Pretty good, could have been great

Rating: 8/10 (30 August 1999)

I had been expecting The 13th Warrior for a few months, since I'd first seen the trailer. Then my eagerness lowered after I read some reviews (some were good, some were bad). So my expectations were rattled. I came out of the theater feeling pretty good. At least I wasn't disappointed. This wasn't another Godzilla. But it wasn't Braveheart either.
What I liked: Good action sequences. It seems that lately action films go soft when blood is needed. Now, I've never been a big fan of gore but when you're in the middle of a battle between Vikings and cannibalistic savages I think you can't go wrong with blood and realistic depiction of violence (the head-ripping shot was cool). The sets and photography are really impressive, made the whole movie seem cold and frightening (well, maybe I felt cold because of the freezing air-conditioning; why do they turn it up so high?).
What I disliked: I felt there could've been more. There are many side stories that seem to want to develop but are nipped in the bud. The first minute about why Ibn has to leave his country could've been stretched into at least 20 minutes. This way, we could have learned more about the main character and his demons. There could have been political intrigue, a forbidden love story, etc. The Viking prince and Ibn's love interest seem to take us somewhere beyond the carnage and then they don't. It's a shame.
The verdict: As far as the action movie genre goes, The 13th Warrior was good enough to fit in the category with its head up high. But with it's lack of psychological development and burgeoning side stories it doesn't go much further. This film could have definitely reached epic proportions (like Lawrence of Arabia and Braveheart) but for reasons previously mentioned it remains simply an action movie.