I remember the movie quite well. I saw it on TV first, then years later on TV again, all chopped up for commercials every c. 7 mins. Eech.

Michael York was a very nicely acted Guthrum. The plot had flat spots in it. But over all I found it entertaining, and I thought informative. Alfred is a hero, but not a paragon: he has his pride, which alienates his peers for a while and results in his defeat and exile. Then he regains their allegiance by admitting his faults and asking for their forgiveness; but in a way that was kingly and not groveling.

The battles were pretty good.

As for Asser's account: I think anyone can pick an original source (or almost contemporary source) to pieces on those kinds of details. Ask a question there isn't an answer for, and it sounds like a legitimate reason to doubt an author/historian's accuracy. But if it is ALL we have to go on, this seems silly. When you've picked it to pieces what do you have to replace it with ? If Asser said Alfred went to Rome I see no reason to doubt it. After all, the Viking incursions were sporadic; there were years when nothing was threatening. Viewed from our distant vantage point, the Vikings seem like constant menaces. But in fact they were more like gangs who would hang out and act more less normal most of the time: their commerce and politics were as much a part of their presence as their threatening violence. I don't doubt that there were plenty of times when Alfred's life was not poised to defend against the barbarian hordes.