Vikings: Valhalla (2022– ) User Reviews (728)

A show based on history should be historically accurate. (updated)

[OceanGirl941 · 6/10 · 16 June 2022]

(((Read through or scroll to the end for the update.)))

Billed as a spinoff sequel to History Channel's "knocked it out of the park" smash hit "Vikings," I naturally looked forward to this new series. So before we get into it, I love writing rave reviews, and I had expected to on this one, but it's not going to happen.

As others have mentioned, there are many historical inaccuracies, one of which is a black female jarl. You can't make this stuff up... but THEY DID. I lost count of how many times I've read reviews that used the words "politically correct" and "woke," and, if I'm being honest, I can't disagree with them. This isn't the only instance of forcing today's social and diversity issues into this time period within this series, but I don't want to spend any more time on this.

After watching Valhalla, I truly believe that it should be described as fantasy fiction based on some actual historical events. To do anything other is false advertising. The biggest mystery is this: how can a series, with so many people from its epic predecessor being involved in it, be such a raging dumpster fire?

The cast were okay, but they didn't click for me at all. In more scenes than I care to remember there was zero chemistry. There are some really good people, but these roles didn't stand out or shine at all. Not a single one.

The series as a whole made me claustrophobic. Gone are the vast vistas of breathtaking beauty from the original series. In their place are boring small pieces of mountainsides and marsh. Throw in a bridge and some other cheesy sets, and, well, there's really nothing more to say with a subtle nod to the bad CGI as well.

I'm guessing Frida Gustavsson was supposed to be the obligatory "strong female lead" in this series? The writing for Freydis Eriksdotter, along with Gustavsson's interpretation of the role, are both abysmal. I know, I know, she's not Katheryn Winnick/Lagertha, but I can say with a straight face that I didn't expect her to be! I expected her to be different, but on PAR, and that's all based on what I said in the first paragraph. Bottom line... not even close.

The writing is abysmal. I was the opposite of captivated. I watched until the end of the season hoping for some of the magic of the original Vikings to be recaptured, but it didn't happen. For me, the series flatlined, and no one bothered to call for a crash cart.

As others have mentioned, if you value your time, watch the original Vikings (shout out to Gustaf Skarsgard as my favorite character "Floki"), and The Last Kingdom. These two shows captured and held me from the opening moments.

----------------------------------

Update:

I watched all of Season Two. Though some parts dragged out far too long, it was much improved, and I brought my rating up. I'm looking forward to (hopefully) more improvements in the next season, if there is one.

This feels like the last seasons of Vikings

[alexleizerovichcoaching · 6/10 · 1 June 2022]

Unfortunately this feels exactly like the last seasons of Vikings post Ragnar's death. If you compare this to the Ragnar era there is no comparison. Something about the first seasons with Ragnar was special and magical. It took the time to build the story and the characters. The last seasons of Vikings were pretty boring and repetitive. Valhalla really reminds me of them.

Especially because not many things have changed. Yes there are new characters. And a new balance of power religion wise. London is now the English capital instead of Wessex but thats about it.

Maybe after Vikings and The last Kingdom TV is saturated with series about this era. Overall a decent watch but nothing special or unique so far. Just finished watching season 1 and I am not that eager for season 2.

Enjoyable but historically false

[SRnorway · 7/10 · 27 July 2023]

Vikings valhalla is a very enjoyable series but its more so historically fiction with more fiction than historically accuracy. Regardless of the huge debate on the black female jarl Håkon, which is extremely unlikely at best that is more realistic than the complete false events of history. The series follows real historical figures like Harald hardrada and Saint olaf but their histories are very different and do not follow historical fact. This is a shame because by following true events perhaps with a time skip or 2 the series would be more accurate and more enjoyable. But the series has some connections to history and it is enjoyable so it deserves a 7/10 and a watch if you enjoy vikings like battle and action.

Looking forward to more

[Supermanfan-13 · 9/10 · 10 December 2023]

Being a huge fan of the original Vikings I was really looking forward to Vikings: Valhalla. Now, even though it's not as quite as good as the original it's still a really good show that absolutely holds up as it's own great series (as long as you don't compare it to the original). It takes place 100 years after the original show and makes references to all the great characters from that show like Ragnar, Bjorn, Lagertha, Rollo, Ivar, etc. It also mainly takes place in Kattegat, which was home to all those great characters. The new heroes in this show (Leif, Harold, Freydis, etc) are all really easy to root for and do a incredible job pulling you into the show. After finishing the second season I can say I've been thoroughly entertained throughout the entire series so far and I'm so glad that there's more seasons to come.

Not as good as the original but still good

[Rob1331 · 9/10 · 27 September 2023]

When I first heard about Vikings: Valhalla I couldn't wait to see it. I knew it was going to be hard to live up to the original but this not not only met my expectations but surpassed them in every way. Of course it wasn't as good as the original, I wasn't expecting it to but it's still a very good show that can stand on its own. I actually liked it so much that I binged the entire first season over a weekend. Now season 2 just came out and I did the same thing...I binged it as fast as possible. Both seasons have been great! I know it's already gotten an early renewal for a third season so it's obviously getting good ratings. I hope this last as long as the original as I look forward to seeing where this story goes. The more Vikings the better!

An anachronism a minute, pale follow-on to great series.

[random-70778 · 25 February 2022]

Firstly the people claiming that there are fake low rating reviews here are way off base. The full season dropped on Netflix in Europe nearly 20 hours ago, and the first negative review occurred 14 hours ago, plenty of time to have seen eight total 50 minute episodes. So let's talk about the show, not downvoting claimed to be fake by other people who don't know how netflix works across continents.

The fact is this show is a pale and shallow follow-on. The dialogue is unbearably predictable, the acting awful (although with a few exceptions the original show had mediocre acting), the plot just silly. And while we can all tolerate some anachronisms in historical fiction, this show is just chock full of cringeworthy anachronisms both in detail and in general. We are not talking about changes in historicity for dramatic effect. This show is wholesale inversion of basic history, not to mention battle tactics, often clothing, and social interaction. It is completely idiotic

As far as wokeness, sure the makers can have one out of 3,000 fighters be women (and that is the proportion the burial data, shock combat injury data suggest) , and one out of 100,000 11th century Vikings in Norway have significant African ancestry (although Berber, not sub-Saharan). But one has to ask what is the point of doing this bizarre woke and absurd demographic portrayal at a time and place where it simply is not how represented? It is clearly intentional. Moreover the reason people note the intentionality is that the wokeness is not about prior "non-woke" portrayals of Vikings being corrected: In fact there simply was no prior false demographics in film and TV somehow ignoring African Vikings. Rather this wokeness is put in place and worn on the sleeve to distract from what is just very bad writing.

Meh

[georgewhittingham1 · 6/10 · 31 March 2022]

Sadly painfully average. It has its moments, but it's main issue I would say is the lack of character development. 8 episodes that takes us between England and Norway, trying to give us 3 main characters, but introducing more and more along the way.

I'd also say it looks kind of cheap? It definitely doesn't have the same gritty feel like the first few seasons of Vikings did.

It's worth watching, but definitely don't get your hopes up for this one.

Great show, but...

[ecmarmon · 8/10 · 1 April 2022]

I'm enjoying the show. But having a strong black woman as a lead in this location and era? I don't see a lot of films set in central Africa during 900 CE with a strong white female lead being made.

Might be an agenda here?

Viking's valhala is are boring

[yahaira-729-694701 · 6/10 · 13 January 2023]

I was looking forward to this series since the Vikings- Ragnar was such a great series on the H channel which makes this netflix production to be a boring soap opera and not historically correct. I agree with most reviews that its wrong to make the historical fictions woke. It takes away the reality. Lets face that its not real for a viking culture to put a woman from African lands to be queen of Kattegatt given that ascension to the throne is along family or clan lines. That does not disclude that people of other races, be they slaves or warriors could have neen sold traded or stolen from the Romans with whom the vikings did business and battle with. I agree there isnt the passion and drama of Ragna, here with the characters whom appear to be 2 dimensional, however characters develop and story gets goid by episode 4. Its worth watching.

