Game of Thrones: Season 1
  • Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 17, 2011
  • Season #: 1 , 2 , 3
User Score
9.0 out of 10

Universal acclaim- based on 1261 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1,202 out of 1261
  2. Mixed: 19 out of 1261
  3. Negative: 40 out of 1261

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. SelnAdams
    Apr 29, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Game of Porcelain Thrones

    Art thrives on limitations, or it can also thrive on big budgets. But I have never seen art push so far to these two extremes that it becomes an overdone and overbearing nightmare that never gets to the point. It’s a chess game that never ends. I thought Law and Order was dull.

    I truly believe that this book series would work better as Films, because cuts would be needed, and believe me, I would cut out a lot of scenes in the HBO series. Hell, I’d cut characters out altogether, Rob and Arya Stark, and the other Stark kid who has noodles for legs, and others. You can retire these characters with no warning right now and I would not have caught on. Until they do something important, I won’t care. Sorry, Mother of Dragons.

    This show takes itself too seriously that there grey characters and grey persona's matches there grey on grey suits and landscapes, even when you see red and gold, its lies. It’s hard to care about The Kings Slayer when the biggest things he has done in the series is his sister, pushed a kid out a high window and had his stranger hand chopped off.

    The only character that stands out in anyway is The Dwarf character, as he is the only person, character development wise, that actually is going places. He is not a good character, but he is the only hint of a character we have, and thank god for Peter, as he seems to be the only actor in the cast that genuinely enjoys his roll.

    This show needs to learn to leave well enough alone, when to not drag and when to move on, learn to be comfortable with edit, and being serious and grey does not make this show epic or deep, let alone smart, it is just underwhelming. The Walking Dead isn’t this serious.

    I’ll still watch GOT like a sports fan who still sticks with their bad team, but I’m hoping as the show goes on, it will dewrinkle all the issues I have had and finally make a story that is worth a damn.
    Put you pieces where they need to be and stop dicking around.    … Expand
  2. lufflyness
    Jul 18, 2012
    1
    Okay so this doesn't deserve a "0" but I had to balance out some of the delusion around this show. Perhaps I was oversold on the show after reading rave review after rave review on every fan blog and being told by my friends it was the most amazing thing in the world. But I quickly found myself bored out of my mind. Things start to pick up a little by episode 5 but even at that point I wasn't at all invested in any of the characters (and there are A LOT of them!). Aside from the little girl, none of the characters are remotely likeable. Her father is okay, but there wasn't enough development around him for me to really feel the need to root for him or be interested in what happens to him. Everyone else just simply sucked and it sucked even harder seeing them continue their streak of suckage episode after episode.

    With that said, the scenery, set design, and costumes on the show are absolutely breathtaking. I'd rather watch a video tour of one of the kingdoms than have to keep watching any of the many **** characters ever again though.

    Tip: If you haven't read the book before watching (which I didn't), it is recommended to at least read up on the plot synopses on Wikipedia or something to get a better grasp on the plot. With the many different characters, locations, and mythology within the show, it gets rather complex. For me it ultimately wasn't worth the extra effort though.    … Expand
  3. Kragen1970
    Jun 27, 2011
    3
    SPOILERS BELOW

    Maybe all the hype and fanboy-ish "professional" reviews have clouded people's minds, or maybe the world of "Idiocracy" has finally arrived, because I'm not sure how anyone can think this is really a good show. Allow me to explain: Point 1: Most of the characters are not really that interesting. Although it does have some good qualities, Game of Thrones' characters are not     one of them. They're mostly trite, predictable, 1 dimensional genre stereotypes with very simple, blatantly obvious motivations. With yawning regularity anyone paying attention can reliably predict what they are about to do next. The actors are good, for the most part, but their characters taste like cardboard... no flavor. Point 2: The whole "Dothraki" thing is totally boring
    Was anyone else yawning when the story steps over the sea to the Dothraki? The Tagerian twit is so over the top with his "evil" that it's a relief when his character is finally offed, in a perfect example of the yawning predictability of this show, in a yawningly predictable way. The Drogo character earns Jason Momoa a 2nd award as "worst character on a TV show cast" since his Ronon Dex character ruined Stargate Atlantis. The eye makeup makes him look like a cross dresser and his delivery of lines is so bad that the camera doesn't stay on him when he gives them most of the time. In fact all the Dothraki characters are the most 1 dimensional of the cast. You could cut the entire Dothraki storyline from the show and nobody would notice that it's missing. Forgettable acting, bland characters, and pointless, trite, boring story. With one exception: the dragon chick. She's one of the more interesting characters. Too bad she's stuck in the worst part of the story. Point 3: The overall plot is just insanely predictable. Did anyone feel surprised by the unnecessarrily heavy handed foreshadowing of the invaders from the north? Was anyone shocked when the character that announced "I can't be trusted" in his dialogue betrayed the main character? Were you intruiged by the conflict emerging between the Starks and the Lannisters? The answer to all these questions is of course "No". Nothing in the basic plot of this show is even remotely as intruiging as the ancient history of the place: dragons, knights, wars and magic? Hell yeah! But dissapointingly we're told that all that good stuff died out 300 years before the petty and pedantic squables of the cardboard characters that the show focuses on today. In closing I have just one thing to say that should jolt some sense into all the irrationally appreciative yes men who've given this piece of forgettable work a great review: At any point during Rome, were you surprised by what happened? Hell yeah you were! Did you care when something bad happened to Varenus or Pullo? Hell yeah you did! Were you truely surprised by any of the plot developments of Game of Thrones? Nope. Did you feel the same when the main characters in Game of Thrones got banged up? Nope. If you want to see this over-hyped, over-fanboied show in it's true light, just compare it to something good. Kragen    … Expand
  4. Cynical
    Jun 14, 2011
    0
    There is something sinister going on here. HBO is using an existing story/book franchise with an established reputation as some kind of human shield. The culprit holding it at sword-point as they shuffle along for ten hours is a t*ts & as* ratings-grabber.

