Jump to content

The Northman


Dennis Taylor

Recommended Posts

On 4/24/2022 at 8:08 PM, ATexanAbroad said:

I am of scandanvian blood, first generation american on my mothers side. I am into the mythology but I am not sure what to think about this. Your average person is not going to like it and that makes me ecstatic but it just kind of felt like a random story that was drawn out very long without a lot of character development or anything. Like you were dropped into an alternate universe and were suppose to know what was happening. I need more time before I decide how I feel. 

And now you’re raiding and plundering Colombia. Hey-o!

2 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

Just saw that it’s a bust at the box office.

We can’t have, or deserve, nice things. An original, visceral, challenging film can’t attract the average moviegoer. It has everything you’d think would bring the crowds. But, hey, we want our movies to be recycled and shallow enough that we can TikTok while watching. This is why we will get The Faster and the Furiouser 18 soon.

https://screenrant.com/northman-movie-box-office-bomb-budget/amp/

Good. Maybe it’ll get to Amazon Prime more quickly this way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

Just saw that it’s a bust at the box office.

We can’t have, or deserve, nice things. An original, visceral, challenging film can’t attract the average moviegoer. It has everything you’d think would bring the crowds. But, hey, we want our movies to be recycled and shallow enough that we can TikTok while watching. This is why we will get The Faster and the Furiouser 18 soon.

https://screenrant.com/northman-movie-box-office-bomb-budget/amp/

You need only look at the Surly movie forum as evidence of your point. This is a website consisting primarily of Boomers, Gen Xers and old Millennials, and yet by far the longest threads are on fucking comic book movie garbage and formulaic tv shows. Hollywood gives the people what they want, and the people want low brow crap to wash over their brains. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think most people know or care who directed the movie they are watching.  I know maybe 5 directors by name and film alike.  Vikings are pretty hot right now and this has some fairly big name actors (Skarsgard has been in a ton of good HBO shit and if you don't know him your lady does.  Kidman isn't exactly chopped liver on the actress side), I am surprised it is not doing better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is about building hype and advertisement and the average american is a fot sloppy sack of shit. That being said, it is not some great movie. I abhor what the average person enjoys. I am scando. I dont really think the movie was that good. The audience ratings arent very good. It is for a reason.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ATexanAbroad said:

Everything is about building hype and advertisement and the average american is a fot sloppy sack of shit. That being said, it is not some great movie. I abhor what the average person enjoys. I am scando. I dont really think the movie was that good. The audience ratings arent very good. It is for a reason.

I actually think this is beyond most movie goers.  It is a tough movie.  I thought it was excellent.  It is absolutely gorgeous, but it is also incredibly complex.  It makes you think more, and I think that is tough for a lot of folks.  Not surprising that the movie isn't doing well, but sad all the same.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

You need only look at the Surly movie forum as evidence of your point. This is a website consisting primarily of Boomers, Gen Xers and old Millennials, and yet by far the longest threads are on fucking comic book movie garbage and formulaic tv shows. Hollywood gives the people what they want, and the people want low brow crap to wash over their brains. 

This this this.  Though admittedly, I love some comic book movies.  

Edited by PenelopeWitherspoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked it, but thought it was too long and draaaagggged in the middle.  Big fan of The Witch, and you can see some cool mystical similarities, but ... this one didn't work as well IMO.  

Spoiler

But I really liked the Kidman twist.

My daughter had an interesting comment: she said the plot was too basic, needed more complexity.  Sorry Penelope, I agree with her, it's a straight up revenge story that 

Spoiler

took over an hour to play out after he found his uncle.

It's worth a watch for the stuff that worked, which was quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Visually fun, will watch again.

But after another year of teaching Beowulf, Hamlet, British lit.

Viking comes.

Viking kills.

(Viking non-chalantly sneaks onto slave ship) lol

Viking experiences internal conflict.

Viking kills.

