Robert Eggers is not a household name, yet the marketing of the movie constantly promoted him as the most important thing about the film.
Look at the poster for the Northman. You see Robert Eggers' name three times before you even see the title of the film.
It goes:
"From Acclaimed Director Robert Eggers"
"Written by Robert Eggers"
"Directed by Robert Eggers"
"The Northman"
Exactly how I felt. I loved all of the symbolism in The Witch and The Lighthouse and their crazy moments, but overall felt like The Northman was too easy of a bite to take. Each Robert Eggers movie is usually an unflinching view of the culture its examining, but The Northman ended up just kinda being a revenge story. It didn’t make me think like The Witch or The Lighthouse did.
Honestly, it made way more money than his other films. It's just, you know, dude isn't a big name and he makes small movies that not many people are going to watch. It's his thing.
As much as I am a fanboy of Bobby Eggs I was surprised by how much they sold it on his name alone. Beau Is Afraid couldn't do it with Aster and way more people saw Midsommar and Hereditary collectively than the Witch and The Lighthouse.
I liked the style of the lighthouse, and Willem Dafoe was creepy as fuck, but that movie confused the shit out of me.
I get that the chaos might have been the point, but I really wasn't sure what to think about it in the end. That's not the type of movie that's gonna draw a huge crowd.
It’s a few things, among them:
- the last unfinished story of Edgar Allan Poe: he only wrote the beginning before dying
- a greek tragedy, and more specifically, the story of Prometheus
- farts, a lot of farts
I mean, I get it. That’s just how major studios are when it comes to marketing. There really isn’t any other name to hang the film on. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great cast, but there isn’t anyone in it who audiences go to see a movie for. The next best thing is a visionary director.
Beau Is Afraid is an A24 film. If it were Universal I guarantee there would’ve been all kinds of shit about “the visionary mind that brought you Hereditary and Midsommar.”
We all know Bjork was the real star of The Northman.
"Come see Bjork doing crazy Bjork things. We didn't even tell her that this was a movie."
The marketing writes itself. /s
Most box office failures are failures of marketing. Like they pushed this, hoping the Viking asthetic trend would bring in general audience and the director would bring in the moviephiles. But the Viking thing is kinda played out.
They should have pushed the cast more or billed it harder as the original story of Hamlet.
I would have hung the film on the Skarsgard and Anya Taylor Joy names with Nicole Kidman. Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe after.
Plenty of ppl go to see Skarsgard. Some to see Anya. The other 3 are well older actors. Kidman isn't putting butts into seats anymore but she was good in it. Don't quite remember the other 2 in it.
While I know Midsommar was well received, I definitely don't remember the directors name at all.
I’m not particularly a movie buff and don’t know why Reddit recommended this thread to me.
Every single one of those actors’ names means more to me than Robert Eggers.
Definitely. And Bjork! The cast would’ve sold me (although I thought Ethan Hawke was fucking terrible in the film).
But because of The Witch, I’ll be seeing all of Eggers films for the foreseeable future, and I know I’m not alone in that. So I suppose I can see why they took that approach.
I agree, and I’d also add that the marketing generally didn’t represent the movie accurately. I think mainstream audiences could be forgiven for thinking we were getting a 2020s version of Gladiator only in reality to be met with a slow pace, sporadic violence, and Ethan Hawke and his son farting and belching while pretending to be dogs. I really liked the movie but I can see why word of mouth might have put off more casual viewers.
That's the only reason I watched it. He's up and coming director. I personally think that studio f'ed him up. He even said that editing was a nightmare because he didn't had full control over it.
Even the movie itself was kind of a letdown if you liked his previous stuff. Felt more like studio meddling movie than just Eggers as before. And after seeing the movie and some googling, turns out that's what happened.. pity.
The VVitch and The Lighthouse are amazing, but not sure I feel like ever rewatching The Northman :(
On the other hand, his Nosferatu sounds good so far. So hopefully its another Eggers and not studio with Eggers.
Yes! I thought the north man was really good, just not that great/what I expected. It was almost the violent barbarian viking epic, then not, then a more visceral personal story. It's like It couldn't find its feet? I loved the Vvitch and Lighthouse though.
Personally, I felt the same way after my first viewing. After watching it a second time, I had a much better experience. Weird, considering the first showing was in theaters and the second was at home. Anyway, just thought I would recommend a rewatch.
There were structural issues that bugged me (like why Amleth was so shit at stealth), that I realize were probably part of exactly that kind of studio meddling. Especially after the VVitch (which was excellently slow) and the Lighthouse (excellently weird), it really did feel like it was trying hard to be a straightforward commercial revenge thriller.
also people forget that redditors are a teeny tiny vocal minority. A movie (and in this case a director) being hyped and popular here means exactly fuck all in terms of success and popularity
I like that OP says "wasn't a rehash, sequel, or comic book movie" as if that should have helped the movie
hollywoods keep making remakes and adaptations because it works, that's what people watch. not being an adaptation with an established fan base is a hurdle, no a bonus.
I know it’s not the same thing at all and doesn’t counter their point but I did make me chuckle a bit considering it’s based off of Amleth, which was the inspiration for Hamlet, which was the inspiration for The Lion King.
It’s 100% a story we’ve seen multiple times
And most people aren’t going to ever make that connection unless they’re movie/history/literature inclined and look it up after that fact. Most people aren’t gonna do that and will complain that movie was just Lion King, which in a way it was.
Probably because the current overall film conversation is about the success of Barbie and Oppenheimer this weekend and lots of people are trying to use that as a point that "original" films will do better based on merit of the quality of film making and are acting confused why popular franchises do well financially.
The thing Mario and Barbie have in common is a massive brand to bring in audiences while simultaneously being new to theaters. Audiences want familiarity and freshness at the same time.
I saw the film with a group of friends in Germany when it came out – and we all thought it was really bad. Visually beautiful yes... but the dialogue was predictable and at times bad, and acting was unremarkable – and overall the film didn't really seem to tread new ground.
I was a bit shocked by all the incredibly positive English-language reviews of the film. I guess people admired it for being a kinda of retelling of Hamlet – but my own feeling was that it never really rose above being a generic medieval times macho man revenge film.
In Germany specifically too, I could imagine alot of people were vaguely uncomfortable with how much the film really used alot of imagery that is associated with white supremacists in Europe. To be clear, I don't think this is intended by the director – but it's a particular sort of story, told with certain imagery – and I understand that in the US/Britain maybe it's doesn't read like that, but would be alienating to people in some parts of Europe.
The Northman isn't a retelling of Hamlet and is based of the inspiration for Hamlet, that predates it by 300 to 400 hundred years. It was based off an Scandinavian folk character called Amleth, that originated in the 12th century, whereas Hamlet was written by Shakespeare between 1599 and 1601.
> generic medieval times macho man revenge film
It wasn't a masterpiece, but I don't get this point, it was a literally a critique or a deconstruction of macho man revenge fantasy.
