As a sympathetic but apostate former Christian, I am intrigued by a specific sub-genre: dramatizations of the historical adoption of monotheism by pagan cultures. My guard does go up if the film is of the solemn hagiograhy variety, presenting the change as a solemn inevitability (ala most"life of Muhammed" stories.)To my mind, this film "Viking" smuggles a respectable monotheism epic into audiences' attention by disguising it as a visceral Game of Thrones style feud-fest. However, it nonetheless managed to retain my goodwill by packaging it with entertaining spectacles, mostly grounded in dramatically satisfying character motivations and arcs driving the conflict. In the process it averted hagiography (At least until the end when an aftertaste of sanctity seems to hover over the film. SPOILER: the protagonist turns out to become a Russian Orthodox saint.)However, that whiff may well be my own prejudice showing. To my less- encumbered cineaste's eye, the contrast between the smoky, muddy, bloody world of the Rus for most of the film, and the golden sunlit skies and mosaic-laden Christian universe that appears progressively more towards the climax, makes the religion appear impressively enticing, even to this apostate. It's an uplifting transition, one that ultimately reduces to a fake-out the cynical quote from Mao which appeared in the film's opening. I did find the film had some shortfalls, mostly common to other historical epics.It can be hard to distinguish one bearded or armoured character from another, both spear-carriers and variously expendable secondary characters, either in repose or in a rain- curtailed action scenes.The film is overlong, and displays intermittent awkward compromises between historical veracity and dramatic necessities.However, on balance, it still skillfully held my attention throughout; showcased some vivid cinematography and speed- ramped action; and generated moderate star-wattage from a couple charismatic performances.

This movie has nothing to do with history and actually art of movie. The story told in the movie has nothing to do to Russia. The actual story is about Kyivan Rus' that existed long before Russia appeared. Briefly: Volodymyr looks like stupid monkey with AK-47. Story is illogical, torn and lifeless. Lots of stupid, unhistorical events like boats sliding from the hill. Another crap movie wasted over 200mln dollars of taxes. Despite the budget decorations are poor, 2nd plan actors lazy and pretending. God, this movie so bad that even Uve Boll would film it better.

A - Anti-historicThose who say it's "historically accurate" are either shills hired by the marketing or really stupid and uneducated hillbillies.This trash has less basis in real history than movies like "Lincoln Vampire Hunter". Everything "historic" on screen is profoundly and disgustingly fake. That goes for events, personalities, lifestyle, customs, architecture, warfare, weapons & armor...If Vladimir the Great was alive today he'd sue for slander and instantly won big time.U - UnwatchableFrom purely cinematographical point of view, this is unwatchable trash, plain and simple. Acting and directing are way below traditional trash genre standards. Screenplay is devoid of any logic, consistency, or character development.T - TrashI believe the real purpose behind filming it was money-laundering, or something similar to what Uwe Boll did. Except any of the worst Boll's movies are much better than this trash.

it's not a movie it's a shame full of absurd situation and absurd dialogue. Dialogue always trying to confuse but don't give you a real story. The press said that it would be a credible film but it's not Do not watch this trash. I'm serious I'm not a hater it's just a bitter truth. Shame on Russian movie...