Watching this film might be genuinely upsetting for someone with a background in history. My issue with movies set in the past or dealing with historical events is that my education in History makes it difficult to simply accept what filmmakers present as fact. This explains my criticism of some previous films, and I suspect I’ll continue to struggle with this problem. Cinema certainly needs creative freedom, and filling gaps in our knowledge about the past is sometimes necessary, but even artistic license has boundaries. We now know beyond any doubt that Scandinavian explorers—often referred to as “Vikings”—were the first Europeans to reach North America. What remains unknown is whether they realized it! Did they possibly interact with Native American communities where they landed? It seems likely to me. Were there conflicts? I don’t know; perhaps archaeology will uncover more information about that. Can we truthfully say the Vikings discovered America? Yes, if evidence shows they understood they had arrived on a new continent. Until then, no—even Columbus didn't have that understanding. The film depicts this initial encounter between Native Americans and Europeans as a story of violence and bloodshed: The Amerindians are portrayed as simple, peaceful people living in harmony with nature whose land is invaded, while the Norse characters are shown as bloodthirsty warriors who kill for enjoyment. Moreover, the script uses this historical fact to draw a comparison to the later European colonization of America, suggesting Europeans returned to invade and massacre “inferior” peoples simply for the pleasure of violence. I can understand these parallels, given the current desire to condemn any European colonial endeavor. Contemporary society, particularly in the Americas, feels compelled to denounce the Old World’s colonial past, forgetting that it is a product of that same world and not so different from what it was in the past regarding both its flaws and its virtues. These kinds of comparisons and revisionist agendas reveal much about how we perceive history and are detrimental to historical accuracy. In essence, this film is poorly made, and I wouldn’t recommend it. Compounding these issues are the usual inaccuracies and errors concerning Vikings—from the infamous horned helmet, which everyone should know is fictional, to the inappropriate use of medieval swords, seemingly Arabian horses, and iron armor crafted with technology that wouldn't appear for centuries. I am not qualified to speak about indigenous cultures, but I believe experts in those traditions might experience distress after viewing this film. Despite all this, there are a few positives: The cinematography is excellent, effectively utilizing the landscapes and filming locations. Action enthusiasts will appreciate the well-choreographed and inventive fight sequences, although they occasionally go too far. The soundtrack is adequate and serves its purpose well. Russel Means delivers a decent performance; he’s arguably the only cast member deserving of recognition, though even his work isn't exceptional.

Source on TMDB