Season #: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
User Score
7.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 687 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 80 out of 687

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream On

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

  1. Aug 21, 2017
    7
    History Channel started very well in the beautiful world of the TV series with "Vikings" - how is the first History Channel show, and is the first season - "Vikings" in the 5 firstly episodes, is a terrific series - even though from the 6 episode to the season finale, the dramatic series fell in yield, direction, script, and, began to get confused, like the development of Ragnar Lothbrok'sHistory Channel started very well in the beautiful world of the TV series with "Vikings" - how is the first History Channel show, and is the first season - "Vikings" in the 5 firstly episodes, is a terrific series - even though from the 6 episode to the season finale, the dramatic series fell in yield, direction, script, and, began to get confused, like the development of Ragnar Lothbrok's BROTHER. But the performance of Travis Fimmels as Ragnar Lothbrok and the perfomance of Katheryn Winnick as Lagertha Lothbrok, the great secundary characters (as Floki, Athelstan, and outhers), "Vikings" is very promising. Expand
  2. Mar 3, 2017
    0
    Inauthentic soap-opera trash - Vikings were democratic. I had so much hope from this, mostly from the starting theme song, but alas the starting theme is the only thing good about it. The History channel fails at everything. I also like that they only cast actual Scandinavians as the bad guys and Anglo-saxons for the characters meant to be liked. I was also amused by the French accents andInauthentic soap-opera trash - Vikings were democratic. I had so much hope from this, mostly from the starting theme song, but alas the starting theme is the only thing good about it. The History channel fails at everything. I also like that they only cast actual Scandinavians as the bad guys and Anglo-saxons for the characters meant to be liked. I was also amused by the French accents and stereotypes. Expand
  3. Jan 19, 2017
    10
    I've been sucked into the is series from season one. This season is literally killing it! I'm drawn to the family dynamics in a show and these relationships are so strong.
  4. Jan 11, 2017
    10
    I can not say enough good things about this show. Season 4 is awesome. Casting is great, writing is good, acting is good. I hope this show goes 10 seasons.
  5. Jan 6, 2017
    7
    Every episode is about sex.

    I'm not joking. I get tired of it. It's like they want to force you to become a sexoholic.

    The show is good but this one thing ruins it. It's like they try TOO HARD to force feed Sex and Feminism... It gets really old.
  6. Jan 2, 2017
    10
    Amongst top 10 for sure. Scenery is superb. Casting and acting couldn't be better. Character development and storyline keeps you glued. Look forward to many seasons.
  7. Jan 1, 2017
    9
    It's easy to know when you're hooked on a series, but as important are the attributes to the story that keep it so compelling that you will come back. From the plot lines, characters, landscape and battle scenes, Vikings grabs and keeps hold of your attention with great interest. I can't wait to keep watching it!
  8. Dec 12, 2016
    10
    I found a perfect balance of drama, history, non fiction and coolness. As a fan of shows like Game of Thrones, True Blood and WestWorld; it's been a good find. It's really good binge watching!
  9. Aug 11, 2016
    0
    Finished Season 1. Boring; the story line is unclear; the connection is unclear; mystic has been added but it is confusing. Conclusion: what do you (the show) want to say?
  10. Jun 28, 2016
    10
    Cool show - why do i need to use 150 characters? why do i need to use 150 characters? why do i need to use 150 characters? why do i need to use 150 characters? why do i need to use 150 characters? why do i need to use 150 characters? why do i need to use 150 characters? why do i need to use 150 characters? why do i need to use 150 characters? why do i need to use 150 characters?
  11. Mar 26, 2016
    10
    The story is as brutally simple (as were the Vikings, so the series suggests): Ragnar (Travis Fimmel), a farmer when he's not being a warrior,
    Brilliant series
  12. Mar 25, 2016
    3
    My sons and I have not missed an episode and it is the highlight of our week. We looked at each other last week and said "is it just me or is this season disappointing". Compared to previous seasons this one is very slow. In tonights episode I just kept waiting for something to happen, but it was music, sailing and just felt like a lot of nothing. Perhaps this will be the last season, notMy sons and I have not missed an episode and it is the highlight of our week. We looked at each other last week and said "is it just me or is this season disappointing". Compared to previous seasons this one is very slow. In tonights episode I just kept waiting for something to happen, but it was music, sailing and just felt like a lot of nothing. Perhaps this will be the last season, not much left but Paris so they are dragging it out. Whatever the case I'm looking forward to some action in the upcoming episodes and hope more shows come out like it.
    Does anyone else feel let down this season?
    Expand
  13. Mar 24, 2016
    7
    season 1-3 are exceptional. season 4 is slow and has alot of filler episodes. S04E06 actually skips a battle scene ffs. As usual , something that started great , is now being watered down to stretch content...wish writers would learn what the chase is and how to cut to it already. because of season 4 im taking my score from a 9 to a 7
  14. Feb 26, 2016
    5
    I cannot help but laugh at all the moronic reviews claiming another "History" channel show is authentic by dint of the name on the channel. With a degree in Archaeology, the only thing they managed to get right is that the vikings did indeed breath air. Even Spartacus was more realistic than Vikings.