It's actually really good!

[loveopensthedoor · 8/10 · 21 January 2024]

I loved it! When I attempted to watch right after watching the original Vikings I gave up a few minutes in expecting it to be very poor, kind of like the last seasons of the Vikings.

But ... I recently watched it after time had past after watching the Vikings and other great shows on this topic and I really really loved it! Can't wait for the next season!

The characters are so likable and just like the Vikings it has some main hero characters that are exceptional and keep you excited to see their fate. I am so glad I gave it a chance and didn't compare it to other shows. Such a great adventure. Binge watched it and honestly now can't find a show to watch because I still miss this one. Hope next season is coming out soon!

Average cast and writer watchable

[roxmewild · 6/10 · 3 March 2022]

After watching Vikings and The Last Kingdom which were both outstanding shows it made me a lot more critical of shows of the same ilk!

This latest offering is not of the same quality the cast main characters are not as strong and the writing not as good add on to this the lack of historical accuracy has delivered an average show but watchable I did notice that as far as filming it appears to have used the same settings as was used in Vikings which was stunning but only emphasised the lack of quality of cast and writing!

Woke Netflixification a parody of Viking culture

[dtaarin · 8/10 · 3 April 2022]

1000 years ago Judeochristian invaders destroyed pagan culture not (only) by cutting throats but by over-coding, by synchretism, by over-writing pagan culture until it was dead in all but image. Netflix are doing the same again. This show projects a woke assault on a culture Netflixies probably despise.

This is not about Vikings, it's a woke subversion against those of us who are into Vikings.

This is not history it's a fabricated narrative of a future world Netflix-types want to create.

This does not honour Viking culture, it is a parody of it.

The writing is lame. In Ep1 Cnut's speech to his army could have been a great leader speech. I cannot believe the writers are so lame they made it so bad. I suspect it must be intentional to make Vikings (or men) look lame but it just makes the show dumb. The writing is awful.

Some of the actors make a good go of it though. Frejdis and Anna are better cut characters than most.

The story hangs together to be entertaining enough but the more Netflixification we are exposed to the more we see them achieve seductive production quality by reaching for the same rent-a-cliche tropes, narrative ploys, sets, generic-foreign-accent, generic period costume from one show to the next. Lame US factory TV.

The original Vikings was a hard act to follow...

[mgumsley · 7/10 · 27 January 2023]

But this series is doing quite well. Its biggest problem is that it doesn't have the overpowering dramatic characters that 'Vikings' enjoyed with Travis Fimmel and Linus Roache being particularly good. However, as good entertainment, I am enjoying it.

There are lots of strands to the current series. Harald Hardrada (the most compelling character for me, Leo Suter in his first decent role). He's Christian, and aspires to be King of Norway. There's Frida, a pagan, charismatic character, fighter, and thinker. Leif Erikson, who we know from history, and King Canute, King of England. The plot follows the destinies of all these people with varying degrees of success. I think in Season Two, Harald Hardrada and Leif Erikson come off best with their business in Constantinople; they have lots of adventures.

The CGI is a bit messy at times, and it is pretty gory. We still think the Vikings were a violent group of people and the fact that they became Christians late by Western standards was due more to geography than anything else. I think the acting is a bit uneven as well, but I still think this is a better than average series and as the competition for the throne of Norway hots up, I think Season Three might be even better.

Just saw the first episode.. Oh dear..

[ashwetherall1 · 3/10 · 4 March 2022]

Micheal Hurst should be convicted for crimes against history. I know this show was made purely for entertainment purposes. But considering its set during one of the most intresting periods in the history of the British isles I expected just a little hard fact. But no.

We instead get the same badly written characters that ruined the last 3 seasons of Vikings and the box ticking diversity casting that is insulting to anyone with a small amount of knowledge about the period and even intelligent persons who know practically nothing.. Dark skinned Viking warrior queens with New Zealand accent...? Sorry but it's laughable.

