Vikings

The theme of Viking raids is interesting to me. I don't know much about them beyond the basics and the series made me do some digging to get some context. The writers created the right mixture of intrigue, fighting, and insights into the off-season activities of the Norsemen to keep me hooked. Interestingly, the Viking who stands out the most for me in the series is the 168cm tall Lagertha. Until the end of the third season, I was fully satisfied, but the fourth season was a bit disappointing due to the constant visions and hallucinations that needlessly fragmented the plot. I can only hope that the fifth season will bring it up to 5 stars again. (08/03/2016)

The real Viking experience that we have been waiting for since reading the “Northlanders" comic book series. This is first and foremost a straightforward relaxation show, while not making fools out of the audience, despite often utterly ignoring historical authenticity. And does it matter? Not a bit. The greatest problem is the how it is so inconstant; the last two episodes are about something completely different from the rest of the series, and this applies to everything. It’s most noticeable in Travis Fimmel. Who gives a damn that while trying to cover up his Australian accent so hard he trips up over his tongue. And it’s not such a problem that he can’t act, as the fact that he doesn’t even try to act. His “actor’s" recipe for everything from hunting, through sleep to watching his nearest and dearest being slaughtered is a cheeky grin, half-closed eyes; simply the classic Blue Steel in practice. And where’s the inconsistency? Even though everybody out-acts him by miles (even the kids!), it doesn’t matter so much, because he oozes with charisma which makes it easier to believe why everybody just accepts that he is changing established traditions. As a result, the first season serves the same purpose as its main protagonist, Ragnar Lothbrok, does in the main storyline; it holds promise for the future. Season two offers basically the same, just a little tighter and basically with the continually repeated concept of “increase the tension between characters for one or two episodes, and then we let them beat each other to death". Which isn’t so bad, the problem (even though that is a strong word, better would be “snag") is however, that it is uncomplicated in its political relations storylines (at one point absolutely idiotic) and so too transparent; it is generally clear who, how and why double-crosses love to/decapitates whom. In any case, it might be a good idea to stop playing at something more ambitious than it has capacity for. It would be more than enough to remain in the straightforward (but not dumb!) historical battle mode. It suits the Vikings most in this mode. Season three immediately at the beginning disintegrates into several unrelated backstories which simply make variations to themes seen before in the series and run on the spot for so long it’s embarrassing. But the whole season is pulled from the doldrums by the concluding episodes with the siege of Paris. All of a sudden it’s fully focused on one place and thanks to this (but not only this) we’re back with our good old familiar Vikings. I hope the creators learn a lesson from this for the coming seasons. | S1: 4/5 | S2: 4/5 | S3: 3/5 | (10/22/2013)

After Camelot, few people trusted Hirst anymore. Besides, who would watch something that at first looked like a fiction documentary? Well, that was a mistake. Out of nothing on an unfamiliar television came a spectacle unlike anything I've ever experienced. Even if the whole thing existed just for the possibility of raiding Paris, it would be worth it. In addition, of course, a trip to the 9th century and the legends of the time also has its value. (03/08/2013)

Epic. A bit of a reflection on the trend set by seasons one, two and three and how the series finally ended its journey (not entirely positively), but still very high in quality. The comparisons to GoT are warranted, although Vikings is a bit different in some details: it’s more religious and, in particular, longer in terms of time span. Whereas in GoT it's years (more or less the same as the years of the actors playing the main characters), here it's decades, which translates into even broader possibilities for the writers to create bigger twists and turns. But they exploit it only partially. After a key turning point (the protagonist), the quality of the individual episodes goes down a bit despite all the efforts. Even so, it is quite certain that Vikings will be remembered for a long time and very likely, as in GoT, everyone found their favourite character they couldn't get enough of. Although the fan base here will be a bit thinner compared to the competing spectacle. (01/18/2021)

Over the years, the initially innocuous Vikings gradually clawed their way to the point where they deserved a feature-length film rather than being dispensed in episodes. However, it still feels extremely epic and from one fishing village at the start of it all you look to England, France, the Mediterranean and beyond...perhaps too far. Michael Hirst capitalised on the initial success of the series, and the story from his hand has therefore swelled across decades and countries in a tremendous way, and it gets to just about anyone who ever had anything to do with Norsemen. Unfortunately, however, this means that there are also characters whose motives often fizzle out into nothingness or serve only as filler between individual conflicts, and that’s Vikings' sole but repetitive weakness. Thanks to Odin, at least this rabble in the series also regularly goes to Valhalla while the real warriors remain on the scene. Skål. (01/20/2018)