Vikings (TV Series 2013– ) Poster

(2013– )

User Reviews

Review this title
367 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
The Gods Heard Me!
pianys4 March 2013
I've been looking forward to a viking film or TV series for many years, and when my wishes were finally granted, I was very worried that this production was going to be total crap. After viewing the first two episodes I do not worry about that anymore. Thank you, Odin:-)

As a person of some historical knowledge of the viking era, I can point out numerous flaws - but they don't ruin the story for me, so I will let them slip. Historical accounts about those days are, after all, not entirely reliable.

Happy to see Travis Fimmel in a role that totally suits him. A physical and intense character, with that spice of humor that is the viking trademark from the sagas. Gabriel Byrne plays a stern leader, that made me think of him in "Prince of Jutland", and Clive Standen seems like he's going to surprise us.

Been pondering the Game of Thrones comparison, since I love that show too, but in my opinion Vikings has its own thing going on. Way fewer lead characters to begin with, and also a more straight forward approach. Plenty of room for more series with this high class!

Can I wish for more than the planned nine episodes, PLEASE!!!
362 out of 453 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Finally a Viking series!
bueandre15 March 2013
I've been waiting for someone to make a good series about the vikings. I'm from Norway myself, and I'm naturally interested in our history. I've only seen two episodes so far, but I have to say - it really looks promising. The surroundings and nature in the two first episodes is exactly how it looks in "Vestlandet", the western parts of Norway. Stunnings fjords with waterfalls cascading down the sides. It really looks authentic.

The acting is mostly top notch, a few short scenes aren't that great but it's hardly mentionable. It seems like in the beginning, people are speaking an incomprehensible Norse/English mix, and then they continue speaking a modern English. It's pretty clever actually. Fun fact: When the Vikings invaded the British isles they could understand each other's languages.

The story itself is really exciting, and I just want to watch more.. I can hardly wait for the next episode to be released.

I don't know so much about the Ragnar Lodbrok character, but Rollo (Gangarolf) is a very famous character in the Norse sagas.

I highly recommend this show, and I really hope they continue making this for several seasons.
242 out of 301 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Thanks, History Channel!
jonasgildea5 March 2013
I've watched the two first episodes of the series and I can say that I'm POSITIVELY surprised.

I didn't know if this would be any good but I'm most certainly intrigued. It's well written, exciting and charming. The show is very enjoyable, especially if you're interested in Scandinavian/European history.

I love Norse Mythology and I am very happy that this show aired, I just hope it continues going in a good direction. :)