I got a little of "What's the wing-speed of a laiden swallow?", Bilbo at Mordor, Arnold Conan Schwarzenegger vibe.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2022 at 11:31 AM, CooterBrown said:

It has everything you’d think would bring the crowds. 

it doesn’t though. this isn’t braveheart or gladiator. it’s an odd, plodding, and challenging movie. and long. I enjoyed it but it’s not for the masses. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not bad, but not nearly as good as I'd hoped it would be. I'd say solid B-movie material that stylized itself into a B+ movie. 

The story seemed to want me to root for the protagonist, but all the Kings were basically just in an endless cycle of raping/pillaging/enslaving. Didn't necessarily side with the one that the movie decided to follow. (Not that they claimed he was the "moral" one necessarily either, just a weird protagonist)

Grateful for an Anya Taylor-Joy role, but damn that was a thin role for a female lead. Viking sneak-swims onboard boat, they exchange 3 words, and are now inseparable. Bc I guess they needed another woman in the movie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, futureman said:

it doesn’t though. this isn’t braveheart or gladiator. it’s an odd, plodding, and challenging movie. and long. I enjoyed it but it’s not for the masses. 

Would Drew or Texzilla like it or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was excellent. It did a great job of capturing the period in which it's set in a way that's very rare (which may go over the head of some folks). Obviously there were some fantastical elements but it was all rooted well historically. 

It was shot brilliantly. I haven't seen the lighthouse but I'll probably check it out now. Also thought it was well written with a bit of a Shakespearean vibe at times. 

ATJ stole the show in the scenes she was in. I mean yes she's nice to look at but I guess I hadn't realized how good of an actress she is - or maybe she's better in this than other stuff I've seen her in. 

Also it really isn't that long. I thought the run time was fine. Just over 2 hours. 

Could have used more Dafoe. 

Edited by ztejas
Also - the theater I saw it at was a huge disappointment. The audio was all fucked up with most of it either way to the left or the right and the picture was out of focus in certain scenes. May have to find somewhere with a competent set up to see it agai
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed it. Viewing it through the lens of Hamlet, I thought it was an excellent tale of the mad Prince, but I agree: it’s not a film for everyone.  Glad they finally let Kidman age. She  could finally move her face. The visuals were stunning.  It did drag a bit in the middle.  There was about 10-14 minutes of dead time edits if they wanted to take them.

ATJ stole every scene she was in. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

I want a feature film following a crew of berserker around. 

Those dudes fuck.

the most badass viking movie ever never got made. mel gibson was gonna do a berserker movie about a decade ago with randall wallace. still hope it may happen in the future.

https://collider.com/mel-gibson-viking-movie-judah-maccabee/amp/

Edited by futureman
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was very good, not great, but I wonder if the movie would have been better had the budget been $15-$20mm instead of ~$90, and because of that, Eggers had gotten final cut with less pressure for changes from the studio rightfully concerned about its ROI

Eggers remains as one of the interesting must-watch directors who emerged in the past decade, along with Villeneuve, Aster, Garland, Wheatley, and Peele

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

I really enjoyed it. Viewing it through the lens of Hamlet, I thought it was an excellent tale of the mad Prince, but I agree: it’s not a film for everyone.  Glad they finally let Kidman age. She  could finally move her face. The visuals were stunning.  It did drag a bit in the middle.  There was about 10-14 minutes of dead time edits if they wanted to take them.

ATJ stole every scene she was in. 

 

The scene where Kidman revealed her true feelings was the best acting she's done in maybe a decade 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fud said:

I thought it was very good, not great, but I wonder if the movie would have been better had the budget been $15-$20mm instead of ~$90, and because of that, Eggers had gotten final cut with less pressure for changes from the studio rightfully concerned about its ROI

Eggers remains as one of the interesting must-watch directors who emerged in the past decade, along with Villeneuve, Aster, Garland, Wheatley, and Peele

I agree with this.  I think the size of the budget forced him to tell a more linear tale instead of letting his inner weirdo run wild. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fud said:

The scene where Kidman revealed her true feelings was the best acting she's done in maybe a decade 

Agreed that she was great.  I wasn't expecting a proto-hamlet story to take such an explicitly oedipal turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Fud said:

I thought it was very good, not great, but I wonder if the movie would have been better had the budget been $15-$20mm instead of ~$90, and because of that, Eggers had gotten final cut with less pressure for changes from the studio rightfully concerned about its ROI

Eggers remains as one of the interesting must-watch directors who emerged in the past decade, along with Villeneuve, Aster, Garland, Wheatley, and Peele

 

9 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

I agree with this.  I think the size of the budget forced him to tell a more linear tale instead of letting his inner weirdo run wild. 

Maybe. Bigger budget lets him shoot scenes that wouldn't be possible without it. Maybe there's a sweet spot under $90 but you couldn't make this for $20M. Not with that cast at least. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ztejas said:

 

Maybe. Bigger budget lets him shoot scenes that wouldn't be possible without it. Maybe there's a sweet spot under $90 but you couldn't make this for $20M. Not with that cast at least. 

Sure, but he previously made a brilliant movie that looked great for $4mm, and an arguably very good movie for $10mm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, WBT said:

Agreed that she was great.  I wasn't expecting a proto-hamlet story to take such an explicitly oedipal turn.

It was an interesting take on sexual agency ultimately being the only agency women had at that time in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2022 at 3:30 PM, Reynolds Woodcock said:

You need only look at the Surly movie forum as evidence of your point. This is a website consisting primarily of Boomers, Gen Xers and old Millennials, and yet by far the longest threads are on fucking comic book movie garbage and formulaic tv shows. Hollywood gives the people what they want, and the people want low brow crap to wash over their brains. 

It's a terrible loop. Comic book movie hits it big > Executives try more > Some of the movies are good, all make money > Executives have found the golden goose, market floods with comic book movies > Given a dearth of variety, movie goers become connoisseurs of comic book movies > Executives crank out the same fucking movies over and over and over because the dollars flow in.

The range of popular movie attractions narrows and we don't get movies like Thief (perfect movie of its scale) or First Blood or adaptations of plays and interesting books without large scale action.

There's still good discussion on this board. I learned of Derry Girls here on a football board. Streaming series are the place to go for quality of depth.

I think the movies making it here from Korea show us what a studio not run by Harvard MBAs can produce. Hell, they resurrected the zombie genre, gave it new twists, and created interesting characters. You can even discuss the subtext in either Korean or universal terms if you like. The creatives are given broad boundaries by the business side to stay commercial. In short, they take minor risks. Our studios don't.

 

On 4/26/2022 at 4:25 PM, ATexanAbroad said:

Everything is about building hype and advertisement and the average american is a fot sloppy sack of shit. That being said, it is not some great movie. I abhor what the average person enjoys. I am scando. I dont really think the movie was that good. The audience ratings arent very good. It is for a reason.

I agree. I didn't want my money back, but I hardly remember anything about the movie. Fabulous cast all doing as well as the material allows. It has its feet in two zones: the epic comic book vengeance story and a punishing historical fiction  world where good suffers and the plot twists. Neither foot is in a comfortable shoe.

The dialogue was shit. You don't need to tell us about what we are actually seeing. Is there a memorable line anywhere in the thing?

Spoiler

The movie tips its hand with the Nicole character reverse. The meaningful glance in the opening was heavy handed.

I am interested in seeing Eggars other film, Witch. I've heard great things.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I think the movies making it here from Korea show us what a studio not run by Harvard MBAs can produce. Hell, they resurrected the zombie genre, gave it new twists, and created interesting characters. You can even discuss the subtext in either Korean or universal terms if you like. The creatives are given broad boundaries by the business side to stay commercial. In short, they take minor risks. Our studios don't.

There are still some great American movies being cranked out, but they mostly aren't coming from the major studios 

49 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I am interested in seeing Eggars other film, Witch. I've heard great things.

Just be warned, it's not for everyone, and it very well may not be for you 

It's one of my favorite movies of the decade, but some find it dumb or boring 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Fud said:

Sure, but he previously made a brilliant movie that looked great for $4mm, and an arguably very good movie for $10mm

I  have no idea what that has to do with the film in question.

Also - maybe you loved The Witch but that's a super meh film in my book and wasn't awesomely received. The Northman blows that away as far as I'm concerned when it comes to basically everything pertaining to filmmaking. I can't understand enjoying a filmmaker and then wanting him to have... less money to work with? Because you overrate one of his lower budget films?

I'm not juding your taste because you're entitled to that. I just think your "more money = worse movie" premise is silly and unfounded in this case. 

Edited by ztejas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aaaaaaaand I watched Braveheart for the umpteenth time because I'm a loser without a life.

The Northman doesn't touch it. That doesn't mean it isn't a great movie... but I will say I wouldn't call it an epic in the vein of Braveheart or others. The depth, scale, and emotion just isn't remotely the same. 

(That said I want to go see it again and I'll see if any of my opinions change) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ztejas said:

I  have no idea what that has to do with the film in question.

Also - maybe you loved The Witch but that's a super meh film in my book and wasn't awesomely received. The Northman blows that away as far as I'm concerned when it comes to basically everything pertaining to filmmaking. I can't understand enjoying a filmmaker and then wanting him to have... less money to work with? Because you overrate one of his lower budget films?

I'm not juding your taste because you're entitled to that. I just think your "more money = worse movie" premise is silly and unfounded in this case. 

Because the higher the budget, the more interference the studio will have with the movie for obvious reasons, and he reportedly didn't have final cut here 

"more money = better movie" is an equally "silly premise" 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Fud said:

Because the higher the budget, the more interference the studio will have with the movie for obvious reasons, and he reportedly didn't have final cut here 

"more money = better movie" is an equally "silly premise" 

Evidenced by the fact that Eggers has been openly lamenting the fact that he didn’t have final cut on this movie, precisely because of the massive budget. 

My personal Eggers ranking is 1. The Witch, 2. The Lighthouse, 3. The Northman, but that isn’t really meant as a knock on The Northman. All three are worthy of rewatches and adulation in my opinion. Excited to see what comes next. 

Edited by Reynolds Woodcock
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fud said:

Because the higher the budget, the more interference the studio will have with the movie for obvious reasons, and he reportedly didn't have final cut here 

"more money = better movie" is an equally "silly premise" 

Exactly. 

Pertaining to my post, the big budget movies are forced to avoid any creative risk. The plots are as close to good versus evil as you can get with nothing subtle. Northman avoids this to its credit. I find such simplicity boring. The Heath Ledger Batman is a brilliant exception. Christopher Nolan has been so successful commercially that he has more freedom to explore something more than good versus evil or a revenge tale. He's the anti-Michael Bay.

Instead of reaching for a more interesting plot, studio executives keep going to the well of CG spectacle. Beautiful actors whose talent lends some dimension to stock characters flood the screen. New York is again destroyed by comic book opponents futilely hurling each other into buildings. And. It's. Always. Very. LOUD. It's also always nearly perfect in every technical aspect of filmmaking. 

Movie goers are drawn to the spectacle time after time. A few become tired of it, but most become fans of spectacle and quite good critics of the elements of spectacle. I'm happy that they enjoy whatever movie they choose to see. I'm unhappy that the the risk averse executives won't put money into much of anything else.

Nothing points this up better than what Korea is producing: popular cinema that is rich in character depth and unpredictable plot twists. I hadn't ever been excited by another country's general production of films until now. We might have a Korean Paths of Glory, Cool Hand Luke, Thief, or Memento pop out from time to time. Hooray!

Edited by RomaVicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it tonight.  I've never seen a Eggers film before.  I see why people like him but I'm not sure he's my cup of tea.