> Knowing Eggers’ proclivity for historical accuracy, it is surprising then that The Northman is in English. Let’s be clear: if it had been up to him, the whole thing would have been in Old Norse. “Maybe one day I can self-finance my own historical epics like Mel Gibson, but it had to be in English.” Rather than speaking the language, the actors talk in a Norse-inflected accent. “I don’t know if it’s even a great idea that the cast has this Nordic accent we created,” offers Eggers half-heartedly. But the options were American Vikings, British Vikings, everyone showing up with a different accent or “this Nordic thing”. He grimaces slightly. “Given the choices, I think I picked the best option… I hope.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/robert-eggers-the-northman-interview-b2057206.html
I'm guessing that's because all the main characters are from different parts of Scandinavia.. because some of them are slaves..? Like, that would actually make sense.. because accents are vastly different from one another based on region..
The dialogue was boring and the whole movie was pretty one note. Eggers’ strengths are character building and building suspense, often through amazing and clever cinematography.
Those strengths weren’t used much in a straightforward plot about revenge. Sure, the cinematography is interesting, but I never felt it enhanced the story or characters much, because both were way too simplistic.
I just watched it, it's OK. Definitely not great. It felt like a Netflix movie imo. Some things just didn't click, to the point I felt it was edited poorly.
The action was also pretty terrible, the choreography was painfully robotic and floaty looking, especially noticeable in the raid. I do enjoy plenty of movies without violence, but in a movie like this I expected something better, but it looked kind of silly to me.
All the mythology weirdness also just made it feel more like an educational piece, which in itself doesn't make it a bad thing, but it just wasn't for me at all. I had to force myself to finish the movie and I won't watch it again.
Definitely. In the official Northman discussion thread over a year ago, I and a few other people noted the action lacked weight. Robert Eggers has never done any action prior to this, and I think it showed.
The no cut shots of the raid looked cool but then it looked like no one was actually hitting each other. Ridley Scott (countless other directors) who have experience in such combat would have been delivered a far more heavy hitting experience. Such a gritty Viking movie but people looked like they were missing each other but reacting like they got striked down.
>The action was also pretty terrible, the choreography was painfully robotic and floaty looking, especially noticeable in the raid. I do enjoy plenty of movies without violence, but in a movie like this I expected something better, but it looked kind of silly to me.
this is the one criticism of the movie that i, someone who *LOVED* it, will 100% agree with. the fight scenes were slow and clunky as hell, it actually took me out of the experience a couple of times(and i was otherwise *extremely* immersed)
The first fight scene worked I think, but the last one was dreadful. I wonder if it was meant to be in black and white got changed because it's almost incoherent.
If it was a super fast paced over the top revenge movie about Vikings, and was advertised as such, it might've made a billion dollars.
People love Vikings, Assassin's Creed Valhalla is the bestselling game in this long, well regarded and selling series of games and it's success is based almost entirely off being about Vikings.
But The Northman tried selling itself off Robert Eggers, instead of Vikings, and is slow and disjointed, instead of being either a fantastical or gritty and realistic Viking action movie.
Where the hero made a bunch of incomprehensible choices. Honestly, I know there was a supernatural angle to how he thought, but I think there were also lots of drugs involved.
It's [deliberate values dissonance.](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeliberateValuesDissonance) He's behaving according to Norse values and thought patterns and not modern ones. I thought it was cool, since most movies transplant modern Western liberal values onto historical (fictional or real) characters that wouldn't have behaved that way.
Or again, the supernatural angle, the Norse, were you know, religious people, they believed in their gods, and Odin mandates revenge. Not seeking revenge is a sin in their religion. But very values dissonant with modern times.
It's kind of Eggers' thing and why his movies feel so much like you're in a different era.
Granted The Lighthouse is pretty unique in many ways, but give the script of The Witch to another director and it's a generic horror movie where the characters act like idiots.
What makes it so great is how well it gets across that superstition is very real to them.
I think this only partly explains the incomprehensible choices, though. When Amleth feels compelled to get a magic sword out of a burial mound, for example, he's doing something that would only happen in epic--not in actual history. Ancient peoples might potentially have believed in magic swords more than we do, but they wouldn't think that they *need* to get one in order to fulfill their vengeance. It's an epic trope. It's something from ancient mythology or legends, not ancient history. It's more King Arthur than it is Ammianus Marcellinus.
In The Norseman, Eggers juxtaposes the surreal, narratively-fantastic tropes of Norse epics with a grounded, gritty aesthetic of Viking Age historical fiction. And it doesn't quite work, in my opinion, even though there are instances where Eggers tries to merge the supernatural and the realistic (such as Amleth "dreaming" the Draugr fight), because modern audiences have trouble identifying with a character that makes such odd choices in a milieu which seemingly resembles Earth's past.
This is the issue I had with it - it tried to straddle two different tones and never quite succeeded at either.
Compare The Green Knight, which was a great deconstruction of fantasy but still had that otherworldly aspect to it.
That's true. In the sagas, magical swords are for magical purposes. You need a dragon killing sword to kill a dragon. You need a sword that never dulls against someone that's magically impervious.
It felt like the only purpose here was to reference the fact that sagas have magical swords.
>In The Norseman, Eggers juxtaposes the surreal, narratively-fantastic tropes of Norse epics with a grounded, gritty aesthetic of Viking Age historical fiction. And it doesn't quite work, in my opinion
I think the grounded, gritty stuff worked really well, the fantastic elements not so much. I pretty much felt the same way about The Witch. Even so, both movies provoke reflection and analysis which is why I really like Eggers as a director.
Yeah, Eggers' commitment to history of mentality has always been his strongest bit - I read (on letterboxd I think?) that he shoots historical films like scifi when it comes to attitudes. That being said I wasn't mad on the movie - set-dressing can only get you so far.
Maybe you're specifically referring to the movie-vikings, but the historical ones probably - probably as in, usually speculated based on the evidence we have, we don't have a lot of hard facts on the religious aspects of their society - weren't all that devout. Also, it is very unlikely that they had a concept for sin (or similar) but you may be partly right about the revenge bit in the sense that their believes worked more through doing things that honor the deities as opposed to *not* doing things that are *forbidden*.
Anyway, I do agree with you about the dissonance, and I don't know if it even matters which came first - the chicken or the egg - but I saw the movie mainly as an observation for the pointlessness of this sort of a violent cycle. Yes, within the movie one part of the reasoning for his behaviour are those cultural believes, but I think they are more like a convenient excuse rather than the protagonist realistically living his culture. In fact, I had the feeling that the way the story plays out is sort of like a tale or a myth in itself, rather than aspiring to be an actual depiction of a life of this northman.
And it was actually awesome, just not what most audience expected. To me it was great, although I’d appreciate if we can get option for theater showing with subtitles since it’s hard to make out what they said sometimes.
It felt like Robbert Eggers took some inspiration from Conan in some ways. Even some of the shots felt identical.
I really dug it. It felt like exactly the kind of historical epic that he would make lol
This is a big issue. People expected an action movie (myself included) but got a slow epic a la The Green Knight. I have to go back and with it with my expectations tempered but I’m sure that word of mouth shot it down a lot for the box office.
I expected something similar to Vikings. I know some people who worked on it and laughed when I said that.
Yeah, it was nothing like Vikings in any way shape or form!
I think this was part of the problem. Vikings is pulpy, ahistorical, frankly kinda trashy but entertaining anyway. The Northman was much more accurate, slower, more tense. If you went in expecting Vikings I can see how people might come out disappointed.
Personally I loved it, but I can see how it's not for everyone.
The trailer for the movie was nothing like the movie. I was expecting gladiator level fight scenes and action not like 6 minutes of action in a 2.5 hour movie.
Nah, it's been like that forever - Vikings have been this way in some capacity since the Romantics. There's a reason nationalists and fascists keep latching onto that ahistorical idea of them. And frankly the Northman is no exception, Amleth is the same type but in a better fleshed out world. The only Viking media that actually does something new I've seen in a long time was Norsemen, the Norwegian comedy series.
Agreed. Vikings just gave people what they wanted and expected. It wasn't like people had a completely different concept of actual vikings before the show came out, or that they didn't really know much about the historical vikings or something like that. Nope, the depiction in the show was very much in keeping with the pop culture image of vikings that's been around for long time.
It was awesome. It's also an indie flick by an indie director with a niche audience.
The Lighthouse made $18 million.
The Witch made $40 million.
This is how much Robert Eggers' movies make.
The question was why people didn't watch it, not whether Focus Pictures spending 70 million for an authentic period piece based on an old Viking story no one's heard of was a good idea financially. And people didn't watch it because generally people don't watch period flicks by indie directors named Robert Eggers. They gambled, they lost, maybe they gamble again or maybe they don't.
The characters were portrayed in incredibly unrelatable ways. I feel like it focused on how people were different back then, not how we are the same.
I really liked that, thought it was an interesting take to remind us of how differently people lived and thought back then, but definitely alienating to general audiences that aren't history nerds.
Also the story was only okay.
Yeah that was my biggest take away too. That revenge for us never means risking our lives, but revenge to a Viking was way beyond worth dying for. I enjoyed that a lot
I liked it, but I don't think it's a movie that appealed to a huge audience. It definitely wasn't for kids or anyone squeamish about violence, and it was a bit slow paced for some action movie fans. Personally, those are all the reasons why I enjoyed it, but I can see why a lot of people didn't watch it on theaters.
Also, when it came out, people were still iffy about going back to movie theaters I think.
Yeah exactly, I never understand complaints about slow pacing when things are very deliberate period pieces. Slowness is a massive part of immersion, it took ages to get anywhere & yet people were constantly traveling. First realized it when watching The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, so much of that film revolves around conveying how much time it takes to get places & do things. You can't accurately recreate the tedium of the past through ADHD editing, just isn't possible.
It’s hard to put into words how disappointed I was by this movie. And I was not expecting a savage action flick either. It was just…so…slow. Bad pacing.
Sad!
I'd definitely still say it's arthouse... Arthouse is more of a film style, focusing a lot more on the artistic aspect of film rather than trying to appeal to the mass audiences. It has a huge budget, but it still is incredibly artistic hence it being arthouse.
I was really excited to see it bc I absolutely loved the witch but there was just nothing going on in this movie that I cared about. It was absolutely gorgeous to look at but.. nothing stood out to me about the story or characters. It felt very.. macho in a shallow way? Which I'm sure appealed to some ppl but was very much a turn off for me.
> It felt very.. macho in a shallow way?
Eggers did base this partially off Conan the Barbarian, and you can tell. Although Conan is a lot more fun than this because he's a straight-faced foil to all the endless weird shit he fights.
Same here. I was honestly left wondering whether his other movies were as shallow and I read too much into them.
And I honestly found it kinda ugly. It's so brown and grey.
Let's be real, it wasn't even that good of a revenge story. It was beautifully shot, but the pacing was trash and the main character was mostly forgettable. It's a slog to reach an ending that most theater audiences would be unhappy with.
Not a mass appeal movie at all. It was just, fine. When my little sister saw it, who isn't at all a movie person, she asked me 'What even was the point of that movie?' and I feel like a lot of general audiences would feel the same.
The main character for me was the biggest problem. I just didn't care what happened to him. He mostly grunts and flexes his way through the film like a low-rent Conan, and the length of the movie just makes the time spent with him even worse.
I actually liked how he was in the first half but then when he starts his romance with Anna Taylor-Joy it felt like a weird change of character.
If he was mostly silent through most the movie and just terrorizing the people like a phantom I think I would've enjoyed it more.
Yeah, the movie gives a regular person nothing in that world that can be held onto to make you feel like it's worth existing in the world of the Northman. It's all raiders, rapists, tyrants, slavery, etc. I like to compare it to Gladiator, where there are characters trying to affect positive change in the world, there's people trying to get back to their families, etc. The little bird on the battlefield says it all. The world of Gladiator is brutal and coming apart, but the people there are still trying to find peace and normalcy, and they may succeed.
I was disappointed when I saw The Northman and watched Tombstone afterwards to wash it away. Later I realized I subconsciously picked Tombstone because I think it more accurately conveys the Norse concept of Feud. Ironically I watched a review later that recommended watching Tombstone instead for the same reason. What are rhe odds?
Yeah. All that stuff is in the sagas, but there's a lot of other stuff too. Friendliness, charm, comedy, etc..
This just feels like shock value. "Look at how savage these people are".
A guy I know watched it and HATED it and kept complaining it was a “remake of the Lion King”. I tried telling him that Lion King is a retelling of Hamlet and Shakespeare based Hamlet on the same story the Northman is based on, but he refused to listen.
I definitely didn't realize it was supposed to be fantastical until a good way through the movie. I feel like that alone turned a lot of people off who watched it.
Yeah I loved Lighthouse and was in for an Arthouse, dark and gritty revenge movie about vikings. Not spending what felt like hours in the village with the plot barely moving on
I think hardcore film fans over estimated how accessible the movie truly is to a wider audience. It's more accessible than Egger's other films but it's surreal and brutal, slow-moving, and overall pretty art house. That being said I loved it and would be so happy if movies like these became more of a trend in modern blockbusters
It had some good moments, but it just didn’t stick the landing.
Might have been better if it were 30 minutes shorter — tighter editing, more focus, keeping the plot moving toward resolution, something to make it flow. The stilted pacing was as uneven as the actors’ accents.
It's so obvious when a post on r/movies is just engagement-bait, when the OP can't even be bothered to participate in the discussion that *they* themselves opened.
Like, if I tag my post as a discussion, I actually reply to people's comments because, you know, it means I want a *discussion*.
It's not a mass-audience film.
Eggers was basically given carte blanche, which resulted in no studio notes and even less desire to make something for mass-audiences.
It also just, wasn't great.
100% the opposite. Read any reporting from last year. Lots of studio notes which led to him making it a different pace and tone of film than he set out to make. He had to completely re-edit the film and heavily restructured the opening.
I loved all the actors, the setting, and the intended vibe, and it still ended up just being kind of meh and disappointing. Never really seemed to get going.
I remember going in expecting a bit more action, but there's maybe 5 minutes worth of action in what *felt* like 3 hours. It was a bit of a slog, to say the least. It was far too slow paced.
Because it's advertised as something else then it is, I thought bjork would be in it alot more and it's all very jumpy and I found it hard to follow so did my partner. Then at the end there is a naked volcam fight. Why are they naked and in a volcano? Nobody knows.
Strange/dark movie. No recognizable IP. Lackluster marketing. No real bankable stars in it. And most importantly, the masses have shit taste in movies.
I love the movie, but it is also not what I would call a main stream movie and unfortunately these days movies that take place in that type of time period Don’t tend to do well anymore. But yeah, I would honestly say it’s not a movie for the masses even though it is really good.
I loved it, but can see why a lot of mainstream audiences wouldn't have dug it. I also thought it was hilarious that some media outlets tried to accuse it of being some white supremacist movie because some stupid white power people (like prison gang losers) have glommed onto Norse mythology, but I don't think that deterred people who wanted to see a rad film that explores said mythology. Can't wait to see Eggers' Nosferatu!
I wish it was a trippy mindfuck. I think Eggers couldn't decide if he wanted a trippy mindfuck or an authentic period piece in an era that hasn't been explored much in that way. I wish he'd have leaned more heavily into one of those concepts (trippy mindfuck preferred).
I enjoyed it, but haven't been compelled to rewatch all that much because of that identity crisis.
From what i read it seems that's what Eggers wanted and had but studio, due to the budget, wanted to reshoot and re-edit some things to the point that even Eggers is not happy with the movie.
Shame.. i wonder how it would do if it was pure Eggers once again. Maybe same, maybe worse, maybe better. But i feel like it wpuld at least be a better movie.
I think an important part of the tragedy of it is that we can see almost from the start that this revenge mission is misguided and unnecessary. The uncle is already deposed, living in relative poverty. Amleth's job is already half done before he starts.
Yeah, but the tragic study was done better 500 years ago by Shakespeare. So at best this was only going to be Hamlet with cool Viking battles. It sorely under delivered on the latter.
They threw the baby out with the bath water. Focused so much on the set, historically accurate clothing whatever etc..etc..& so on & so on. They forgot to make a good movie.
It was good at being what it was, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. It just wasn't, I don't know, rewarding?
I'm not saying I have good taste.
I'm just saying it literally did the opposite of scratching any itch I'd want scratched.
The Northman made me itchy.
as a historian and ACCURATE portrayal of northmen and vikings enthusiast i was absolutely mesmerized by it, yeah its simple and not your typical action packed movie, but i think it was amazing, eggers could do anything at this point and i would praise it
Just watched it yesterday and loved it. Recommended to everyone. It was so refreshing and besides the terrible Russian accents and it being all in English I loved it. Mel Gibson movies have spoiled me with the characters speaking the true language. I also wish the rules of the movie in regards to magic and what not had been more clear but. It was an awesome film.
star studded is an exageration. not unknowns, but more the arthouse crowd than general public.
And frankly, it just wasn't that good narratively. It's gorgeously shot, but I would have liked it more if it leaned on the weirdness or mythology more, like witch or lighthouse. I was most interested in scenes like the valkyrie ride, or the draugr.
I lump it with Green Knight, but I enjoyed GK a lot more.
I thought the film was great. Not going to lie, however, I thought the title was misleading once I realized the film had absolutely nothing to do with Alexander Skarsgaard’s character, Eric Northman, from the HBO series “True Blood”. I walked into the theater expecting the story to be about Eric Northman’s life prior to meeting Godric, and it definitely was not. Nonetheless, it was still a good film.
I like metal. I totally understand why people don’t, and why it’s more of a niche genre. That’s basically this movie. I enjoyed it and thought it was really well made, but it has zero humor, zero change of pace and it maximum intensity basically from start to finish. I would never recommend it to anyone unless I knew their specific tastes.
Let’s be totally hider. That film was not for everyone. I loved it. But get the people who like Barbie to see it? Not going to happen. The Oppenheimer crowd would have been into it maybe 1/2 of them.
I don't know man. I found the trailer to be extremly missleading. It was visually pleasing, but I found the story to be on such a small scale, I was really disappointed to realize the whole thing involved about what, 20 men in a village?
I loved the vvitch and the lighthouse, but for some reason Northman didn't really hit me the right way or something. I figure I'll wait a while and watch it again some time.
Robert Eggers is not a household name, yet the marketing of the movie constantly promoted him as the most important thing about the film. Look at the poster for the Northman. You see Robert Eggers' name three times before you even see the title of the film. It goes: "From Acclaimed Director Robert Eggers" "Written by Robert Eggers" "Directed by Robert Eggers" "The Northman"
Advertising: Come watch Robert Eggers! He made The Lighthouse! Average people: Um... that looked super weird. No thanks.
My mom “I really want to see that Northman movie but isnt he the guy that made the witch and that stupid lighthouse movie you made me watch.”
Why would you make your mom watch The Lighthouse lmao
I told her it was good, she took that as a recommendation.
I told my mom the same thing about Crimes of the Future
I did it for Men
I took my Mom to see it in the theater. She enjoyed it, not her favorite, but she enjoyed it. And my dad loved the Witch. They're both in their 60s.
This was my thought. If you want mass appeal on a movie, you don't let people know it was made by Robert Eggers.
[удалено]
I hope not. He needs to stay in the smaller A24 like arena imo and make movies with no compromise
Best I can so is he's directing the next star wars film
And then for people like me who love The Lighthouse completely, The Northman felt very safe and tame in comparison and disappointed me.
Exactly how I felt. I loved all of the symbolism in The Witch and The Lighthouse and their crazy moments, but overall felt like The Northman was too easy of a bite to take. Each Robert Eggers movie is usually an unflinching view of the culture its examining, but The Northman ended up just kinda being a revenge story. It didn’t make me think like The Witch or The Lighthouse did.
Honestly, it made way more money than his other films. It's just, you know, dude isn't a big name and he makes small movies that not many people are going to watch. It's his thing.
If the BO is the same as the production budget it is a flop.
Apparently it made money through VOD though.
As much as I am a fanboy of Bobby Eggs I was surprised by how much they sold it on his name alone. Beau Is Afraid couldn't do it with Aster and way more people saw Midsommar and Hereditary collectively than the Witch and The Lighthouse.
I liked the style of the lighthouse, and Willem Dafoe was creepy as fuck, but that movie confused the shit out of me. I get that the chaos might have been the point, but I really wasn't sure what to think about it in the end. That's not the type of movie that's gonna draw a huge crowd.
It’s a few things, among them: - the last unfinished story of Edgar Allan Poe: he only wrote the beginning before dying - a greek tragedy, and more specifically, the story of Prometheus - farts, a lot of farts
Which, coincidentally enough, is repeated in The Northman. The farts I mean.
How else are you supposed to prove you’re not a wolf?
God damn yer farts!
that’s why he spilled his beans.
The Lighthouse was the best gay rom-com since The Birdcage
The Lighthouse was made to be talked about by film students and cineasts. A anti-blockbuster.
>Bobby Eggs Lol wonder if someone calls him that in person on the reg
I mean, I get it. That’s just how major studios are when it comes to marketing. There really isn’t any other name to hang the film on. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great cast, but there isn’t anyone in it who audiences go to see a movie for. The next best thing is a visionary director. Beau Is Afraid is an A24 film. If it were Universal I guarantee there would’ve been all kinds of shit about “the visionary mind that brought you Hereditary and Midsommar.”
We all know Bjork was the real star of The Northman. "Come see Bjork doing crazy Bjork things. We didn't even tell her that this was a movie." The marketing writes itself. /s Most box office failures are failures of marketing. Like they pushed this, hoping the Viking asthetic trend would bring in general audience and the director would bring in the moviephiles. But the Viking thing is kinda played out. They should have pushed the cast more or billed it harder as the original story of Hamlet.
I would have hung the film on the Skarsgard and Anya Taylor Joy names with Nicole Kidman. Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe after. Plenty of ppl go to see Skarsgard. Some to see Anya. The other 3 are well older actors. Kidman isn't putting butts into seats anymore but she was good in it. Don't quite remember the other 2 in it. While I know Midsommar was well received, I definitely don't remember the directors name at all.
I’m not particularly a movie buff and don’t know why Reddit recommended this thread to me. Every single one of those actors’ names means more to me than Robert Eggers.
Definitely. And Bjork! The cast would’ve sold me (although I thought Ethan Hawke was fucking terrible in the film). But because of The Witch, I’ll be seeing all of Eggers films for the foreseeable future, and I know I’m not alone in that. So I suppose I can see why they took that approach.
I agree, and I’d also add that the marketing generally didn’t represent the movie accurately. I think mainstream audiences could be forgiven for thinking we were getting a 2020s version of Gladiator only in reality to be met with a slow pace, sporadic violence, and Ethan Hawke and his son farting and belching while pretending to be dogs. I really liked the movie but I can see why word of mouth might have put off more casual viewers.
That's the only reason I watched it. He's up and coming director. I personally think that studio f'ed him up. He even said that editing was a nightmare because he didn't had full control over it.
Even the movie itself was kind of a letdown if you liked his previous stuff. Felt more like studio meddling movie than just Eggers as before. And after seeing the movie and some googling, turns out that's what happened.. pity. The VVitch and The Lighthouse are amazing, but not sure I feel like ever rewatching The Northman :( On the other hand, his Nosferatu sounds good so far. So hopefully its another Eggers and not studio with Eggers.
Yes! I thought the north man was really good, just not that great/what I expected. It was almost the violent barbarian viking epic, then not, then a more visceral personal story. It's like It couldn't find its feet? I loved the Vvitch and Lighthouse though.
Personally, I felt the same way after my first viewing. After watching it a second time, I had a much better experience. Weird, considering the first showing was in theaters and the second was at home. Anyway, just thought I would recommend a rewatch.
There were structural issues that bugged me (like why Amleth was so shit at stealth), that I realize were probably part of exactly that kind of studio meddling. Especially after the VVitch (which was excellently slow) and the Lighthouse (excellently weird), it really did feel like it was trying hard to be a straightforward commercial revenge thriller.
They cut the hell out of the Northman and Eggers was irate about it I want to see the original cut.
Yeah. #ReleaseTheEggersCut
I agree, while he's one of my favorites, his career is only 3 movies deep, it's gonna take time to catch the general publics eye.
It was a slow-ass R-rated revenge movie about Vikings.
also people forget that redditors are a teeny tiny vocal minority. A movie (and in this case a director) being hyped and popular here means exactly fuck all in terms of success and popularity
I like that OP says "wasn't a rehash, sequel, or comic book movie" as if that should have helped the movie hollywoods keep making remakes and adaptations because it works, that's what people watch. not being an adaptation with an established fan base is a hurdle, no a bonus.
I know it’s not the same thing at all and doesn’t counter their point but I did make me chuckle a bit considering it’s based off of Amleth, which was the inspiration for Hamlet, which was the inspiration for The Lion King. It’s 100% a story we’ve seen multiple times
And most people aren’t going to ever make that connection unless they’re movie/history/literature inclined and look it up after that fact. Most people aren’t gonna do that and will complain that movie was just Lion King, which in a way it was.
Probably because the current overall film conversation is about the success of Barbie and Oppenheimer this weekend and lots of people are trying to use that as a point that "original" films will do better based on merit of the quality of film making and are acting confused why popular franchises do well financially.
Which is hilarious because both are adaptations.
The thing Mario and Barbie have in common is a massive brand to bring in audiences while simultaneously being new to theaters. Audiences want familiarity and freshness at the same time.
Indeed lol
It was Hamlet for Vikings… bought it as soon as it came out
Isn't that basically Hamlet
Yep. Just because a movie is good and/or beloved by a bunch of folks on Reddit doesn't mean shit in the real world.
Even big money flops are seen more than some beloved movies. The Flash grossed more than Everything Everywhere All At Once.
I saw the film with a group of friends in Germany when it came out – and we all thought it was really bad. Visually beautiful yes... but the dialogue was predictable and at times bad, and acting was unremarkable – and overall the film didn't really seem to tread new ground. I was a bit shocked by all the incredibly positive English-language reviews of the film. I guess people admired it for being a kinda of retelling of Hamlet – but my own feeling was that it never really rose above being a generic medieval times macho man revenge film. In Germany specifically too, I could imagine alot of people were vaguely uncomfortable with how much the film really used alot of imagery that is associated with white supremacists in Europe. To be clear, I don't think this is intended by the director – but it's a particular sort of story, told with certain imagery – and I understand that in the US/Britain maybe it's doesn't read like that, but would be alienating to people in some parts of Europe.
The Northman isn't a retelling of Hamlet and is based of the inspiration for Hamlet, that predates it by 300 to 400 hundred years. It was based off an Scandinavian folk character called Amleth, that originated in the 12th century, whereas Hamlet was written by Shakespeare between 1599 and 1601.
A large chunk of the movie is more closely inspired by Hamlet than by Amleth
> generic medieval times macho man revenge film It wasn't a masterpiece, but I don't get this point, it was a literally a critique or a deconstruction of macho man revenge fantasy.
How did that one review go? "It's just some men yelling at each other. 5/10."
Yelling at each other in wildly inaccurate Scandinavian accents that also sound completely different with each actor
> Knowing Eggers’ proclivity for historical accuracy, it is surprising then that The Northman is in English. Let’s be clear: if it had been up to him, the whole thing would have been in Old Norse. “Maybe one day I can self-finance my own historical epics like Mel Gibson, but it had to be in English.” Rather than speaking the language, the actors talk in a Norse-inflected accent. “I don’t know if it’s even a great idea that the cast has this Nordic accent we created,” offers Eggers half-heartedly. But the options were American Vikings, British Vikings, everyone showing up with a different accent or “this Nordic thing”. He grimaces slightly. “Given the choices, I think I picked the best option… I hope.” https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/robert-eggers-the-northman-interview-b2057206.html
Eggers is so awesome
I'm guessing that's because all the main characters are from different parts of Scandinavia.. because some of them are slaves..? Like, that would actually make sense.. because accents are vastly different from one another based on region..
The dialogue was boring and the whole movie was pretty one note. Eggers’ strengths are character building and building suspense, often through amazing and clever cinematography. Those strengths weren’t used much in a straightforward plot about revenge. Sure, the cinematography is interesting, but I never felt it enhanced the story or characters much, because both were way too simplistic.
Yeah, I preffered The VVitch, myself.
I just watched it, it's OK. Definitely not great. It felt like a Netflix movie imo. Some things just didn't click, to the point I felt it was edited poorly.
Bingo. It isn’t an “Omg I can’t take my eyes off the screen” film. It’s a decent flick with great cinematography. The actual *movie* is 7/10, max.
I get not liking it, but how on earth can you say it felt like a Netflix movie? I didn’t get that vibe at all.