All in all I can't wait for the remaining episodes and if you're considering picking this show up I'd definitely recommend it.
278 out of 374 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fantastic new show really shows Viking world
mc2-15 March 2013
I really enjoyed this first episode. Writing is strong. Acting is good and more importantly I am really fascinated by the characters. The most impressive thing however was the look of the show. Photography, art direction and just whole look is so lush and rich looks like a feature film. Cant wait for episode 2! Both Travis and Gabriel Byne both shine in their roles. I do hope a season 2 is in the works. I have read a lot about vikings and I can see the makes really went to great lengths to bring the true viking ways to the screen. Especially the religion and gods. I am a fan GOT and this show is great that it delves into the ancient world, but this show has a different flavor. More raw and intense, but still with a nice magical feel to it.
206 out of 279 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Good show
pkelly1200210 March 2013
There are some Hollywood liberties taken during the show this is to be expected it is a show. If you made a show about everyday life during the vikings time most would be dull and not exciting it is not like they went to battle everyday. The show has a lot of historical basis with some liberties taken to liven the show up. It is well produced and has great cinematography . If , you are however looking for a straight fact based view on vikings go to the library and pull anthropology research journals out. For everyone else if you like battles with historical styles, understandings of how they navigated and views on the social structure of the vikings then you will get a understanding. You will also see how laws and ethics were for the vikings so yes there is some historical accuracy to the show . All in all if you want entertainment mixed with history it is a great show.
153 out of 207 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Something a bit different and very enjoyable.
pk187311 March 2013
There have been one or two negative reviews posted about this show and I have to say that after 2 episodes, I really like it... nit pickers may say that there are historical inaccuracies, but there are also many myths dispelled ... and with the appearance of Valkyrie on the battlefield at the very beginning of ep1 to take fallen warriors souls, unless you are deluded and believe in that being factual it was clear from the very outset that there was always going to be some dramatic license used. Others say the show is too Hollywood, this has to be the case to some extent but by no means is this another mass produced piece of garbage, unless you want the show cancelled after the pilot it must appeal to a mass American audience as entertainment it isn't a documentary. I personally feel that the show DOES have a European feel which is absent in many historical dramas, the locations are beautiful, the cast has been well selected and act their parts fantastically well. The good guys are instantly likable where as the bad guys you just can't wait to see them get whats coming to them, that is always a good sign as far as I am concerned as i want to see what happens to them and am looking forward to the next episode. So don't be put off by the pedantic armchair historians out there give vikings a chance.. it is what it is.
136 out of 185 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Medieval "Godfather"
loufalce17 March 2013
Maybe it isn't real 100 percent history. Some liberties were taken, but for the most part is seems to ring true.At times it almost seems like a contemporary crime drama, but the facts are there-the raids on British monastaries that did occur in the late 8th century, a fairly realistic depiction on what Norse life was probably like at this timeline, the spectacular countryside with its majestic forests and rivers, and the depictions of the Vikings themselves. Savage, eager to loot and plunder, but nevertheless bound by a sort of code of honor. Their acts are savage and the chieftan seems more like a medieval Godfather who uses his power for his own personal gain and who is not above killing somebody on the spot if he is displeased with his actions. The storyline is fairly literate and not the usual mindless adventure that too many of these movies present to us, and the characters are convincingly drawn and likely motivated. The music is good and the full size replicas of the ships are very accurate. Even the deliberate pace works to its advantage, we are never rushed and the story develops as it moves along. It is never dull and there is plenty of interest to engage the viewer. However, if you are put off by graphic violence , don't watch it. Those times were fairly brutal. Fine entertainment . Enjoy it.
152 out of 209 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great entertainment
Robin_clarke416 March 2013
As usual on IMDb fictional dramas set in a particular period in history attract the bores that insist on bleating 'its not historically accurate'. Well just ignore them as this is a fantastic and exciting look at the relatively unexplored Viking world. In the same vein as other fictional historical dramas such as Spartacus or Rome the plot centres around a single character and their family. We then take a brief look into their world and are shown how dangerous a place the world was at this time. The show has a quality feel to it not like some of the more poorly made historical drama around today (sorry but Camelot was just awful!). The sets are impressive and believable and the direction and framing of each scene is obviously set by a skilled hand. The characters are all interesting and likable and the acting is top notch. The only negative I could draw on was that there could have been a bit more action in the first episode but what action there was was very well done. My advice to you, just watch and enjoy it for what it is and don't be out off by the history buffs. If we insisted on only ever watching historical drama that was 100% accurate I'm pretty sure we would be watching none at all. Great show, a solid nine out of ten.
152 out of 209 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Legartha's age
belishabeaconite27 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I have a major problem with Vikings. How come Legartha, Ragnar's first wife still looks like she's 25 when Ragnar's 70? Right I have to write more about this so I'll go on, Floki is an old man but his wife too has retained her young woman good looks. This is fascinating, obviously the Gods were much kinder to women than they were to men at this time in history or maybe I could dare to venture that this is so far from the truth that it ruins what would otherwise be a very interesting and historically vaguely accurate series.
21 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Trying to pretend first half of fourth season did not happen
hptmbedra10 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
First of all let me say the first 3 seasons were good, in fact the first two were just great. There is Viking tradition, there are interesting social and cultural differences between Northmen and others, there is vibrant Viking society and mainly, there is Ragnar; cunning Ragnar, who would "give far more than his eye to acquire knowledge". He is a man of progress, whose logic and wit wins against rigidity and stupidity. He is the man, who comes up with new ideas and surprises everyone who wants to defeat him. Finally, he is the only one capable of carrying this show and pushing it forward.

The third season is also pretty good, although it had slowed down a little bit, dragging the story slowly around, but who cares when Ragnar is going to raid the Paris whatever the cost!

