Game of Thrones

No offense, this game of being a rough and different fantasy is mostly about the fact that among all the possible clichés, both directing and story, there is a lot of sex from behind, talking dirty and every now and then someone takes a piss. Otherwise, in the first two episodes, there is a lot of talk, but it does not in any way create interest in the mythology of the fictional world in a person unfamiliar with the book (which is quite a problem when it comes to fantasy). The characters are fine, some of them are absolutely great (especially the decadent dwarf Tyrion), but I kind of found out over time that I don't really care much about what happens to them next. What I miss are the explicitly ballbusting and charming scenes, something that would set this series apart beyond excretion and intercourse. I'm not in the mood to watch the next episode, which is quite a problem for an HBO series. (18/04/2011)

I caught up on my absolute biggest series and film rest and although I wasn't at all sure for the first two seasons whether the fame of Game of Thrones was warranted, the remaining three seasons have convinced me otherwise. Admittedly, I was expecting a lot more sex, blood, action and the characters more or less start to rapidly diminish only in season 4. There are some deaf passages, but in the end as a whole it works solidly. Khaleesi is the best and the storyline around her kept me interested the most, Tyrion is solid and John Snow is pretty much likeable even though his story has been ramping up for four series. Of the supporting characters, I also liked Margaery and Varys. The best season is 4 and 5, then 3, 2, 1. (22/04/2016)

So much fuss over of a single dwarf… No, Game of Thrones does not deserve such vitriol, though it’s true that it most convincingly triumphs in the most literary of disciplines – dialogue. The word rules, the images do not captivate. In my opinion, the actors aren’t suited to their respective roles (including the diminutive Tyrion), but I should blame that on my imagination, not on the people who adapted the book into a series. Game of Thrones is literature in film form, nothing more. Fortunately, it’s literature of extraordinary quality. 80% (20/09/2011)

Without the need to vomit out a commentary full of either glorification or dirt after the first episode, I watched this third season of Rome in peace and quiet. True, the sunny amphitheaters have been replaced by the cool atmosphere of massive castles, but the characters remain. The beautifully ambiguous, non-black and white, well-detailed, and superbly acted characters, once again reinforce the belief that even when guns are blazing in a series (film), there may not necessarily be a battle because there are always enough grey eminences, schemers, and related coincidences that can shift the plot in a different way than we expect. If there is anything not worth praising, it is the direction of the last two episodes because the first one lacks proper gradation and the final one lacks a stronger epilogue resonance. When it's no longer in fashion at the library to take out Martin's books and there’s no queue for them at the bookstore, I'll drop by. I’m really intrigued by this world. [PS: My personal sympathies go out to Ser Jorah and Arya Stark, and now that list also includes Tyrion Lannister since the beginning of the second season.] (21/06/2011)

Game of Thrones is filmed based on a cult book saga, which is currently considered a fundamental work of the historizing fantasy subgenre. Fans often fall into the trap of mechanical comparison between the two media, criticizing the missing motifs, characters, and plots, or the deviation of film characters from their novel counterparts. This kind of conflict passes me by. I am unfamiliar with the book series, nor do I intend to read it, so I am spared the trauma of comparing both versions. Game of Thrones represents a complex alternative functional world, modeled after the peak of medieval Europe with elaborate mythology. The series has no competition and probably won't have for a long time. Think about Vláčil's Marketa Lazarová with dozens of characters, which financially exhausted the entire studio and clearly showed the limits of regional cinema. The imitation of the Middle Ages is simply a precarious and expensive affair, which only a handful of producers can afford on this scale. Tolkien fans will probably be upset, but compared to Game of Thrones, The Lord of the Rings feels like a fairytale for older children with flat black-and-white characters. Game of Thrones reeks of blood, burnt human bodies, sweat, and urine. It offers a much wider range of emotions and is much dirtier. Its weakness lies in its excessive ambition and sprawl. Some storylines will simply seem less interesting to you and you won't be able to identify with certain characters. If the plot simultaneously follows several characters in different environments, you may have to wait a while for the one you feel closest to. In any case, it is interesting to watch the tangle of intrigues and power struggles, where the author often found inspiration in the real rivalries of powerful feudal families in medieval England and France. You won't find many supernatural motifs here, the movers of the plot are not magicians, but people with their down-to-earth desire for power, glory, and wealth. Personally, I could easily do without the dragons and ghouls, as well as other favorite genre props. Overall impression: 90%. (03/10/2013)