I will watch more episodes but I hold out little hope. If you really want to know what really happened during that period read some History books or even Helen Holick's book the A Hollow Crown and Harold the king. Or Alternatively some of Bernard Cornwell's who like Holick can inter weave hard historical fact with fiction.

Not based on any history

[Tom54735 · 27 February 2022]

Why didn't they just make them space Vikings. The first Vikings was 10/10.

Total groan fest this was. I really feel sorry for all the hard working actors let down by the box ticking director.

Cheap and tacky woke copycat

[shanejmullan · 8/10 · 26 February 2022]

Cheap and tacky woke copycat. DONT WASTE YOUR TIME. I don't know how this reached Netflix's number 1 for today. What is the world coming to.. Some completely poor actor choices, trying to re-write history to suit their own activist agendas.

Tough act to follow the original

[Carambotti · 8/10 · 10 September 2022]

This show has big shoes to wear after the wild success of the 2013 Vikings series. It very much is the junior brother to that series, as it turns out.

The entire first season here is built on revenge. Revenge for the brutalizing of a clan of Greenlanders, the slaughter of the Vikings settlers of England by the crown, or clan against clan.

But where it gets interesting for me is to watch the tension of faith against faith, within the Viking peoples themselves. Vikings who follow the "old ways" of Odin, and the promise of Valhalla, versus the Vikings who have converted to the foreign faith of the English and Franks. This is what this story really wants to tell. But it doesn't answer why very concisely. Why would Vikings convert to some foreign lands' belief system, and then return to slaughter their own peoples to enforce conversion? Is it the trappings of wealth & power that enamores them, somehow? The belief systems are completely different, silly in their own ways. But why does the new one win out?

The pacing is a bit choppy as it jumps from region to region and back. Felt like they were punching check boxes to get through a list. Relationship development seems rushed, even with the requisite sex scenes sprinkled in. This series tones down the bloody gore factor from the original, but that decision turns some battle scenes comical, with everyone dying instantly from a single slash of a sword or arrow.

I'm ready to see S2 if it gets picked up.

It lacks the previous Vikings charisma

[nourdinb · 6/10 · 27 February 2022]

They've chosen the wrong actors. They don't have as much charisma as previous Vikings actors like Ragnar, Floki, Rollo, Lagertha, Bjorn and King Harald. These guys have friendly looks, talk English with a "nice try" accent. No face tattoos and all. It just doesn't appeal to me as much as the real Vikings.

Also the wokeness in this made me puke. So disgusting to see this political correctness. Vikings were white. If you make a show about vikings at least be historically correct.

After 3 episodes I gave up on this show. Shame. The original vikings was a masterpiece and one of my all time favorites.

Very good, but many historical mistakes

[Waltram · 8/10 · 21 September 2023]

I watched the original Viking series and was not disappointed with this sequel. The quality is about the same. But like it's predecessor it's suffers from a lack of historical accuracy. The story begins with the St Brice's Day massacre, in which king Aethelred II of England had most Vikings living in England killed. This took place in 1002. In the series Canute was already king of Denmark at the time and led the punitive expedition against England. However in reality it was his father, Sweyn Forkbeard, who was king of Denmark and who raided England in retaliation. Sweyn died in 1014, and his eldest son, Harald, became king of Denmark in 1014. This King Harald is not even mentioned in Vikings Valhalla. Canute invaded England in 1015 and became king of England in 1016, then on the king of Denmark when his brother died in 1018. Yet, oddly in the series we see Canute's father still alive and coming to England after Canute became king of England.

Two other main characters of the series are Olaf Haraldsson and his half-brother Harald Sigurdsson. They are both adults in 1015~1016, and Olaf already has a 10-year-old son. However Olaf, the future Olaf II of Norway was born in 995, while Harald, the future Harald Hardrada, was born in 1015. Leif Eriksson looks the same age as Harald, yet he was born in 970 - 45 years earlier.

So the timeline of the series is completely mixed up.

At the end of season 1 we see trebuchet in Norway, Which would be about 100 years too early for their presence in England, and they were not attested at all in Scandinavia.