As much I like the first three seasons, there is one thing that kept bothering me throughout second and the third one especially. Every time Ragnar kills some of his enemies (earl Haraldson, king Horik), he creates some kind of vacuum in the society he is not able to fill. Yes, he becomes earl and than king nominally, but he doesn't quite behave like one! I mean as Haraldson had been an earl, he had counselor Svein for the dirty stuff and his guard, he was a judge (in fact), blessed children etc. and all in all there was a lot of things happening around him in Kattegat. Not so with Ragnar; he is just kind of there, not ruling whatsoever, and sometimes it just feels like anarchy there, which I find not entirely plausible. Additionaly, as I have mentioned, there is a feeling of emptiness because of this, emptiness, which I am not quite able to describe. Maybe it is happening, because the second and third series already follows more story lines and can't concentrate on Vikings more, which is in my eyes a threat for this show.

Season 4 takes the good things from its predecessors - throws them away - and builds on flawed stuff of the first three seasons - which is emptiness, story distraction and fade-away from Ragnar. Starting with the most serious issue - Ragnar, it was perhaps the worst decision in the whole show to screw him up. For the entire season 4a, he feels old and tired, doesn't have any desire to explore and raid, doesn't care for his people and children much, and as if it wasn't already too bad, we have to watch him as he becomes a drug addict. This alone is just enough for me. The writers basically take the character majority of viewers cares about most and flush him into toilet. I know he must die eventually, but instead of seeing him suffering for about 9 hours (!!), it would be better to kill him off at his zenith.

Another issue, that hardly appeared in the first three series - there are many meaningless scenes which just kind of fill the time. Consider the whole Wessex feminist thing with Judith - so much time is wasted on her becoming tough and independent, but I don't see a reason why - this is something suitable for 20th century, not 9th. On the other hand there is not much explanation on key events such as why Rollo gave up on his manhood and turned into french nobleman and loving husband so easily.

The emptiness and anarchy I was talking about is really apparent in season 4. It is no more the king Ragnar and his people or the vibrant society from early seasons, it is a mixture of random characters with no depth being around. Typical ruling day of king Ragnar consists of throwing knives, ignoring everyone, doing crazy stuff and taking drugs in the shack, stalking on the rooftop and making a foreplay with that Chinese girl. Björn tries to look as serious as possible, which makes his character so flat it makes me wonder about Ragnar's successor's ability to lead the show (I doubt any of the sons is capable of that). Than the whole thing with Erlendur's revenge is wasted, as everybody knows from the start Björn will not die and Erlendur has even got no plan; when Kalf was still alive, there was a chance to take advantage of it, but now he wants to kill Björn and then will see what's next, probably.

I totally agree with others that it has become a soap opera. Consider king Finehair's arrival. It peaks at the end of an episode, when he basically says in front of everybody he wants to overthrow Ragnar, but that situation is not expanded in the next episode, which is typical for soap operas. Speaking of new characters, they are very uninteresting, and especially Yidu is a complete waste of time, and besides I find presence of a Chinese in the fjord disturbing, she just shouldn't be there; her only purpose is to be a drug dealer anyway. Then there is lot of uninteresting talking about family, children (everybody is with a child now, hearing this gives me an allergic reaction) and how it is being a father, which is just boring. And I can't help myself, but the families look like projections of 21th western family values - different from earlier seasons where we could see more freedom in sexual life and less sensitivity about children and death. Overall the episodes are too talkative and while basically nothing happens in most episodes, everything must have happened in the last one and it created a big mess, but I will not comment on that.

For me, Vikings end with the season 3 and the 4a just does not exist. I am actually reviewing the first season recently and friend I enjoy it as never, because I have found the old Ragnar again and the true nature of Vikings with him.
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Losing Steam and Accuracy
missionjjk28 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
As other users noted, it is becoming a soap opera. The whole thing with Rollo also doesn't make sense: why kill your own followers if the Emperor wants you to prevent other vikings from sacking Paris? How does that fit with the history of settling Normandy with a viking band whose leader is named Rollo? By the way, what happened to England (besides the rubbish going on in Wessex)? Ragnar Lothbrok is getting spread a little thin here. Worse than that, the constant infighting, betrayal and Ragnar's weird mind trips is really bogging this show down. If they don't get back to pillaging and exploring soon, I may not stick around. The show started off strong, but I get the feeling that nobody expected it to make it to the 4th season. The first 2 seasons were strong, and I recommend them. However, the project is now so diluted by the four different story lines that it is now lost its way.
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Season 1-3 are 10/10, season 4 is just meh.
kpenisburg19 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
First of all: I really loved this show and this is the first review I write on IMDb is about this show, because it's simply my favorite show. I would gladly give it a 9/10 or 10/10. But the last season, season 4, ruined it for me.

