Vikings

:

Season 2
Season #: 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 357 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 290 out of 357
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 357
  3. Negative: 60 out of 357
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Expand

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. Destruktov
    Dec 30, 2014
    1
    Stopped watching this patchetic garbage at the sixth episode of the second season. Travis Fimmel is a poor actor, not to mention most of the cast, but I forgave that, since it is a series that is set in an historical era I love. The writers don't have the foggiest idea about the norsemen of that age.
    It was particularly upsetting that they tried to portrait the vikings raiders some sort    Stopped watching this patchetic garbage at the sixth episode of the second season. Travis Fimmel is a poor actor, not to mention most of the cast, but I forgave that, since it is a series that is set in an historical era I love. The writers don't have the foggiest idea about the norsemen of that age.
    It was particularly upsetting that they tried to portrait the vikings raiders some sort of "good bad guys" by letting Lagertha kill on of the warriors trying to rape some wench he grabbed back in season one. Cause murdering innocent priests with a battleaxe is ok, but rape is not. Vikings ethics you know. Oh and yes, there is no evidence that there were actually "shieldmaidens" or fighting women amongst viking raiders. It's entierly mithological and they portray it as a fact. Women might have picked up arms with poor efficiency when a village was raided, but thats all.
    Ragnar Lodbrok and the 10 wonder-extras he takes raiding defeats a well prepared english cavalry force with the only tactic they know: shieldwall. Totally believeable if you ask me.
    Everything in the story can be expected. Here's the pattern for every episode of the Vikings: Ragnar gets into trouble-->Ragnar wins. I totally never expect him always winning, may it be a Holmgang, slaughtering an army by himself, or convincing Rollo with his eyes to stop fighting.
    Another thing about Ragnar Fimmel, that he is a total **** to his women. Yes, norsemen treated their women better than in most countries in europe, but this show must be directed by an ultra-feminazi group. Lagertha slaps him around like a little **** quite a few times and he's unable to stand up for himself. Way to humiliate a legendary historical figure. In season two he kills Jarl Borg, like a f*ckin' slimy coward, who comes in good faith to reconcile their differences after raiding Kattegat, in return, because Ragnar broke his word. And what for? Because his b*tch wife said so. Sleeping two nights in a barn is enough reason to kill another chief in such a cowardly manner. It's like they are trying to rip off the unexpected plot twists of Game of Thrones, but they fail poorly every time. After this I was really beginning to think that monkeys with typewriters must be behind this show.
    I really started to like the King of Wessex storyline, and Björn and his girlfriend, but it is not nearly enough for me to continue watching this awful show. This series is neither historically accurate or entertaining. 1/10, because I had a good day.    … Expand
  2. Craigmcelvain57
    Mar 8, 2014
    3
    How sad is it when the "History channel" has a severely limited interest in telling history. I guess in a "post-modern" approach, history doesn't matter near as much as ratings. I'm surprised that they didn't hire Oliver Stone as a historical consultant. Maybe the History channel could consider call itself the neo-history channel.
    Apart from it's stunning lack of history- the series is    How sad is it when the "History channel" has a severely limited interest in telling history. I guess in a "post-modern" approach, history doesn't matter near as much as ratings. I'm surprised that they didn't hire Oliver Stone as a historical consultant. Maybe the History channel could consider call itself the neo-history channel.
    Apart from it's stunning lack of history- the series is well cast, costumed, and filmed. Too bad there isn't a character worth caring about.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

40
#40 Best TV Season of 2014
56
#56 Most Discussed TV Season of 2014
59
#59 Most Shared TV Season of 2014

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
77

Generally favorable reviews - based on 11 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 11
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 11
  3. Negative: 0 out of 11
  1. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Karen Valby
    Mar 19, 2014
    67
    The best of what Vikings has to offer, besides artfully, horrifically staged sequences of warfare, is fierce Lagertha.
    Read full review
  2. RedEye
    Reviewed by: Curt Wagner
    Feb 28, 2014
    75
    While the storytelling is generally riveting, Hirst and his team occasionally drop a few stinkers in the dialogue. The exceptional cast—which also includes Katheryn Winnick as Ragner's wife, Lagertha—is able to rise above those bombs. It's their distinctive portrayals that, for me, bring this Dark Ages tale to life.
    Read full review
  3. Uncle Barky
    Reviewed by: Ed Bark
    Feb 28, 2014
    91
    Whatever becomes of Ragnar, Vikings has emerged in its second season as a series of appreciably higher quality. Its characters and storytelling, all within a world quite unlike any other on the TV landscape, have gone far beyond the cardboard stage.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »