House Of The Dragon Reviews: Here's What The Critics Are Saying About The Game Of Thrones Prequel

After more than three long years, Game Of Thrones fans are finally about to get to watch the hugely anticipated prequel series, House Of The Dragon.

But has it been worth the wait? Well, according to (most) of the critics, the answer is a resounding ‘yes’.

Here’s what they had to say about the follow-up to the biggest TV drama of all time...

BBC (4/5)

“House of the Dragon a strange beast: undoubtably similar, at least superficially, to Game of Thrones, but distinct in ways that could prove alienating for anyone looking for the exact same kind of high. From the outset, this is a darker, more solemn, more sophisticated piece – one that lacks the broad, accessible strokes of early Game of Thrones, or its vibrant, colourful characters. There is not a Joffrey to hate here, or a Tyrion to root for. These people are complex in ways that can often make them opaque and challenging, perhaps even unlikeable. But that doesn’t mean they’re not interesting.”

The Guardian (4/5)

“In short, all is as it was in GoT’s heyday. Fun, propulsive, looking great and sounding passable. And that, after the bizarrely poor finale to what had been a roaring success of a show, is a relief. There are also signs that in the remaining eight episodes there will be much more of the magnificent Eve Best as Viserys’s cousin Rhaenys, known since her thwarted ascension to the Iron Throne as the Queen Who Never Was and I suspect to the writers as And One Who Might Be After All. Overall, a good time is coming.”

Financial Times (4/5)

“If there is one thing missing — at least from the six episodes available to reviewers — it’s levity. Game of Thrones always knew when to deliver a spicy one-liner to burst the bubble of portent and pomposity, but there’s precious little humour here — another byproduct, perhaps, of the narrow Targaryen gene pool. Nonetheless, in keeping the storytelling streamlined, there is an emotional heft that was often lacking in its predecessor, which preferred to batter us with spectacle.”

Independent (4/5)

“Bigger, bolder, bloodier. And it’s immediately clear that, even in the just over 11 years since Thrones first aired, the scale of the world on display has increased. Where its predecessor opened with an introspective, family-focused look at life in the dour North, House of the Dragon swoops onto our screens with beating wings, urban panoramas and, quite literally, fire and blood. And fans of breasts, bums and dismembered penises need not worry – for all the talk of toning down Thrones’ notorious nudity, there’s still plenty on display here.”

The Hollywood Reporter

“It’s disconcerting to see House of the Dragon becoming less distinctive and more beholden to Game of Thrones as it goes along, when it ought to be the opposite. There’s a lot that’s impressive in the first six episodes, but it’s as safe as a show with incest, gore and horrifying depictions of childbirth could possibly be. It needs to find its own voice, though if that voice remains this Targaryen-y, winter may be coming for my once burning curiosity.”

Vulture

“House of the Dragon moves like it’s trying to outrun a fireball, but without texture and finesse, the series is just small council meetings full of arguing old men, an irritating amount of Targaryen-on-Targaryen flirting, and increasingly gruesome childbirth. The series’ opening text warns that “the only thing that could tear down the House of the Dragon was itself,” and whether unintentionally or subconsciously, it’s right.”

Bloomberg

“All the blood, sex, violence, plotting, and dragons that made its predecessor such a pop culture phenomenon are back. My own lingering dismay from the Game of Thrones ending was all but wiped from memory, and I predict the new series will make Sunday night on HBO necessary viewing again.”

New York Times

“HBO’s per-episode expenditure on House of the Dragon was reportedly even greater than that of the final season of “Game of Thrones,” but you wouldn’t know it to look at the screen. Dragons are more abundant in this earlier time period, but they feel more obviously computer-generated and less terrifying (in review screeners, at least). Cityscapes and isolated castles feel less grand, battle scenes less vivid. This may reflect a conscious decision to refocus and make a story on a different scale, but the comparisons are inevitable and unfavourable. Even Ramin Djawadi’s opening theme music feels familiar but cut down to size, as if the “Game of Thrones” theme started skipping after a few bars.”