Strengths outweigh weaknesses in McTiernan's and Chricton's historical epic

Rating: Null/10 (4 September 1999)

I originally read "Eaters of the Dead" 22 years ago when the novel first came out. As a 17 year old, having read "Lord of the Rings", I remember thinking that the novel was far too short, with not enough sword and sorcery to suit my tastes.
Well, my tastes have changed: given the choice between fantasy and reality, I'll take the latter. "The 13th Warrior" is the latter.
The film is a simple tale: it is a basic quest-myth. The film's strenghts lie in a simple retelling of a story which may have a basis in historical fact. The historicity of the story gives way very often in the film to the sort of action and bloodletting last seen in Braveheart. It is here, and in basic characterization, where the film stumbles.
The use of a Muslim-Arab protagonist is a very welcome development in American cinema. The almost total lack of development of the secondary characters detract from the film. This is surprising, since McTernan did such a great job of bringing secondary characters to life in "Die Hard" and "Hunt for Red October". Those two films were much better because of these characterizations. So was "Braveheart" for that matter.
Bandaras gives a good perfomance as ibn Fadlan, the Arab ambassador recruited by the Vikings to assist in ridding the more civilized "Northmen" of a cannibalistic scourge.
Unfortunatley, it is the action which takes up most of the film, and most of its staging is unmemorable. The set design, music and technical details make the film very compelling. British Columbia has never looked better!!!!
I'm re-reading the book, and will see the film a second time just to see if I am out to lunch in the opinions expressed above. The reader would be encouraged to go see it if only to do the same......
6.9 out of 10 points for me, at the present time!