A little background needed to enjoy the film

Rating: 9/10 (15 April 2003)

I see a lot of comments asking why much of what is happening is happening. I think the 13th warrior is not for mass public viewing for one reason. The public is illiterate. This is a wonderful adaptation of Beowulf, with much Norse mythology thrown in. With this background it would be impossible for me NOT to like it. I thought it was a very good movie. I can, however, see where someone coming to see the movie and expecting an "Armageddon" could be disappointed. The story isn't developed the best because it has been around longer than any written story in Europe or the Americas. It's a well known story (or at least it should be) and so the need to spell out every little detail seems extraneous.
The characters ARE quite well developed and I saw in Buliwyf (sounds a bit like Beowulf doesn't it?) the quintessential Viking warrior/king. As for the inclusion of the Arab, this was just Crichton's clever way of explaining how the story got out. The movie felt a need to have a dynamic character and so Banderas was it. Its hard for a Viking to have a change of heart when they are by nature and belief so resigned to fate. This came across very well through the characters, and for anyone to claim that the Viking translator was un-engaging is bobby-cock. He was incredibly entertaining and likeable.
Another claim I have heard made is that the ship was too small to carry all those men. My goodness, do your homework before making such a claim. These ships were used and used in just the way portrayed. Cross seas travel was a marvel of the Scandinavian age and these ships were the pinnacle of sea travel until the caravel.
Overall a great movie, but not everyone will enjoy it, especially the unambitious cynic. Read Beowulf and a little Norse mythos and this movie is for you. If you'd rather not, then don't bother, you probably won't get what's going on.