a bunch of guys kill a bunch of other guys

Rating: 5/10 (27 August 1999)

May contain spoilers:
Where do I start? Well, I liked the dog. He had more character developement than any of the human characters. I don't think I have ever felt so empty after leaving a movie with this much action. I don't think I have ever wondered so much how a film like this got made. Especially since the guys behind the scenes are really good movie guys. John McTiernan is a great director ( Predator, Die Hard ) and when Andrew Vajna was partners with Mario Kassar, he used to put his name on some really good projects ( Rambo, Angel Heart, T2 ) but what anyone saw in this picture is actually beyond me. And to invest 110 million dollars in it is an absolute joke. I can't imagine the two page treatment for this film. Because you could actually do it in less than a paragraph.
"A guy who can't fight gets thrown out of his land because he loves the kings wife. Then for no particular reason he has to be the 13th warrior to fight a battle that has nothing to do with him or the other warriors. He learns how to speak Nordic in about a week, he learns how to fight overnight and then we have about four really intense battles. People die and some live and then the dog sits down and says a doggy prayer for the dead warrior."
That is it. Honestly. There is nothing more to this story. Supposedly this guy has to join these other warriors because the 13th warrior has to be a man that is not from the north. But why that is was never explained. There was no reason for his character. No prophecy, no folklore, no religious purposes for him to be there. He is just there so Banderas can be the attractive guy in the picture so ladies can swoon over him. And you know a movie is bad when you start to critisize trivial things like how Banderas is the only one in the film that is well groomed, shaven and clean. The rest of the warriors look like warriors. Banderas looks like he just stepped out of his trailer in every scene. Then there was the scene when they were on the boat at the beginning and I said to myself "If they have their horses after the journey on the boat is over, I'll laugh. " And they did. Watching 13 horses and 13 men get off this tiny boat was like watching clowns get out of a mini car at the circus. Where did they all sleep? Where did they all stand? Was there a basement? Was there an extension to the boat that I wasn't aware of? Were they in the spirit world? Does God exist? All very important questions, but no concrete answers.
The action in this film was great. The battles were bloody and violent but where was the story? Where was the characterization? To prove that it is possible to combine both of them wonderfully, check out Predator. Seven guys, one beast, lots of action and great character developement. This film has none of that ( except the action ). You can see where this movie spent a hundred million dollars, but if it was that much why didn't they make a good story. And don't pin this one on McTiernan, his direction was great. Pin this one strictly on Crighton. The film is creditting both McTiernan and Crighton as directors. It is rumoured that the test audiences didn't like it so they hired Crighton to do some extra scenes to spice it up. Why? The problem is not the direction, it is the story itself. Having Crighton come in and fix the directing is like having Ed Wood come in and write a few chapters in a book because people think a book needs some spicing up. First you don't hire a writer with no experience behind the camera to direct a few scenes and secondly, when will people realize that Crighton is not as good a writer as people think. Jurassic Park was a hit film because of Spielberg, not Crighton. ER is not a success because of him either. He no longer writes for the show and it is better than it ever was when he was there. This film is a disaster because of him. There is no bleeping story. NONE! You can't have a film with no story. Everyone knows that. And what picture exactly is it that Banderas was in that guarantees a picture that costs this much is going to have a huge opening weekend? Nothing. Again, Zorro was the story and Spielgerg. That is the only film that has ever been somewhat of a hit with him in it. But Anthony Hopkins was also in that film. So why would you make a picture with Banderas as the star? And then to top it off you invest 100 million dollars? What a joke! So this is my chance to talk to all producers and studio heads. Please, if you need any advice on what to invest your money in, please contact me. I can do just as bad a job as some of the clowns in Hollywood now, and at a fraction of the cost.
The 13th Warrior is a really bad film. If you like action then I guess you may enjoy this. But that is doubtful. Even Commando had more of a story and a better script than this piece of garbage. This is the embodiment of p**s poor film making, again not on McTiernan's part, but on everyone from the guys that wrote it ( Crighton ) to the guys that made it a go picture to those that financed it. You all deserve to lose money on this project. It's movies like this that make me strive for Hollywood myself. Because I know that all I need is to get my foot in the door. One hit, and then you have about five years leeway to make it or break it. Hollywood allows that. It allows you to make garbage based on the fact that you once made a good film or had a good script or whatever. This film proves that. What has Crighton done lately to substantiate his stories getting made? Nothing. What is the movie going to amount to? Nothing. And that is a promise. If this movie succeeds to make even half of it's gross back ( about 55 million )in North America, I'll probably have a heart attack.