    The opening scenes appear to be written by, directed, shot and edited by a completely different crew to the one responsible for the re    st of the first episode. Which is probably why I enjoyed the opening. It contained well-executed scenes and a promise of a story with intrigue and action to come. And there ended the budget.

    From then on, it becomes a domestic family feud soapie with bad dialogue and a story that leaves you drifting off and patting the cat. This costume test of a show is hacked up with laughably gratuitous sex scenes, and we all know what that really means in a program this immature - naked women scenes. Usually prostitutes. HBO loooves prostitutes in their shows - no time wasted introducing superfluous female characters there for one thing - instant boobs and bum shots, and [only] occasional full frontals. Let's not cheapen it. Some of the main actresses tend to pull down the show with the weight of their carefully casted boobs, too. But not very far - it's at no great height to begin with. But at least these actresses get three lines of dialogue and storyline invested in them before it's tops off. And that's just sad. If a show reeeaally is designed to be a camp, sexy ratings vehicle, at least be equal opportunistic. Clearly this is yet another old-fashioned fuddy-duddy-made show with double standards, where only women are portrayed gratuitously and there is a glaringly obvious disorder of sexynudemanphobia. I'll give the creators a tip here - perhaps that's why the sex scenes don't work? You need both/all parties to appear remotely sexy? Let's face it, how many juvenile homophobic males who don't understand that aspects of a show might not be aimed at them can there be? Maybe one day, these shows will grow some balls [pardon the pun], or even better - grow some story and action and lose the crotch altogether. I mean, crutch.

    Oh I know I've rambled on mostly about the gratuitous sex [naked female] scenes. But really - what else is there to this show? Promotion from an existing book? It's like a bad ad - if the audience can see they're being manipulated, it just doesn't sell.    … Expand
  5. Riddler
    May 24, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Ok, so I'm a newcomer, I never read a George R.R. Martin novel, but I got interested in this TV series commercial. Here comes the big day first episode starts, and I get ... board. Seriously what we understand from the firs episode, very little! The world of Martins books isn't described , the purpose of the Wall isn't explained except that some" live" there zombies and kill people. Well for writers credit we can say that they tried to get audien's to all battle for the throne staff and tel us about relations in the royal family. Also it's annoying that they tray so hard to show that this movie is for adults buy hard language and sex sines. So in mz opinion main minuses are: lack of world Description THAT RAISES MANY QUESTIONS, very slow pacing.
    Main pluses: great costumes,great sets and good actors.
    This is my opinion, I don't think that it's 100% right I will continue to watch this show and maybe change my mind.    … Expand
  6. hotdog
    Apr 21, 2011
    4
    I don't feel in the mood to try to awe everyone with my extensive flourishing vocabulary as most of the reviews I have read. I just want to put it plain and simple: Distracting editing clips. If I wanted to watch one set of boobies after another I do believe there are channels, and internet sites dedicated to that. The overall appeal of the storyline, was yes slow as Fantasy goes, but it very well set the stage for an interesting and heavy politicking scandal. Despite what some say, I generally like the acting by the main characters and feel that like most fantasy within the first few episodes we will be able to connect with them. I hope I get that far with the show.....after all if there isn't more STORY, less T&A, better scene changes, and yes better dialogue.....I highly doubt that in a world not our own the cuss words would be identical to ours....some Creativity would be appreciated. Or did HBO use up all there creative people in the set design, and costuming....which were much appreciated.

