‘House of the Dragon’ Review: Season 3 Wages an Unwanted War Filled with Horrors and Ghosts

3 hours ago 7

Sitting on a beach filled with wood from shattered ships, watching smoke from a fire still raging in the distance, a survivor from “the bloodiest naval battle ever fought in the history of Westeros” tells his broken but breathing companions, “If this be victory, I hope I never see another.”

The sentiment is typical for those who’ve waged war first-hand, including the sagest players from “Game of Thrones,” but what makes the statement stand out in “House of the Dragon” Season 3 is how fitting the words would’ve felt even before the Battle of the Gullet. Regrets are common enough after lives are lost — when the cost of conflict is staring you right in the face, dead-eyed and countless — and yet this specific contrition persists long before the ships crash, the arrows fly, and the dragons roar. It lingers over the Targaryen dynasty, tarnishing the family crest and spoiling whatever victory is left to be had.

Kareem Rahma and Hasan Minaj on a New York subway in 'SubwayTakes'

And they know it. Some of them, anyway. Having faced considerable losses already and staring down more to come, many of the prominent combatants spend Season 3 in an existential crisis, which lends the series a similar atmosphere. Instead of looking over an ocean of floating corpses and asking, “What have we done?,” they’re in the midst of those stormy seas wondering, “What are we doing?” The cycle of vengeance is unbroken, but now it’s nearly running on its own accord.

On the one hand, self-reproach is a convenient stance for showrunner Ryan Condal to take. Just like its predecessor, the prequel series is dedicated to an violent, world-tilting war for the Iron Throne. Making clear the series doesn’t endorse such cutthroat conflicts, no matter how many are featured or how thrilling they are to behold, is morally paramount. (You can feel the franchise doubling down on principle in scenes that allude to past controversies over rape and incest by confirming their continued existence in “House of the Dragon” without going so far as to show them in full, as “Game of Thrones” so often did.)

But in Season 3, the pervasiveness of best laid plans gone predictably awry can’t be overstated. Viewers looking to disconnect and appreciate the sheer spectacle in the premiere may find it difficult to enjoy a battle that almost no one onscreen wants a part of, and those that do offer zero rooting interest. (They’re unambiguous bad guys.) Once the oceans are no longer battlefields, the spoils prove to either be marred or more trouble than they’re worth. A member of royalty, ostensibly someone who pursued these exact ends, instead muses of trading it all to “keep chickens.” Another conquerer can barely bring themself to carry out the duties required of a victor.

Call it hypocrisy or honesty, either way, Season 3 is a joyless exercise that’s nonetheless an improvement on the wayward Season 2. Not only does the opening hour pay off on the eight episodes of build-up that first aired two years ago, but the ensuing half-season benefits from the focus and unification lent by the results. (Four episodes were provided for review.)

'House of the Dragon' Season 3 has some of the worst dragon names you'll ever hear

Without getting into spoilers, Season 3 sees the core cast interacting more often, after too many siloed storylines in the past. Daemon (Matt Smith) gets to stir up trouble at home, with an amicable Rhaenyra (Emma D’Arcy), and at work, with annoyed newcomer Lord Ormond Hightower (James Norton). Alicent (Olivia Cooke) — after making a deal with Rhaenyra to sacrifice one of her sons and peacefully hand over King’s Landing to end the war — has to come face to face with family in ways both expected and shocking. Ser Criston Cole (Fabien Frankel) is still moping about, being boring, but his nihilism gains relevance among so many equally miserable soldiers.

In terms of broader commentary, there are still class wars brewing (Episode 3 offers a fun “eat the rich” scene), patriarchal undoings in the offing (keep leaning into our lead women’s perspectives, thank you), and dragons threatening to break containment (the names of which — “Sheepstealer”?! — are beyond terrible). Condal regularly compares the titular beasts to nuclear weapons, creating “a classic cold war stand-off of mutually assured destruction,” which you can read into as much, or as little, as you please. Such interpretations help sustain a story that still feels like a reinterpretation of the original series, providing outlets for original thought in a quagmire of iteration.

As “House of the Dragon” nears its peace treaty (Season 4 is slated to be the final season), the biggest questions aren’t how it will end but what will be left when it does. Barring a time jump, the series is still constrained by the fates of its source material (although author George R.R. Martin is none too happy with the minimal changes already made) and televised predecessor. Through two-and-a-half seasons, there have been a few thrills and plenty of VFX wizardry, but little innovation in storytelling or relevance. Regret may be an honest takeaway for a war of succession that leaves its house (and surrounding world) worse off than it was when the fighting began. But it’s also too simple an idea for an epic tale to rest upon.

If the victories aren’t worth witnessing, what is?