Rent Pagan Warrior (2019)

Vikings Vs Krampus - Pagan Warrior review by NP

Louisa Warren, who previously produced such horror fare as 2018’s ‘Curse of the Scarecrow’ and ‘Tooth Fairy’ the following year, releases her most accomplished film to date – and there’s no doubting the scale of its ambition. This is one of six films she directed in 2019 and quite easily my favourite of those I have seen.

It’s a mixed bag to be sure, with many of its problems occurring because of obvious low budget (mainly a small cast of actors trying to look like a horde), but some details are sloppy too. The date given for the setting is given as 812 and 1812 at the beginning, and in the end credits, the monster of the piece is billed both as ‘Krampas’ and ‘Krampus’.

That’s the negatives out of the way for the most part. The location is stunning, the storyline is nicely paced. The various deaths (some of which take ages) are fairly bloodless, relying on gooey sound effects to convey non-present gore (my guess is they didn’t want to stain the costumes with fake gore). There are some terrific overhead shots. But the main praise goes to the main man, Krampus: Darrell Griggs gives a terrific, towering performance sporting a supreme make-up job which even survives the scrutiny of harsh daylight filming (pity it didn’t stretch to his comparatively human-looking hands though).

Far from perfect, this is nevertheless a good solid production that deserves support. I just wish they’d stuck with the original title – ‘Vikings vs. Krampus’ is a cracker! My score is 7 out of 10.

It isn't terrible, but ... - Pagan Warrior review by DC

This isn't an inherently bad film, but it was obviously made on a tiny budget, and nearly every scene would have benefited from having more money spent on it. Money for costumes and props. Money for extras. Money for effects. Money for sets and locations. Money for stuntmen. Money for teaching the actors sword fighting. Money for historical research. Money for proofreading. Watching it was more embarrassing than anything else. 

Also, I can't see why it was rated 18. There's no sex or nudity, and while there's some violence and blood, it isn't explicit (probably because the producers couldn't afford  the required FX work). Not very scary either.