Kyle J. Steenblik

Hammer of The Gods [Review]

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

HOTG_INT_1SHEET_CAMP_A_HR-final6Hammer of the Gods is surprisingly good, provided you are not looking for a cinematic masterpiece.  A remotely historically accurate look at Viking/Saxon warfare in 9th century Brittan, or a movie that is not unabashedly gratuitously violent and vulgar.

In 871 AD, a young Viking warrior named Steinar (Charlie Bewley) is sent by his father, the dying king, on a quest to find Hakan, his estranged brother, who was banished from the kingdom to inherit the throne, and continue the war against the Saxons.  Steinar’s journey across hostile territory gradually sees him emerge as the man his father wants him to be, a ruthless and unforgiving successor to his throne.

It’s bad, but only in a low budget B-movie kind of way, and for a bad movie, this one is pretty good.  See Sharknado, or Sharktapus, or any one of the movies you can catch almost exclusively on a sci-fi channel with a silly name.  Nevertheless, it is also better than most.  It has a few flaws.  The dialogue is lacking, but forgivable.  It is far too modern for a film set in the 9th century, but it is well delivered, and therefore it plays well.  It is gratuitously violent, but it really is mostly there as dressing for a mostly bland story.  It is not itself entirely interesting, nor is it so over the top that it eclipses the rest of the film.  That being said the action was well done; the fight sequences were well choreographed and well performed.  This is a gigantic advantage here because the movie itself balances upon a knife’s edge between entertaining and unwatchable.  In the end, Hammer of The Gods was surprisingly engaging and enjoyable.  Did you see Hammer of The Gods?  What did you think?

I’m going to give this three hammers, I was, against my better judgement entertained.

Leave us a Comment