It was strange, unique, weird.  I've never seen a movie like this before. I think I liked it but I'm not sure.

Parts of it I definitely did and parts I didn't.

I'll be thinking about this one for a few days.

It felt to me like it was about 20 mins too long. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoyed it very much. Really brought back images of a movie called Valhalla Rising with Mads Mikkelsen. Both had the inner warrior within. Movie also sets up what most critiques call a true hamlet-esque plot. Been done before but enjoy the time period it falls in.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this tonight and thought it was one of the worst movies I've ever watched to completion.  Nothing about it was good.  The first half was a slog.  The second half picked up the pace but it still sucked.  Lone highlight for me was him sliding his sword through the dude's cut off nose and talking shit while doing it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2022 at 10:07 AM, DanRydell said:

It's a movie by a director who is largely unknown to the average moviegoer (and to the degree he is known, it's for being weird and esoteric), with lead actors who are either unknown or known from niche TV shows, plus it's pretty fucking weird and gory. I'm not sure Gladiator is a hit if it had been directed by Spike Jonze or Danny Boyle and starred Luke Perry and Tilda Swinton and had a bunch of bizarre ancient religious imagery and prophecy and witchcraft.

I got a chuckle out of this, because by the end of your post you were saying "I'm not sure Gladiator is a hit if it's a completely different movie in every conceivable way."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2022 at 9:50 PM, Hank Scorpio said:

It sucks that the movie flopped at the box office, looks like all the good up and coming directors will just have to make Marvel movies. 

You continue to kill it in a way that none of us can. I strive to be like you. I really do. 

On 5/11/2022 at 7:13 AM, Fud said:

Because the higher the budget, the more interference the studio will have with the movie for obvious reasons, and he reportedly didn't have final cut here 

"more money = better movie" is an equally "silly premise" 

Just going to @Reynolds Woodcock because y'all are on the same page (relatively I'd assume) and it saves me quotes.

You aren't addressing the dichotomy I'm presenting which is that a lower budget gives you a worse cast and less room for special effects or high-budget scenes etc. and as an effect you can't really make movies like the Northman. You don't get ATJ and Skaarsgard on the screen at the same time without a decent budget. And their scenes were fucking electric and really carried this film. You don't get Kidman or Dafoe either (or Hawke). You cannot make a movie like the Northman for the budget y'all are proposing. You just can't. I'm glad both of you liked The Witch but for me that film is just another meh horror-thriller with a somewhat interesting twist or setting that ultimately puts me to sleep. The Northman does more than that. It's much more engaging, historically present, and visceral and at the end of the day a better viewing experience and stronger film in my book.

Y'all don't have to agree with me. I respect dissenting opinions. I just think the idea that this film could have been better with a fraction of the budget is ridiculous because this film doesn't exist with even half the budget. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2022 at 8:31 AM, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Evidenced by the fact that Eggers has been openly lamenting the fact that he didn’t have final cut on this movie, precisely because of the massive budget. 

My personal Eggers ranking is 1. The Witch, 2. The Lighthouse, 3. The Northman, but that isn’t really meant as a knock on The Northman. All three are worthy of rewatches and adulation in my opinion. Excited to see what comes next. 

 

On 5/13/2022 at 11:45 PM, Post Oak said:

Saw it tonight.  I've never seen a Eggers film before.  I see why people like him but I'm not sure he's my cup of tea.

It was strange, unique, weird.  I've never seen a movie like this before. I think I liked it but I'm not sure.

Parts of it I definitely did and parts I didn't.

I'll be thinking about this one for a few days.

It felt to me like it was about 20 mins too long. 

 

 

On 5/15/2022 at 12:55 AM, Halohal said:

Enjoyed it very much. Really brought back images of a movie called Valhalla Rising with Mads Mikkelsen. Both had the inner warrior within. Movie also sets up what most critiques call a true hamlet-esque plot. Been done before but enjoy the time period it falls in.

 

On 5/16/2022 at 10:39 PM, Hozz said:

Saw this tonight and thought it was one of the worst movies I've ever watched to completion.  Nothing about it was good.  The first half was a slog.  The second half picked up the pace but it still sucked.  Lone highlight for me was him sliding his sword through the dude's cut off nose and talking shit while doing it.

These four posts are actually what I want out of a movie.  A range of opinions strong/medium/weak. But no body walked out. To me, this is a cinematically successful movie, because it evoked a wide range of opinions, but no one could look away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m most of the way through it right now. Wanted to read some posts here before I finish up. 
 

can’t say I like or dislike it. I like it visually, a lot. I dislike the dialogue, to the point that I turned the sound way down rather than listen to it once I realized you don’t need it to follow the story.  I like a good revenge story, and this is that with a twist and turn here and there, but it’s certainly not original. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2022 at 8:26 PM, Mach 1 said:

I liked it, but thought it was too long and draaaagggged in the middle.  Big fan of The Witch, and you can see some cool mystical similarities, but ... this one didn't work as well IMO.  

  Hide contents

But I really liked the Kidman twist.

My daughter had an interesting comment: she said the plot was too basic, needed more complexity.  Sorry Penelope, I agree with her, it's a straight up revenge story that 

  Hide contents

took over an hour to play out after he found his uncle.

It's worth a watch for the stuff that worked, which was quite a bit.

Saw the movie last night I really went in with high hopes. I was a little underwhelmed. This review kind of nailed it for me.

I think the mysticism was really cool and at times executed well, though not always. The cinematography was great.

But I think the middle dragged a lot. And the end really started to unravel.

I think they wanted to take the revenge film and kind of turn it on its head and this just kind of missed.

Some thoughts that involve spoilers:

Spoiler

The Kidman twist was really good. BUT it really felt like the movie didn't know what to do with it.

Once this happens, everything felt really forced to shoehorn it in the prophecy.

And this was after the middle dragged.

 

I could go on and on about the middle. I will just say there was a lot of nothing thing when there should/could have been.

As a whole, it left me a little unsatisfied.

I think there was a few tweaks that could have been done with pretty much the same result but had a more satisfying resolution. I was entertained, until I wasn't.

I would score this a B-.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m interested in Vikings shows like a lot of red blooded American males. This movie was bad despite Kidman, Taylor and Skarsgard. I thought they or acting was solid especially Kidman. Skarsgard’s dialogue was mixed at best with all-too-often Viking mysticism injected into these movies and shows. That element of the movie was AWFUL and generally all over the place. The Last Kingdom, better than Vikings (which was good) both jumped the shark as they delved further and further into Viking mysticism hitting the viewer over the head. 

I thought Skarsgard’s action sequences were stiff. I frankly didn’t think he was good (and I really like him - I think he was hurt by a disconnected and frankly bad script) or believable once he landed in Iceland. Bang was a pleasant surprise here. He and Kidman were excellent in their roles. Everyone else was meh. 

Only question I really have is why Gudrun turned on her family and apparently immediately. It made little sense to me, outside of her need to survive with her new husband. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Only question I really have is why Gudrun turned on her family and apparently immediately. It made little sense to me, outside of her need to survive with her new husband. 

Really?

Spoiler

It was the whole plot twist. Prior to becoming the queen, she was just one of the king's sex slave (hence the brand on he shoulder, which is why Amleth was never come into her room unannounced). And when she had a son, he made her queen to have an heir. But he still screwed his sex slaves, he never loved her, so she wanted revenge. Fjolnir loved her and she asked him to kill his brother.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Ron said:

Really?

  Hide contents

It was the whole plot twist. Prior to becoming the queen, she was just one of the king's sex slave (hence the brand on he shoulder, which is why Amleth was never come into her room unannounced). And when she had a son, he made her queen to have an heir. But he still screwed his sex slaves, he never loved her, so she wanted revenge. Fjolnir loved her and she asked him to kill his brother.

 

Yeah I got all that. It still has many many plot holes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...