    Well anyway I would really enjoy this series playing out in its fullest (that's why I signed up to write this review after all).....But if it doesn't move away from selling to teenage boys fantasies towards a Real Creative Work of Art I doubt it will.    … Expand
  7. marquis_de_vaux
    Apr 18, 2011
    4
    Coming from the perspective of someone who hasn't read George R. R. Martin's novels, but who is a massive fan of high-quality TV drama, I have to confess that, for me, Game of Thrones started in an underwhelming way. Not only that, it shows many worrying signs of being a bit of a stinker, in spite of the effort put into its undoubtedly fancy production design.

    Having read my fair share     of fantasy series in years gone by, in the run-up to the Game of Thrones debut I found myself deeply curious as to what it was that made this series sufficiently distinct as to be worthy of a big-budget TV adaptation. So far, I'm not sure. Cliché abounds in the first episode, from unfunny jokes about fat kings to the awkward acquisition of symbolic familiars, from steroidally-enhanced, woad-daubed barbarians (wearing mascara) to rumblings of trouble 'brewing in the north', there's little to set the subject matter apart from the legion of other fantasy universes out there which readers swear blind to be 'brilliant' but that, to many outsiders of the genre, typically seem a little bit silly.

    Clearly a great deal of money has been lavished on the series however, with lots of candles, beautiful haircuts, distinctly cut leather armour and fur-trimmed cloaks aplenty. I do have to query why all this pageantry been assembled though - beyond providing a sort of Hercules: The Legendary Adventures for grown ups. And certainly the pilot boasts symbols of maturity - topless ladies appear every fifteen minutes or so, and brooding men with swords frequently use naughty words - but the whole thing, to me, seemed overbearingly camp and, unfortunately, riddled with adolescent preoccupations. Admittedly, there is serious subject matter here, with baddies engaged in incest and hints at the severe duties involved in courtly life, but I ultimately couldn't believe in the universe that the series-makers had fashioned for me, and as a result felt rather like I was watching people play dress-up rather than an exploration of the genuine issues to which the characters were party. So far then, the next big thing in the current Golden Age of TV this ain't.

    I'm not suggesting that fans of the swords and sorcery genre won't enjoy Game of Thrones - I imagine that many will - but I would suggest that few viewers who don't will be won over by this pilots' limited charms. It is refreshing to see Peter Dinklage given a central role in a series, and it's also great to see Joseph Mawle receiving some prime-time exposure, but the cast are hard-pressed to convince while discussing such clangingly unreal topics as orphaned dire wolf pups or their eagerness to sell family members into sex slavery. And on that topic, the pilot's eagerness to see women sexually exploited is, to me, a little worrying, and risks alienating many potential viewers before it's even got going.

    Undeniably, creating 'grown up' fantasy series' is a tough business, and Game of Thrones' pilot does seem to hint that there will be more depth to proceedings as things develop, but to put Game of Thrones on a level with other top-tier HBO or AMC output is unthinkable. Even The Walking Dead, the subject matter of which many might have thought beyond the interest of the average viewer, managed to fashion itself into a series that was, for the most part, mature and intriguing. Likewise, Mad Men's debut introduced us to a sexist culture in ways that left viewers reeling, and The Soprano's spent time exploring how counterproductive its characters' regressive views were, encouraging us to look at its characters as incredibly dangerous buffoons, and anything but stereotypes.

    In its own pilot however, Game of Thrones fails to show any of this promise, or that, in this post-Gladiator, post-Lord of the Rings world, that 'fantasy' has grown up. Although fans of Sean Bean's work in The Black Death, or such similar efforts as Nicholas Cage's recent The Season of the Witch or Michael J. Bassett's Solomon Kane, might lap up Game of Thrones as a big step forward for the genre, those of us looking for nuance, tension, believability - or even plausibility - in a drama set in an imaginary world full of axes, horses and mud... well, it looks like we're destined to be disappointed by this one.    … Expand

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
79 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 28 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 22 out of 28
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 28
  3. Negative: 0 out of 28
  1. Orlando Sentinel
    Reviewed by: Hal Boedeker
    Apr 25, 2011
    40
    The epic fantasy series is lavish, violent and often quite nasty. Most crucially, this adaptation of George R.R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" book series is unnecessarily difficult to follow.
    Read full review
  2. Miami Herald
    Reviewed by: Glenn Garvin
    Apr 18, 2011
    90
    The gloriously bloody and depraved spirit of the novels is intact and even enhanced.
    Read full review
  3. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    Reviewed by: Rob Owen
    Apr 18, 2011
    80
    A grand soap opera of epic proportions, Game of Thrones can be a bit talky in some episodes, but the series draws a viewer in with well-defined characters and a multitude of simultaneous stories whose plot turns are generally unpredictable.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »