of the puzzle that didn't fit together was the problem. Indeed, looking back, almost none of the perils through which the group passes are actually leading the story. It feels like a bad horror movie where people die one by one for no real reason other than to leave the guy and the girl alone in the end.

Bottom line: too bad that from something that could have easily become a cult hit, like The 13th Warrior, it went to a sub par film. And the ending was abysmal.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Brutal Journey to Hell

6/10
Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
7 December 2013

In 870 AD, in Britain, the Vikings under the leadership of King Bagsecg (James Cosmo) are in war against the Saxons. When he is mortally wounded in a battle, he summons his younger son, Prince Steinar (Charlie Bewley), to meet his to other sons Harald (Finlay Robertson) and Vali (Theo Barklem-Biggs) at his death bed. King Bagsecg asks to Stainar to seek out his missing brother Hakan the Ferrocious (Elliot Cowan) to return with the next king of his people. Stainer travels with his friends Hagen (Clive Standen), Grim (Michael Jibson) and Jokul (Guy Flanagan) and his half-brother Vali to search the warrior Ivar (Ivan Kaye) that might know the whereabouts of Hakan. When they meet Ivar, he joins the group with his mate Agnes (Alexandra Dowling) in a brutal journey to hell.

"Hammer of the Gods" is a weird and violent movie about the quest of a young prince to find his older brother that has been expelled from the kingdom by his father. His unexpected discovery of the truth about his family changes his behavior. Unfortunately the movie is too brutal and the choreography of the gore battle scenes is very poor with successive cuts and very few warrior due to the low-budget. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Martelo dos Deuses" ("Hammer of the Gods")

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Well worth the watch!

7/10
Author: Rickardo Crainium from United States
21 October 2013

I have know idea why there are so many negative reviews of this movie. I found it to be very entertaining. I was not looking for a history lesson, and things did not need to be historically accurate. The movie was suspenseful and had a horror flick feel to it. If you want historically correct films of vikings then watch public broadcasting or go to the library. Anyone who gives this movie a bad rating because it is not "Correct," should have not been able to submit a review, because of their anal-retentiveness! If you read my, and others reviews, who have given this movie a good rating then watch it for its entertainment value and not to nit-pick it for perfect historically correctness!

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Why so many negative reviews?

8/10
Author: wogelberg from Sweden
3 June 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I liked it. It is not a Hollywood movie, it is a story of one guys rise as a warrior/becoming a psychopath. And what is all this about the characters doesn't develop, its a one man show. The rest of the cast are pretty much there to die. (Ok, except for the protagonist, there is one character that doesn't die.) Its a viking movie... They are not going to hug and develop as human being. It's decent acting, decent budget, and the protagonist has a character development into insanity that is believable. You want man crying and big battles, go watch some Braveheart. I need another line, so the movie didn't explain well who is brother/half brother with who. And who is their mothers. Yes, the ending becomes more or less disturbing depending on how they are related..:)

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 50 people found the following review useful:

won't hold a candle to viking heritage

2/10
Author: davish_wulf-1 from Portugal
3 June 2013

Quite surprised to see at least 2 actors from the TV show "Vikings" in here (Clive Standen & Ivan Kaye), the comparison is unavoidable and this doesn't old a candle to that show quality or to any viking movie made until now.

First, the main actor can't act, has an unpleasant aura to him that makes him unlikeable from the beginning & looks like a misplaced "David Beckham" in the woods.

I have no idea how Clive Standen got into this, since he is clearly the best actor for the main role but the movie is so damn awful in lack of plot, meaning & pace that this was completely avoidable in his career.

What they paid to the great James Cosmo for entering this is a big question mark, since the man made more Epic movies (and good ones) than anyone around here.

Action scenes are a mess - terrible fight sequences shot in a portable cam style (the old trick to disguise the mess of it all), story is poor, badly written & lacks direction.

Wardrobe is a mess and you practically don't see any real viking building around (the ridiculous tents they used were hilarious to say the least).

I get the feeling they tried to make a "Centurion" style of movie, with "vikings" in the middle.... but failed entirely to catch my attention from the beginning.

At several points in the movie the constant shouting becomes annoying and was a torture seeing it to the end.

I'm glad the Viking period is finally getting some attention in movies, series & good documentaries, but this movie is a total mess.

Want a good viking movie? Try Vikings with Kirk Douglas, or 13th Warrior, "Beowulf & Grendel" or the great "Vikings" TV series who's series 1 just ended, but avoid this like the plague.

Lets hope Mel Gibson gives "Berserker" a shot, now there's a director worth of the word "Epic" & able to put some sense, feeling & great fight sequences in a movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Just another but just not as good

4/10
Author: f_agerskov from Denmark
6 June 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

To begin with I liked it, and i must admit, although I would prefer the protagonist's hair to not look like he was going to the club and rather like he was going to war, I think it was necessary because of the hectic filming during fight scenes. If there would have been one more guy with long hair, although you may base it on their weapons, I would have lost track of it.

During the movie I grew more fond of it because of the few "obvious" things that would happen, but never did. (like the woman they save, but end up killing because she bitchslaps Grim - or being drugged by a homosexual pedophile but not even getting raped?!)And the way the other characters in the companionship die is also kinda exciting. This made it seem like a "medieval" movie directed in a way I don't recall having seen before. But then came the ridiculous Saxons with their ridiculous masks and costumes and from then on I only think it got worse. The last third part of the movie is never really interesting enough to keep up with other parts of the movie, and I am fed up with the stereotypical view on British barbarians and their costumes. The fake dirt and leather is just too obvious and it also affected my view on the costumes in the rest of the movie, which I started to hate. In some way I wish I would have just stopped the movie 2/3 through... unfortunately I did not. I choose to give it four stars because of a fantastic scenography and the few surprises it also had in it. But not more because I have also seen King Arthur, Centurion and The Eagle, which i find better than this one, although knowing they have not had the same budget, the plot and especially the ending should have been better for me to give more stars. My wish for the next movie about ancient barbarians would be more realistic costumes and maybe researching their fashion as well. For example, historians know that Vikings were known to be very conscious about fashion and their haircut was typically long in the front covering their forehead, while short in the back. I hope Mel Gibson and Berserker might do this, thinking about Apocalypto in which Mel did a great job describing the Mayans.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history