I was also surprised to see ring-tailed lemurs among the exotic animals brought to Kattegat, as they come from Madagascar, which was unknown of Europeans at the time.

These are just a few of the historical mistakes from season 1.

Common Netflix

[RealRosoy · 7/10 · 27 February 2022]

This is just so sad. I literally felt asleep in the second episode. I thought I'm watching VIKINGS. Man these Hipster Vikings are bothering me. This Show is playing with my feelings and destroying the picture I used to remember from the original Vikings Show. Please don't give this Show a second season. Just let it end.

Enjoyable

[Diviana-83 · 8/10 · 7 October 2022]

I enjoyed the series, even though I don't agree with casting a black actress for the role of a Viking Ruler. I think this show worked for me because of the story (even though not historically accurate) and the atmosphere they managed to create. I did manage to care for the fate of some of the characters, unlike other viewers...

I think it's not ok to cast black people for roles that are not made for them just to call the series politically correct. The times of the Vikings were anything but politically correct!!

Lukily in this show, all the main characters were white so that fortunately didn't spoil the historical atmosphere for me!! I'm looking forward to season 2.

Please STOP

[vapepurecbd · 6/10 · 19 February 2023]

Rated 6 - watching women dominate Vikings men in combat is complete garbage while pushing this phony narrative is painful to watch. Viking women lived in a male dominated society of raiders, explores, pirates, and colonizers. The Viking warriors looted and returned home. Other times, after the battle they settled in the area and the women helped manage the home, work the farms, raise children to help establish homes and villages. I'm not saying some of Viking women didn't go directly into battle but very unlikely for 99% most. The Viking women are legendary in their own right but not in combat.

Home is where the heart is.

[twindl89 · 8/10 · 24 January 2024]

The top episode for me is number 3 Marshes, there was two ambushes and great sword fights, one with the first of Christian gladiators hating pagan religion killing the girls friends, then the one in marshes when they tried to scout get pushed back and not being able to find any news of the enemy, some great body cuts and strangling.

The show has a lot of partnerships with the ending being very iffy with Kanut King of England's province being sent back to Kattegat to defend his home land. His father is very different and has new taxes, new advisors and partners to help gain Mercia differently, new thoughts on rebuilding the bridge. Best thing is Kanut the laid back comes back and kicks his father as the replacement king of the chair. All this king replacement Kanut problems while, Olaf is in Norway with his own son figuring who will inherit next and partner against his own kind, his own blood. Hope they fight for their own home as father and son not just one of them fights for Home.

Great fights bloody between Vikings... and that's all.

[r-fronimides · 6/10 · 28 February 2022]

I'm a HUGE fan of the first "Vikings" TV show.

Not only that I SUPER LOVE the Skandinavian Mythology & History, but because IT WAS actually a superb TV show! Great acting play, superb actors, characters, drama, script, all were amazing good to the last detail...

...And this here?

Well, it's the "classic cook" they do, when they have a great prequel. "Vikings" made history to the TV shows, millions loved it, they made fortune from the audience... and they wanted more. Well, just making a story "somehow like" the previous great one, doesn't mean success.

Yes, there are Vikings - and bloody battles.

There is Kattegat here too. There are "shield-maidens" here too. There is a female "wonna-be-Lagertha" or a male "wonna-be-Ragnar"... But, they are "years of light" AWAY from that!

To me? I really enjoyed it. No, really. I love Vikings, I love bloody battles, so I enjoyed it. As much as I enjoyed "Netflix Witcher", which it was NOTHING CLOSE to the "Witcher" books or video games!!!!

So... If you expecting a "Viking" TV show come-back, you'll dissapointed.

It's not even close that good to original "Vikings". If you "JUST" want to spend some time watching good fights between Vikings warriors, its fine.

Nothing more.

Can't compare...

[jordan2240 · 5/10 · 18 March 2022]

... to "the last kingdom", which is my standard for these types of shows. No idea about historical accuracy, but simply found myself getting bored with it after 3 episodes. I'm sure a lot of work went into it, but just not for me.