Vikings

19 January 2018

I'm not a fan of historical and quasi-historical films and series, so I had no high expectations for "Vikings". But the first season bought me right away. It's completely different from anything I've seen so far, and there are more dead than in "Game of Thrones". Now I finished the second season and the series just keeps getting better. It seems to me that there are more scheming and twists than in GoT. The acting and characterization are excellent, and the action scenes are incredibly believable and realistic. It gets more and more complicated and tense and will not only hold your attention but also your breath.

7 April 2024

I finally made it to the end. In the later seasons, the story branches out in too many directions and gets overly complicated. The series in most respects maintains the level until the very end, but the story begins to repeat itself, the same plots revolve around different generations of characters and, although it cannot be said that the quality decreases, it all becomes a bit monotonous. Some of the denouements delighted me, some disappointed me, and some felt unfinished, but I guess that's a matter of taste. All in all, an above-average series, but I think they should have ended it earlier. Definitely a recommendation, if for no other reason than because of the original and striking performances of the entire cast, among which Katheryn Winnick, Gustaf Skarsgård, Alex Hogh Andersen, and Travis Fimmel stand out the most.

8/10.

Vikings is one of the rare shows where it is never dull and full of entertainment. It's a show with plenty of violence, drama, mystery, etc. The character development is what keeps the show fresh and interesting. It takes you into this world of Vikings and keeps you intrigued throughout the series. I just loved this show so much and even though it hasn't been gone that long I already miss it! I know everyone keeps talking about how the show dropped in quality when Travis Fimmel (Ragnar) left the show, and it did, but it was still a pretty good show after he left as long as you don't compare it to when he was there. Just take it for what it is and that's still a very entertaining show. For some reason it left the History Channel for Amazon Prime Video for the final ten episodes and thought they did a really good job finishing off the story. It's one of the rare great shows where they didn't botch the ending.

They should have just stopped after season 3. Season 5 was so bad that I couldn't finish the last 2 episodes without forcing myself to watch just to confirm how bad this was.

With the release of the last half of the 6th season we finished the epic seven-year saga of Ragnar Lothbrok and his sons. Whilst I am not sure I'd consider "Vikings" to be amongst the very top tier of shows I've watched in my lifetime; I've certainly enjoyed my time with the Norsemen.

Ragnar Lothbrok (Travis Fimmel) is a farmer and raider who becomes a legendary figure amongst the Viking people by establishing consistent navigation techniques and leading successful raids on the various Kingdom's that would become Britain. Rising to become King, his legacy is cemented by the actions of his sons, particularly Bjorn Ironside (Alexander Ludwig) and Ivar The Boneless (Alex Hogh Andersen) who would rule countries and influence politics far from their homelands.

The first few episodes don't really convey the scale of the ones that would eventually follow. There are lots of great characters that appear across the run but at the start the show rests on Travis Fimmel's shoulders and he's really good. Ragnar is not a good man, or father and the danger of the character always is present in Fimmel's wild eyes but you still understand why his men fought for him and elevated him so highly that his sons could trade of his name. His sons each derive some aspect of him, Ubbe played by Jordan Patrick Smith is the explorer he wanted to be, Bjorn the noble King, Hvitserk, played by Marco Ilso, is the sufferer and addict and Ivar the vicious warlord. I don't really think any of the characters across the run were poorly performed and it's interesting to look back now and remember some of those characters and the stories that only played for a while.

The scale of the show gets bigger and bigger and the battle scenes more and more expansive. I don't feel as strongly as others that the show drops off as it refocuses on the sons of Ragnar but I would accept that some of the stories don't quite end at their natural point or have deviations that don't go anywhere.

It's not, for me, in that top tier "West Wing", "Game of Thrones", "The Wire" category, but it's not far below and I'm happy to have visited Kattegat for these last few years.

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.