- Network: History , The History Channel
- Series Premiere Date: Mar 3, 2013
Watch Now
Where To Watch
| Stream On |
|
| Stream On |
|
| Stream On |
|
| Buy on |
|
| Stream On |
|
Critic Reviews
- Critic score
- Publication
- By date
-
Vikings enthrallingly captures the world of Norsemen and oarsmen, circa 793 in the Eastern Baltic but soon heading West to England.
-
As original series debuts go, it’s no “Oz” or “The Shield,” but it does the job it sets out to do in entertaining fashion.
-
While they are every bit as wild and woolly as the historical figures of Norse sagas, such is the power of Vikings that we come to know and even root for them, so enthralling are they and almost everything else here.
-
One girds oneself for some serious hammer time when an opening fight scene of History’s compelling and robust new drama series, Vikings, delivers all the expected gore and blood spatter.
-
History's first scripted series is a headlong tumble into an irresistible and surprisingly neglected genre. [18 Mar 2013, p.41]
-
Fimmel has an odd charisma as a barbarian who sees nothing wrong with butchering a group of unarmed, cowering men. But much of the supporting cast is problematic--either the actors just aren’t up to the work or the characters are underwritten.
-
The good news is Vikings improves with each episode, slowly building its fascinating characters and discovering its ultimately absorbing tale.
-
If you're not too picky about historical accuracy, and not too put off by cheap-looking computer effects, you'll find much to enjoy in this entertaining adventure, built on a solid hero's-quest structure and bolstered by a terrifically engaging performance from Travis Fimmel as the hero-at-hand.
-
Vikings quickly settles into a fairly routine sword-and-sandal epic narrative that revolves around a sociopath overlord and the subjects who dare to challenge his authority. But it gets better.
-
Hirst cleverly weaves a mystical element into the plot, which pays off with each episode. And he throws in plenty of battle scenes to please bloodthirsty fans.
-
Vikings is a mini-series about a band of professional pillagers with a disregard for human life and a relentless focus on gratifying material desires. So it is somewhat surprising that it is also a refreshing study in restraint.
-
Though the first episodes of the season don’t find a lot of complexities in its characters (the rebel captain, the wicked chieftain, the feisty warrior-woman), it is animated by historical ideas.
-
While it’s clear that Vikings isn’t going to be Game of Thrones, it’s a series that increases its entertainment value and interest level as it goes along.
-
It’s flawed, with the kinds of cheesy trappings and historical freedoms that turn off some viewers.... But the series is nonetheless transporting in its way, largely because it doesn’t try too hard to soften or civilize the characters.
-
What those two shows [The Tudors and The Game of Thrones] have, and Vikings dearly lacks, is real intrigue.
-
Vikings is full of fighting, impaling, beheading and all that fun stuff. The hope is clearly to draw "Game of Thrones" fans, but it's not that good.
-
If you will miss Spartacus when it ends--and you like your history with a big dose of campy fun--this one’s for you, Shield Maiden.
-
If it's not high art, the moody exercise achieves a level of atmosphere and momentum that makes it work as a mild diversion, and the plot and pacing pick up in subsequent hours.
-
Vikings is at least fun to watch, in a sword-swinging, head-chopping, maiden-despoiling sort of way.
-
Mostly, though, Vikings is disappointing because so much of the component parts are good but are ill served by flabby direction and a gassy script.
Awards & Rankings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 664 out of 777
-
Mixed: 30 out of 777
-
Negative: 83 out of 777
-
Mar 11, 2013
-
Mar 19, 2013
-
Mar 6, 2013