The first 3 seasons had everything: a good story line with many twists, incredible characters, cool fights and of course the mighty story of the rise of Ragnar Lothbrok. I recommend everyone I know to watch the first 3 seasons, but that's it. Stop there while you can.

I know what you think right now: "This guy just hates season 4 because *SPOILER ALERT* Ragnar became an old man and died in this season". But no! I actually agree that Ragnars part was done and he reached his end, and I agree that the episodes of Ragnar death were well executed. The episodes that disappoint me, are the 15 episodes before that.

They made this season twice as long what I think is the first bad move they made. The fast pacing of season 1-3 was in my opinion one of the things that made Vikings so special. But yet this wouldn't really be a problem if it didn't feel like they did it on the same, or even smaller budget; The fights were very badly choreographed that I even had to laugh when Kattegat was attacked and of course don't forget how disappointing the bear fight was.

Another point that really disappointed me were the useless subplots that the producers decided to make: Like Rollo's love drama with a french princess, some random drug dealer Chinese princess and Ragnars drug addiction. If you think about it, doesn't this just sound like some shitty MTV drama show?

But the bad things aside, the new protagonists, the sons of Ragnar, are well received and good actors. I'm surely excited for the adventures that they will undergo. I just hope that season 5 will go back to it's roots and not continue with the direction that the show took this season.
35 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Delighted and eager to see how the show matures
roberts62226 March 2013
I am delighted to see all the reviewers energetically debating the merits of "The Vikings" first episode----it demonstrates that they acknowledge the historical value of the period the show is portraying. Yes, there were historical inaccuracies in the plot. This will enlighten the scriptwriters to the fact that viewers ARE paying attention! That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the first episode---all that lush eye candy for a novice historical student of the Viking culture! This episode has chosen to jump in at some point in time, and chose the year of 793----without all the back story of a long and comparatively stable history of trade with the "southern lands". The Scandinavian countries were undefined and fluid at that time, and were generally lumped into the "heathen" northmen.

In order to impress the pope and to be acknowledged as the holy Roman Emperor of Europe, around the year 772 Charlemagne took a great interest in converting the heathens to Christianity. In his campaign to forcibly convert the northmen, he first baptized, then brutally murdered the recalcitrant civilian pagans----many, many thousands at a time. The northmen who managed to escape to their more northern cousins told of the brutality (and extraordinarily rich) Christians. The attack on Lindesfarne was undoubtedly vicious, but did not occur without previous provocation.

We all watch the show for different reasons, but if the producers can keep a reasonable level of historical accuracy, and weave in the interest and action needed to balance the whole show out----I can see a long run for "The Vikings". I am watching.
104 out of 154 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Seasons 1-3 are a must see, the rest not so much
memayrinck18 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Vikings is fresh, smart, as historically accurate as it can be considering the people they're talking about had runes as an alphabet, but the charisma of the story was the rise of Ragnar and his precise & quiet war strategy and tactics. Once that was gone and a bunch of Disney kids took over, it fell flat and stale. Unfortunate really because seasons 1-3 are possibly the beat thing on TV since The Sopranos. Killing Athelstan was also a bad choice because his dynamic with Ragnar was the real love story of the show. Still, a big fan, but now I watch it more out of obligation then pleasure, which is a sign that maybe I should stop? Tell me Seer! Should I give up on Vikings?
15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
American rewriting of history (again)
The_BT_General17 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This review is more an objection of the departure from true history than a marked comment on the show itself.... I love the characterisation, sets and plot...

But the show has now lost me as it's story arc has gone from Ragnar's adventures (historical legend, no factual base so OK to dramatise) into tampering with the actual, true historical timeline. King Ecbert was long dead when the great heathen army landed (so was Aethelwulf!!). Anyone remember Aethelred the Unready??

To be honest to the real history the show should begin with a warning "Beware real history has been warped to suit our script"

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æthelwulf, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great etc

Likewise the show seems to neglect all the other brothers of Alfred- who were all kings in their own right...

The saddest thing of all is that this TV series will now become the "true" history and the thousands of people who get their world view through TV shows will now believe this timeline... shame on you script writers, shame!
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Free society depicted as fascist state with absurdly violent absolute rule
Ratatosk738 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
It is clear that the writers of this show knew nothing about the old Viking society or it's rules. It's not for nothing that the first true democracy was established in Iceland where every free man had his vote. What the show depicts is a Stalinistic take on that society which is completely wrong. A ruler like the earl would reign for about a week before he was chopped to bits. I guess it's done that way for the drama but then name the show something else because it has nothing to do with what life was like when every man that was not a slave was a free man entitled is own opinions in that time in that place. Killing a smith (influencial people then because a sword could be worth more than 20 cows or an entire farm) because he made an anchor? Really?
50 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Another Drama Turned Into a Soap Opera
WYAdams11 March 2016
This show has gone right down the tubes as the writers have once again taken what could have been a good drama and turned it into a show about a bunch of angst ridden, neurotic parodies of real men.

1) Ragnar is a sad neurotic parody of a Viking who belongs on a psychiatrist's couch, not the throne of a Viking kingdom. 2) Rollo has given up his manhood and succumbed to the androgynous French. 3) Floki is now psychotic, and if he lived today would be a mass murderer, ala Charles Manson. 4) And the crowning touches are the liberated women spewing garbage that would have a woman living in that time flogged. No woman would get away with the trash these writers have these women pulling, but the Hollywood writers cannot help but interject their 21st century liberal social and political beliefs into their stories.

Do yourself a favor and read a good historical book about the Vikings, or better yet, READ Beowulf.
70 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
too intertwined with modern day politics
attila-1679529 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Starts strong, battle scenes are great, but it gets weaker story wise as the seasons progress. Also, too political. In it's effort to create female characters that are on parity with the men, it ends up being a preach. It's obviously influenced by Game of Thrones, but unlike GoT, there are too many Mary sue characters. Bjorn is untouchable, Lagertha can't even mess up her hair. An example;The battle scene where Rollo and Ragnar face each other Lagertha gets stabbed. The scene is obviously made to create suspense, but it miserably fails. Lagertha didn't even mess up her hair. In fact the whole scene is like ''that was the most gentle stabbing I've ever scene! doubt she'll even get a scar''. And of course every male main character drops everything to come to the rescue of this supper bad-ass warrior queen, that castrates men for fun. Cringy scene.

I would say, overall watchable, starts out strong, but wouldn't buy the series for re-watch, or recommend.
22 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Another "politically correct" series
divingsofla18 November 2016
When are we going to stop with this political correct pandering? If you decide to do a movie or series about vikings , then do it as it really was, not forcing 21st century elements into the scene. Vikings did not take their wives in raids along with them and it was very unusual to say the least that women had so awesome fighting skills as Lagertha (Ragnar's wife). And then they had to include the "completely unnecessary nod to empowered women" scenes, like the rape of that Saxon woman during their first raid? or when Lagertha is presiding a hearing ( that also did not happen) and a man shows up demanding that he have the right to punish his wife and Lagertha of course sends him running away with his tail between his legs... "YOu will have to answer to me" and then a Face shot of the guy powerless , having to walk away in frustration after having been dissed and dismissed by a woman, just to make it sure that we get it ... That also would never have happened. Strong women roles do not bother me , it is the fact that they try to impose it on us and it is out of context . And if they are so politically correct, why don't they also have black or hispanic vikings for example? that would be ridiculous you say ?...well, so are these unnecessary scenes
45 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Vikings is the opposite of wine, was the best when it was made.. and got worse every season.
vldmlnk21 January 2018
It is my first review on IMDB, with such disappointment i felt like i had to do it and as a big fan, it is really hard for me to rate this gem so poorly but here is my reasons:

First seasons was so great, i was telling everyone that this show is way better than Game of Thrones and was so hyped about it,and i guess this is the reason for the big failure followed by next seasons. Not sure whether the producers decided to make it as provocative and shocking as GoT or they were out of ideas and decided just to add random boring side stories and dialogues. I wont mention specific scenes to avoid spoilers, but the last season is such a waste of time, there is like 10 percent progress and the rest is boring, emotionless, banal dialogues with characters who you got no emotional bond with and even question their existence in this series (not minding the horrible acting from some of these).

* I would like to mention, that those who just started watching or about to start, please mind that the first 3 seasons are excellent and worth watching.