    Aside from the fact that the History channel is completely untrustworthy for
    I cannot help but laugh at all the moronic reviews claiming another "History" channel show is authentic by dint of the name on the channel. With a degree in Archaeology, the only thing they managed to get right is that the vikings did indeed breath air. Even Spartacus was more realistic than Vikings.

    Aside from the fact that the History channel is completely untrustworthy for developing historically accurate content (see their mini-series reviews), this show is disposable and best watched in larger batches with liberal use of Fast Forward and Skip. The only things of note are the cinemotographic set pieces, and action sequences, which are both done very well.
    Expand
  15. Wyv
    Jan 24, 2016
    9
    Not too slow, not too fast. Not too censored not too explicit. Very enjoyable narration and good actors. Easy to follow and nothing unnecessary is shown. It could be not very historically accurate but nothing tragic. In 2 words: RAW, and REAL. I am not an expert but guys, trust me, i think this is one of the best series you may find. At the public who prefers finery and fakery well.. goNot too slow, not too fast. Not too censored not too explicit. Very enjoyable narration and good actors. Easy to follow and nothing unnecessary is shown. It could be not very historically accurate but nothing tragic. In 2 words: RAW, and REAL. I am not an expert but guys, trust me, i think this is one of the best series you may find. At the public who prefers finery and fakery well.. go watch game of thrones. Expand
  16. Dec 1, 2015
    10
    The best show on TV!

    Honestly, it's brilliant. LOVE the characters, the progression, the plots, the acting, the scenery. It's the best show out there.
  17. Nov 5, 2015
    0
    Complete garbage.
    Now, while I understand that the writers want to make the Vikings look "badass", there ARE ways of doing it that are historically appropriate.
    Sadly, they decided to make them into leather wearing biker types instead. Which is a shame because some of the writing is pretty solid. I just couldn't get past the atrocious costumes and equipment. Seriously, if you're going
    Complete garbage.
    Now, while I understand that the writers want to make the Vikings look "badass", there ARE ways of doing it that are historically appropriate.
    Sadly, they decided to make them into leather wearing biker types instead.
    Which is a shame because some of the writing is pretty solid. I just couldn't get past the atrocious costumes and equipment. Seriously, if you're going to make a drama series based on an actual culture, you really should study the culture, just a bit, to get some idea as to what they wore, not make it up as you go along.
    Expand
  18. Sep 26, 2015
    10
    Una delle migliori serie televisive mai viste, splendide ambientazioni, splendidi personaggi, grande Regia e narrazione autentica e onesta di quel mondo. Da vedere assolutamente.
  19. Jul 10, 2015
    9
    I burned through 3 seasons in one week. And it was definitely worth it. Irresistibly easy to watch and fall into. The characters are constantly evolving and becoming more and more real. While the story is getting more and more tense as you watch. Definitely recommend to people who like historical TV!
  20. Jul 7, 2015
    10
    Best TV show that I have ever seen. Great acting, great action and the landscapes are incredible! I recommend this show to everyone. Can't wait for more episodes!!
  21. Jun 6, 2015
    10
    This is a brilliant show. I was put off watching it a while ago because of the GOT lite tag I'd seen in some lazy review until a friend recommended it recently. Trust your friends! There's nothing lite about it. It's all story and action without the laborious and pretentious intrigue building of some other shows. Great acting and fascinating characters make it easy to watch.
  22. May 15, 2015
    9
    Vikings tells the story of a tribe in a nonpartisan way. It is more life-like in comparison to its rival Game of Thrones but contains more censorship.
  23. May 2, 2015
    10
    One of the best shows. It tell the story of Ragnar. There are some slow episodes but generally I dont think there is a btter show on tv at the moment.
  24. Apr 24, 2015
    9
    I absolutely LOVE this show! The footage, the talented, and oh-so-brilliantly-cast actors! The incorporation of history....this is one of my favorites. I am depressed that the season has ended!!!
  25. Apr 21, 2015
    10
    The "Rome" version of Vikings. A jump into history with great atmosphere and an incredible amount of tension, passion and details.
    The location is just perfect; actors are great, I love the light inside any house of the set.
    Thanks for this amazing series.
  26. Apr 12, 2015
    10
    By a long shot this is one of the best shows on TV. It's a shame the History channel doesn't advertise more for it. I would not have known about this show had it not been for a friend telling me about it.
    Character development is outstanding and this show leads the way in cinematography. Praying to the Gods for many more seasons!!!!!
  27. Mar 11, 2015
    10
    Wow I love this series! I ran out and bought seasons 1 and 2, and looking forward to season 3. Love the characters and the story line! Hopefully they will do more seasons! Thank you History channel!
  28. Feb 26, 2015
    10
    Easily one of the best things ever on TV. On par with Game of Thrones in my opinion, it isn't too slow and it has a very good story line... And lets face it, who doesn't like the Vikings.
  29. Feb 10, 2015
    8
    Very much enjoying this series. Its gritty, with plenty of action and some drama to keep interested. Ragnar is an interesting character wavering between warrior and philosopher but seemingly unable to embrace enlightenment completely but that is what makes him believable given the time and conditions they lived in. His brother and eldest son are fairly one dimensional so far but i can seeVery much enjoying this series. Its gritty, with plenty of action and some drama to keep interested. Ragnar is an interesting character wavering between warrior and philosopher but seemingly unable to embrace enlightenment completely but that is what makes him believable given the time and conditions they lived in. His brother and eldest son are fairly one dimensional so far but i can see that changing. Other characters provide good support to tell Ragnars story. "Bad" guys in this show are more convincing than in others ,like Game of Thrones were they are unrealistically despicable. In this show, adversaries all have a good reason to be so and that makes them more formidable in my opinion. Sure the show is not as dramatized as Game of Thrones or other action packed shows but I like that it is more sublime and realistic. I hope they keep it up. Expand
  30. Nov 30, 2014
    8
    'Vikings' is one of the better attempts of historical fiction by the History Channel which has never been know for historical accuracy. Although they get a lot of details of vikings wrong, most are forgivable, minor, and excusable. The general portrayal of early viking culture (8th century) is very accurate. Occasionally however, the plot lines mix up early Viking history with later Viking'Vikings' is one of the better attempts of historical fiction by the History Channel which has never been know for historical accuracy. Although they get a lot of details of vikings wrong, most are forgivable, minor, and excusable. The general portrayal of early viking culture (8th century) is very accurate. Occasionally however, the plot lines mix up early Viking history with later Viking history. For example, referring to 'Russia' before the term was actually used (in the 11th century I think), or having a main character named 'Rollo' (a northman name from when northman controlled 10th and 11th century France). But after all it is fiction, and the basic portrayal of early Scandinavian culture in very accurate. For simplicity sake, the series implies that these Vikings are Norse when in fact this culture was from all of Scandinavia including modern day Sweden and Denmark. But if we wanted that amount of accuracy we wouldn't get those beautiful scenes of Norwegian fjords. The actors are very good and carry the story forward very well. The series suffers somewhat by a limited budget that limits the shooting locales to just 2 areas, but that will probably be remedied when the productions moves to France for the third session. This is a good historical series and worth your attention. Expand
Metascore
71

Generally favorable reviews - based on 20 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 20
  2. Negative: 0 out of 20
  1. People Weekly
    Reviewed by: Tom Gliatto
    Mar 7, 2013
    75
    History's first scripted series is a headlong tumble into an irresistible and surprisingly neglected genre. [18 Mar 2013, p.41]
  2. Reviewed by: Glenn Garvin
    Mar 4, 2013
    50
    Vikings is at least fun to watch, in a sword-swinging, head-chopping, maiden-despoiling sort of way.
  3. 70
    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.