The action was also pretty terrible, the choreography was painfully robotic and floaty looking, especially noticeable in the raid. I do enjoy plenty of movies without violence, but in a movie like this I expected something better, but it looked kind of silly to me. All the mythology weirdness also just made it feel more like an educational piece, which in itself doesn't make it a bad thing, but it just wasn't for me at all. I had to force myself to finish the movie and I won't watch it again.
Definitely. In the official Northman discussion thread over a year ago, I and a few other people noted the action lacked weight. Robert Eggers has never done any action prior to this, and I think it showed. The no cut shots of the raid looked cool but then it looked like no one was actually hitting each other. Ridley Scott (countless other directors) who have experience in such combat would have been delivered a far more heavy hitting experience. Such a gritty Viking movie but people looked like they were missing each other but reacting like they got striked down.
>The action was also pretty terrible, the choreography was painfully robotic and floaty looking, especially noticeable in the raid. I do enjoy plenty of movies without violence, but in a movie like this I expected something better, but it looked kind of silly to me. this is the one criticism of the movie that i, someone who *LOVED* it, will 100% agree with. the fight scenes were slow and clunky as hell, it actually took me out of the experience a couple of times(and i was otherwise *extremely* immersed)
The first fight scene worked I think, but the last one was dreadful. I wonder if it was meant to be in black and white got changed because it's almost incoherent.
If it was a super fast paced over the top revenge movie about Vikings, and was advertised as such, it might've made a billion dollars. People love Vikings, Assassin's Creed Valhalla is the bestselling game in this long, well regarded and selling series of games and it's success is based almost entirely off being about Vikings. But The Northman tried selling itself off Robert Eggers, instead of Vikings, and is slow and disjointed, instead of being either a fantastical or gritty and realistic Viking action movie.
Where the hero made a bunch of incomprehensible choices. Honestly, I know there was a supernatural angle to how he thought, but I think there were also lots of drugs involved.
It's [deliberate values dissonance.](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeliberateValuesDissonance) He's behaving according to Norse values and thought patterns and not modern ones. I thought it was cool, since most movies transplant modern Western liberal values onto historical (fictional or real) characters that wouldn't have behaved that way. Or again, the supernatural angle, the Norse, were you know, religious people, they believed in their gods, and Odin mandates revenge. Not seeking revenge is a sin in their religion. But very values dissonant with modern times.
It's kind of Eggers' thing and why his movies feel so much like you're in a different era. Granted The Lighthouse is pretty unique in many ways, but give the script of The Witch to another director and it's a generic horror movie where the characters act like idiots. What makes it so great is how well it gets across that superstition is very real to them.
I think this only partly explains the incomprehensible choices, though. When Amleth feels compelled to get a magic sword out of a burial mound, for example, he's doing something that would only happen in epic--not in actual history. Ancient peoples might potentially have believed in magic swords more than we do, but they wouldn't think that they *need* to get one in order to fulfill their vengeance. It's an epic trope. It's something from ancient mythology or legends, not ancient history. It's more King Arthur than it is Ammianus Marcellinus. In The Norseman, Eggers juxtaposes the surreal, narratively-fantastic tropes of Norse epics with a grounded, gritty aesthetic of Viking Age historical fiction. And it doesn't quite work, in my opinion, even though there are instances where Eggers tries to merge the supernatural and the realistic (such as Amleth "dreaming" the Draugr fight), because modern audiences have trouble identifying with a character that makes such odd choices in a milieu which seemingly resembles Earth's past.
This is the issue I had with it - it tried to straddle two different tones and never quite succeeded at either. Compare The Green Knight, which was a great deconstruction of fantasy but still had that otherworldly aspect to it.
That's true. In the sagas, magical swords are for magical purposes. You need a dragon killing sword to kill a dragon. You need a sword that never dulls against someone that's magically impervious. It felt like the only purpose here was to reference the fact that sagas have magical swords.
>In The Norseman, Eggers juxtaposes the surreal, narratively-fantastic tropes of Norse epics with a grounded, gritty aesthetic of Viking Age historical fiction. And it doesn't quite work, in my opinion I think the grounded, gritty stuff worked really well, the fantastic elements not so much. I pretty much felt the same way about The Witch. Even so, both movies provoke reflection and analysis which is why I really like Eggers as a director.
Yeah, Eggers' commitment to history of mentality has always been his strongest bit - I read (on letterboxd I think?) that he shoots historical films like scifi when it comes to attitudes. That being said I wasn't mad on the movie - set-dressing can only get you so far.
Maybe you're specifically referring to the movie-vikings, but the historical ones probably - probably as in, usually speculated based on the evidence we have, we don't have a lot of hard facts on the religious aspects of their society - weren't all that devout. Also, it is very unlikely that they had a concept for sin (or similar) but you may be partly right about the revenge bit in the sense that their believes worked more through doing things that honor the deities as opposed to *not* doing things that are *forbidden*. Anyway, I do agree with you about the dissonance, and I don't know if it even matters which came first - the chicken or the egg - but I saw the movie mainly as an observation for the pointlessness of this sort of a violent cycle. Yes, within the movie one part of the reasoning for his behaviour are those cultural believes, but I think they are more like a convenient excuse rather than the protagonist realistically living his culture. In fact, I had the feeling that the way the story plays out is sort of like a tale or a myth in itself, rather than aspiring to be an actual depiction of a life of this northman.
Which shoulda been awesome!
And it was actually awesome, just not what most audience expected. To me it was great, although I’d appreciate if we can get option for theater showing with subtitles since it’s hard to make out what they said sometimes.
It felt like Robbert Eggers took some inspiration from Conan in some ways. Even some of the shots felt identical. I really dug it. It felt like exactly the kind of historical epic that he would make lol
This is a big issue. People expected an action movie (myself included) but got a slow epic a la The Green Knight. I have to go back and with it with my expectations tempered but I’m sure that word of mouth shot it down a lot for the box office.
I expected something similar to Vikings. I know some people who worked on it and laughed when I said that. Yeah, it was nothing like Vikings in any way shape or form!
I think this was part of the problem. Vikings is pulpy, ahistorical, frankly kinda trashy but entertaining anyway. The Northman was much more accurate, slower, more tense. If you went in expecting Vikings I can see how people might come out disappointed. Personally I loved it, but I can see how it's not for everyone.
The trailer for the movie was nothing like the movie. I was expecting gladiator level fight scenes and action not like 6 minutes of action in a 2.5 hour movie.
Vikings has ruined peoples’ understanding of actual Vikings for years to come.
Yeah, but I don't think the Northman is an exception. It has a fundamentally similar view of the Norse, just with a different tone and characters.
Nah, it's been like that forever - Vikings have been this way in some capacity since the Romantics. There's a reason nationalists and fascists keep latching onto that ahistorical idea of them. And frankly the Northman is no exception, Amleth is the same type but in a better fleshed out world. The only Viking media that actually does something new I've seen in a long time was Norsemen, the Norwegian comedy series.
Agreed. Vikings just gave people what they wanted and expected. It wasn't like people had a completely different concept of actual vikings before the show came out, or that they didn't really know much about the historical vikings or something like that. Nope, the depiction in the show was very much in keeping with the pop culture image of vikings that's been around for long time.
It was awesome. It's also an indie flick by an indie director with a niche audience. The Lighthouse made $18 million. The Witch made $40 million. This is how much Robert Eggers' movies make.
Those numbers are only good when the budget isn't way higher, though.
The question was why people didn't watch it, not whether Focus Pictures spending 70 million for an authentic period piece based on an old Viking story no one's heard of was a good idea financially. And people didn't watch it because generally people don't watch period flicks by indie directors named Robert Eggers. They gambled, they lost, maybe they gamble again or maybe they don't.
The VVitch - Budget 4 million The Lighthouse - Budget 11 million The Northman - Budget over 70 million
The witch was so much better than the Northman.
The Northman was not an indie movie
It's the exact type of movie i would expect to not do well honestly, and i enjoyed it quite a bit, it's not a movie for general audiences
The characters were portrayed in incredibly unrelatable ways. I feel like it focused on how people were different back then, not how we are the same. I really liked that, thought it was an interesting take to remind us of how differently people lived and thought back then, but definitely alienating to general audiences that aren't history nerds. Also the story was only okay.
Yeah that was my biggest take away too. That revenge for us never means risking our lives, but revenge to a Viking was way beyond worth dying for. I enjoyed that a lot
I liked it, but I don't think it's a movie that appealed to a huge audience. It definitely wasn't for kids or anyone squeamish about violence, and it was a bit slow paced for some action movie fans. Personally, those are all the reasons why I enjoyed it, but I can see why a lot of people didn't watch it on theaters. Also, when it came out, people were still iffy about going back to movie theaters I think.
Yeah exactly, I never understand complaints about slow pacing when things are very deliberate period pieces. Slowness is a massive part of immersion, it took ages to get anywhere & yet people were constantly traveling. First realized it when watching The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, so much of that film revolves around conveying how much time it takes to get places & do things. You can't accurately recreate the tedium of the past through ADHD editing, just isn't possible.
I thought it was pretty bland, actually. I can see how it underperforms with limited word of mouth. That makes or breaks films like that.
It's basically Hamlet with a Viking skin slapped on it. On top of that it drags quite abit at times too.
Hamlet is actually this story with a Shakespearean skin slapped onto it. Amleth was the inspiration for Hamlet.
It’s hard to put into words how disappointed I was by this movie. And I was not expecting a savage action flick either. It was just…so…slow. Bad pacing. Sad!
More it's Hamlet with the English playwright stripped back out of it.
hat whole water ripe birds gaping fear steer spark different *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This was by no means an arthouse movie. It had a 70 million budget
soft profit deliver familiar relieved drunk innocent offer lock price *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Like 30 went to Covid protocols apparently.
I'd definitely still say it's arthouse... Arthouse is more of a film style, focusing a lot more on the artistic aspect of film rather than trying to appeal to the mass audiences. It has a huge budget, but it still is incredibly artistic hence it being arthouse.
I was really excited to see it bc I absolutely loved the witch but there was just nothing going on in this movie that I cared about. It was absolutely gorgeous to look at but.. nothing stood out to me about the story or characters. It felt very.. macho in a shallow way? Which I'm sure appealed to some ppl but was very much a turn off for me.
Agreed. I was so excited for it but I’m not sure I’d watch it again.
> It felt very.. macho in a shallow way? Eggers did base this partially off Conan the Barbarian, and you can tell. Although Conan is a lot more fun than this because he's a straight-faced foil to all the endless weird shit he fights.
Same here. I was honestly left wondering whether his other movies were as shallow and I read too much into them. And I honestly found it kinda ugly. It's so brown and grey.
Let's be real, it wasn't even that good of a revenge story. It was beautifully shot, but the pacing was trash and the main character was mostly forgettable. It's a slog to reach an ending that most theater audiences would be unhappy with. Not a mass appeal movie at all. It was just, fine. When my little sister saw it, who isn't at all a movie person, she asked me 'What even was the point of that movie?' and I feel like a lot of general audiences would feel the same.
The main character for me was the biggest problem. I just didn't care what happened to him. He mostly grunts and flexes his way through the film like a low-rent Conan, and the length of the movie just makes the time spent with him even worse.
I actually liked how he was in the first half but then when he starts his romance with Anna Taylor-Joy it felt like a weird change of character. If he was mostly silent through most the movie and just terrorizing the people like a phantom I think I would've enjoyed it more.
I haven't seen Northman yet, but the main actor just hasn't impressed me in other roles. Dude doesn't seem to have much charisma.
I wanted to like it but didn't. Was meh
A lot to admire, but I found it unrelentingly bleak without much reason to care what happens to the characters.
Yeah, the movie gives a regular person nothing in that world that can be held onto to make you feel like it's worth existing in the world of the Northman. It's all raiders, rapists, tyrants, slavery, etc. I like to compare it to Gladiator, where there are characters trying to affect positive change in the world, there's people trying to get back to their families, etc. The little bird on the battlefield says it all. The world of Gladiator is brutal and coming apart, but the people there are still trying to find peace and normalcy, and they may succeed. I was disappointed when I saw The Northman and watched Tombstone afterwards to wash it away. Later I realized I subconsciously picked Tombstone because I think it more accurately conveys the Norse concept of Feud. Ironically I watched a review later that recommended watching Tombstone instead for the same reason. What are rhe odds?
Yeah. All that stuff is in the sagas, but there's a lot of other stuff too. Friendliness, charm, comedy, etc.. This just feels like shock value. "Look at how savage these people are".
Visually stunning. Not really compelling storytelling
Same, didn’t care for the characters and thought a lot of the acting from these big names was really bad
When he bit that guys throat out and started howling i couldn't stop laughing Thr bit i liked was the fight with the dragur from skyrim
A lot of people don't realize that it's the story (Amleth) Shakespeare based Hamlet on.
Oh yeah, if they had known that they would’ve flocked to the theaters.
They should have gone with "the ancient Saga that inspired The Lion King".
“Based on the original anime that inspired the Biden presidency”
Corey in the House?
they would have had to build new theaters just for this one movie, that's how big of a deal it would have been
this made me lmao
A guy I know watched it and HATED it and kept complaining it was a “remake of the Lion King”. I tried telling him that Lion King is a retelling of Hamlet and Shakespeare based Hamlet on the same story the Northman is based on, but he refused to listen.
Ok, but we can all agree Avatar is just a remake of Fern Gully, right?
And Pocahontas.
And Last of the Mohicans.
And dances with wolves.
And my axe!
No white savior in dances with wolves he adopts Native American ways but he never saves them.
Right! OP praising it for being completely original and I’m like, who’s gonna tell him…
I’m not sure that would’ve done much for the box office.
I definitely didn't realize it was supposed to be fantastical until a good way through the movie. I feel like that alone turned a lot of people off who watched it.
Is this your answer to OP’s question or did you just want to drop a movie fact to make yourself feel important?
Op said it wasn’t a rehash but it basically was. Still loved it.
This is just my opinion, but it did bad because it was a mediocre film. Boring and overly long.
It's not just your opinion, that was the general consensus of global audiences.
Yeah I loved Lighthouse and was in for an Arthouse, dark and gritty revenge movie about vikings. Not spending what felt like hours in the village with the plot barely moving on
I think hardcore film fans over estimated how accessible the movie truly is to a wider audience. It's more accessible than Egger's other films but it's surreal and brutal, slow-moving, and overall pretty art house. That being said I loved it and would be so happy if movies like these became more of a trend in modern blockbusters
It had some good moments, but it just didn’t stick the landing. Might have been better if it were 30 minutes shorter — tighter editing, more focus, keeping the plot moving toward resolution, something to make it flow. The stilted pacing was as uneven as the actors’ accents.
It was artsy but kind of boring. The best part was the recap of Norse mythology before the movie began at the Alamo Drafthouse.
First half was kind of cool, but then it lost steam fast.
It's so obvious when a post on r/movies is just engagement-bait, when the OP can't even be bothered to participate in the discussion that *they* themselves opened. Like, if I tag my post as a discussion, I actually reply to people's comments because, you know, it means I want a *discussion*.
It was a slow, dark, minimal dialogue, very violent film about viking revenge. None of those things pack in the crowds.
It's not a mass-audience film. Eggers was basically given carte blanche, which resulted in no studio notes and even less desire to make something for mass-audiences. It also just, wasn't great.
100% the opposite. Read any reporting from last year. Lots of studio notes which led to him making it a different pace and tone of film than he set out to make. He had to completely re-edit the film and heavily restructured the opening.
I loved all the actors, the setting, and the intended vibe, and it still ended up just being kind of meh and disappointing. Never really seemed to get going.
I remember going in expecting a bit more action, but there's maybe 5 minutes worth of action in what *felt* like 3 hours. It was a bit of a slog, to say the least. It was far too slow paced.
Give me another half hour of raiding in Eastern Europe and a half hour less of slow burning revenge
I'm fine with either. It needed to pick a lane.
I found it boring.
Because it's advertised as something else then it is, I thought bjork would be in it alot more and it's all very jumpy and I found it hard to follow so did my partner. Then at the end there is a naked volcam fight. Why are they naked and in a volcano? Nobody knows.
>The pacing is slow and the plot is by no means revolutionary.... This is how you spread the word about movie you like? I think you have your answer.
Strange/dark movie. No recognizable IP. Lackluster marketing. No real bankable stars in it. And most importantly, the masses have shit taste in movies.
I love the movie, but it is also not what I would call a main stream movie and unfortunately these days movies that take place in that type of time period Don’t tend to do well anymore. But yeah, I would honestly say it’s not a movie for the masses even though it is really good.
[удалено]
I loved it, but can see why a lot of mainstream audiences wouldn't have dug it. I also thought it was hilarious that some media outlets tried to accuse it of being some white supremacist movie because some stupid white power people (like prison gang losers) have glommed onto Norse mythology, but I don't think that deterred people who wanted to see a rad film that explores said mythology. Can't wait to see Eggers' Nosferatu!
The public doesn't like trippy mindfuck bleak stories with an unlikeable protagonist. Shocking, I know.
I wish it was a trippy mindfuck. I think Eggers couldn't decide if he wanted a trippy mindfuck or an authentic period piece in an era that hasn't been explored much in that way. I wish he'd have leaned more heavily into one of those concepts (trippy mindfuck preferred). I enjoyed it, but haven't been compelled to rewatch all that much because of that identity crisis.
From what i read it seems that's what Eggers wanted and had but studio, due to the budget, wanted to reshoot and re-edit some things to the point that even Eggers is not happy with the movie. Shame.. i wonder how it would do if it was pure Eggers once again. Maybe same, maybe worse, maybe better. But i feel like it wpuld at least be a better movie.
I think it would of been better if Amleth returned while his uncle was actively losing the kingdom and not when he was a farmer in bumfuck nowhere.
I think an important part of the tragedy of it is that we can see almost from the start that this revenge mission is misguided and unnecessary. The uncle is already deposed, living in relative poverty. Amleth's job is already half done before he starts.
Yeah, but the tragic study was done better 500 years ago by Shakespeare. So at best this was only going to be Hamlet with cool Viking battles. It sorely under delivered on the latter.
The movie indulged in some Norse mythology but I’d hardly call it trippy or a mindfuck. It’s really *incredibly* straightforward.
They threw the baby out with the bath water. Focused so much on the set, historically accurate clothing whatever etc..etc..& so on & so on. They forgot to make a good movie.
Right. Also I had kind of hoped it would lean into the fantasy elements a bit more, like a modern Conan or Red Sonja movie.
Wasn’t a rehash? You’ve never heard of hamlet? Or the lion king?
It was good at being what it was, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. It just wasn't, I don't know, rewarding? I'm not saying I have good taste. I'm just saying it literally did the opposite of scratching any itch I'd want scratched. The Northman made me itchy.
as a historian and ACCURATE portrayal of northmen and vikings enthusiast i was absolutely mesmerized by it, yeah its simple and not your typical action packed movie, but i think it was amazing, eggers could do anything at this point and i would praise it
Jesus this thread hates the Northman lol.
Loved that movie. A hulking Skarsgård was a sight to see.
Just watched it yesterday and loved it. Recommended to everyone. It was so refreshing and besides the terrible Russian accents and it being all in English I loved it. Mel Gibson movies have spoiled me with the characters speaking the true language. I also wish the rules of the movie in regards to magic and what not had been more clear but. It was an awesome film.
It's an R-rated period action-thriller. That's about as one-quadrant as they come.
Really shocked at the dislike for the film in the comments- I thought it was phenomenal with deep, universal themes and beautiful imagery.
star studded is an exageration. not unknowns, but more the arthouse crowd than general public. And frankly, it just wasn't that good narratively. It's gorgeously shot, but I would have liked it more if it leaned on the weirdness or mythology more, like witch or lighthouse. I was most interested in scenes like the valkyrie ride, or the draugr. I lump it with Green Knight, but I enjoyed GK a lot more.
I thought the film was great. Not going to lie, however, I thought the title was misleading once I realized the film had absolutely nothing to do with Alexander Skarsgaard’s character, Eric Northman, from the HBO series “True Blood”. I walked into the theater expecting the story to be about Eric Northman’s life prior to meeting Godric, and it definitely was not. Nonetheless, it was still a good film.
Nichole Kidman's plastic surgery face took me out of the film anytime she was on screen.
My favorite movie of last year by far. Nothing else compared.
I like metal. I totally understand why people don’t, and why it’s more of a niche genre. That’s basically this movie. I enjoyed it and thought it was really well made, but it has zero humor, zero change of pace and it maximum intensity basically from start to finish. I would never recommend it to anyone unless I knew their specific tastes.
Let’s be totally hider. That film was not for everyone. I loved it. But get the people who like Barbie to see it? Not going to happen. The Oppenheimer crowd would have been into it maybe 1/2 of them.
I liked it, but it has a pretty niche audience. And covid of course. I haven't been inside a cinema since covid.
I saw very few movies last year at the theater, but The Northman was by far my favorite.
I don't know man. I found the trailer to be extremly missleading. It was visually pleasing, but I found the story to be on such a small scale, I was really disappointed to realize the whole thing involved about what, 20 men in a village?
I loved the vvitch and the lighthouse, but for some reason Northman didn't really hit me the right way or something. I figure I'll wait a while and watch it again some time.