**Sorry for my poor English as it is not my main language.
27 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
An American try on European history....
sgaismayr22 June 2013
I subscribe to the opinions of the other reviewers who criticized the weak screen writing of the series. As an historian with a PhD degree in medieval history I was really looking forward to see the series. It's not easy to watch historical films as somebody who works every day with sources and facts. You have to ignore some historical inconsistencies or mistakes to enjoy a play. But in this case something went wrong... Either You switch off Your brains or You're a complete layman in Norse history and mythology. There are so many mistakes in the series, unbelievable!!! There are no fjords in Denmark. For an US-American it must be all the same: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, who cares... (I'm sure, a lot of You Yanks never heard off these countries). All of'em are sooooooo different in landscape. It's pointless and quite tiring to count all the other mistakes after watching 6 episodes so far. As mentioned: The reviewers above me listed some of them. Something I want to bring up (witch made me laugh for almost ten minutes): In the first episode Ragnar refuses to raid to the East. No more "Russia" anymore, he states. Wait a minute? Russia? Why not Spain, France, Portugal or maybe Turkey? Why not the UK or the USA then? All these states didn't exist in the late 8th century! The name Russia itself comes from the name Rus and the Rus people, a group of Varangians (possibly Swedish Vikings)who founded the state of Rus during the 9th and 10th centuries. Beside the historical solecisms the story and acting are pretty weak. Travis Fimmel should've been stayed with modeling. His acting skills are very poor.
79 out of 124 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
From an excellent TV show to an average one
nilsonsc16 April 2018
The first 3 seasons are excellent. I used to recommend this series to all my friends. Few episodes, good story, unique characters. Then the fame came and brought greed. History Channel decided to double the earnings by doubling the number of episodes in season 4. Without enough content to fill the episodes, the show became slow and boring. I decided to stop watching it by the end of season 4 because I realized it was declining. I don't want to screw up my good memories.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Started out good but became progressively worse by catering to feminists
orpheus-7339824 January 2017
As a history buff, I was hoping to see an authentic depiction of Viking life, especially since it is the History channel, and while there is some attempt to do that it is also obvious that the writers and producers are projecting 21th century cultural values into the past and specifically promoting feminism. It is ludicrous to have a diminutive woman like Lagertha and a band of shield maidens take command and become Earl by force of arms. If women attained power in the past it is the same as it is today - not by their own endeavor, but rather through marriage or inheritance. So it becomes more difficult to suspend belief when I see 50 kg women beating and killing 100 kg men. I even read yesterday that one of the writers caters to a contingent of feminist fans in the USA. So while he may placate them he lost me. And a warning to all the lesbian feminists who watch this show - don't try this at home or you will find out why you just can't make it in combat units - you will get pulverized.
38 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Butchering of Norse mythology, history, and culture!
grunnet9016 November 2014
What a complete utter butchering of Norse mythology, history, and culture.

This series may have an eminent soundtrack, provided by Wardruna (how they obtained the rights to abuse the music of this outstanding orchestra is beyond me), but at every turn this series goes more assuredly into the abyss that is the realm of horrible historical films.

Not only do they get the basic equipment wrong (their shields look like something made of plastic from LARP - no offence intended), the steering oar on the wrong side, the combat tactics all askew, but they insist on portraying the Scandinavian peoples as backwards, whoring, oblivious brutes.

Having (almost) watched the first season, I could not bear to continue watching. It was too much to absorb when they tried to portray the sacrifices at Uppsala.

To anyone who watches this series nonetheless, please watch it like the fantasy "reality show" that it really is and enjoy your fast thrills - don't expect to learn anything about history or culture!
56 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Going downhill with high speed
eevanz20 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
It's amazing how good series can be so fast to ruin. I clap to writers. The first season was great, as well as others. But the fourth season was a total disaster. Vikings that were presented in the series (not historically true, but it does not matter) completely lost identity. Each episode in season 4 is more boring and boring so that I can not wait to end. The main characters have become incredible boring and uninteresting, completely lost the role and character. If there were not the previous seasons, no one would have watch "Vikings" and this show will end at the beginning. Another show that turned into a soap opera.

The main character - Ragnar looks like a psychiatric case, neurotic and irrelevant character. Floki is psychotic too... No viking does not look like a viking that history knows. Bald guys with tattoos and beard are not even close to the Vikings. On the other hand, this series is not historically accurate, more complete fiction (which is more or less OK).

What's left of the series in the last season (current): retarded, tattooed and psychotic characters, some blood, boring dialogues and soap opera.

I can say do not waste time after the third season.
21 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed