Mary & George (2024– ) User Reviews

I wanted to like this

[iain-13420 · 6/10 · 23 March 2024]

I enjoyed episode 1 and from then on it went rapidly downhill until we eventually abandoned it at episode 3.

The sound on the dialogue was quite hard to make out without subtitles as it was very badly mixed. After straining to hear and then attempt to grasp what the convoluted plot was actually about it wasn't actually worth the effort.

Just another one of these tedious series which descend into a garbled mess after a promising start.

Who is actually approving the script? The costumes and the sets were fantastic so once again it's the writing that insults the viewers intelligence.

A wasted opportunity!

Unfortunately very disappointing

[28moonbeam · 6/10 · 3 April 2024]

I also was looking forward to this show and ended up VERY disappointed. Mary Villiers' and James I &VI's history is incredibly fascinating and Mary's rise to power and wealth during the Jacobean area a story that should be made into a movie or TV-series. YET, with an incredible wealth of real life facts, this show unfortunately chooses made up sensationalism instead: James is frolicking around non-stop (not even a hint that he gave instructions for a new translation of the Bible, resulting in one of the most important books in English culture), often little more than a clown on the throne, easily led and deceived by those around him, esp. George. The scriptwriters changed Mary's beginnings to that of a serving maid-become-social-climber-by-devious-means, as if the social climbing she achieved from a very modest family background to one of the richest & most influential people in England & Scotland isn't sufficiently impressive. They also have her fall in love with an Irish prostitute, whom she even brings to court and whose murder is being used as an unnecessary motivation for Mary's character (as if she didn't have enough motivation in her own right). Francis Bacon dies of Syphilis (why?? Historically he didn't) and George actually murders King James in the final episode, which plows through the last 5 years of George's life at break neck speed. I wonder if anyone without any historical knowledge of George Villiers really understands the reason for him getting murdered at the end of the series. Fenton's (the assassin, his name is mentioned just once) short mention of La Rochelle doesn't really shed enough light on his murderous motives, especially since George becoming Lord Admiral, his many failed war expeditions and ever increasing unpopularity amongst ordinary people isn't even touched upon. Neither are any other political facts or backgrounds, not even the Gunpowder Plot.

But while sticking to the facts would have made a riveting thriller, a sensational romp it probably would not have made, and that's what SKY went for, unfortunately. I have no problem with nudity or sex scenes, they are not a problem for me here, but when something is sold as a historical drama, I expect more respect for the actual known facts.

Production values are very high. Costumes, sets and locations excellent and gorgeous. The images presented are gorgeous too and work beautifully as stills. Great acting all around, esp. From Julianne Moore and Tony Curran, who tries hard to give the gullible James some humanity and dignity. Mark O' Halloran as Francis Bacon is also brilliant as is Samuel Blenkin as Charles I. But none of this can distract from the unnecessary modern language, made up sensationalism and choppy script which drags the whole show down. Yes, very disappointed.

Disappointingly silly

[ToneBalone60 · 6/10 · 7 March 2024]

I had high hopes for this.

The budget is clearly plenty.

The actors are of good quality.

The cinematography is decent.

But the plot, the script and the character behaviour is just plain unrealistic and silly.

Clearly an LGBTQ targeted show so that's OK if you accept that from the premise.

Historical fact it isn't and even as historical fiction it's stretching the intrinsic truth.

There's a continuous theme of England bashing. Most of it subliminal but some clear and unrepentant from the snipes from the French character at the start, to the hints from the Irish English & English men hating lesbian prostitute. Was this necessary?. Would it have been acceptable in a period of high suspicion of foreigners and catholics.

The prostitute is clearly not a devout catholic so why is she acting like an Irish radical in a Royal court that would appear to be far more tolerant and accepting than her national kinsmen back home.

There are also many questionable incidents that defy reality.

People coming and going to the Royal Court and gagging access to the King without any security checks?

The King is treated as a highly gullible clown who spent all his days rollicking with rent boys? One wonders how he found time to work on the bible. 🤔

A very minute Royal court of about 20 people and a couple of guards. Really? All Royal courts from Henry Viii onwards were very sizeable affairs rather than this close nit community of hedonists.

King James openly flaunting his sexuality to both court and people? Erm No.

In fact to this day, his sexuality is still not 100% proven by evidence. Most is circumstantial .

The Queen certainly wasn't involved in choosing his "favourites" nor was he constantly surrounded by a pack of overltly promiscuous rent boys, at least not in view of anyone not involved. Only the current favourite would have been visible to the court.

Mary is portrayed as having way to much power and access to high ranking people at the beginning of the story.

As other reviewers have pointed out, the superfluous use of sex scenes and male posterior shots suggests material filler through want of actual substance. This is always a bad sign.

Overall I felt let down and they have wasted a lot of opportunities.

a dark romp....

[hamlet-16 · 9/10 · 8 March 2024]

History is a strange thing it is not a straight no matter how much some people want it to be.

Mary & George is about one of the many favourites of King James 1 of England. As portrayed here, and apparently in fact, James enjoyed the company of his male favourites to that of his wife and as a consequence young men vie for his favours as young women would vie for a monarch's favour in other royal courts.

One such is George Villiers (Nicholas Galitzine) whose mother is like a stage mother from hell, played with delicious venom by the wonderful Julianne Moore.

This series is sexual more than sexy. Raw in its use of language. Violent in its telling of history. Political games are played and won and lost.

The script is not too removed from know historical facts at least as far as Villiers and the King are concerned.

The design, costumes and cinematography are breathtaking.

Galitzine plays Villiers with an insouciance and gradual knowing of his role and power.

There is much black humour in this series but at its heart is a story rarely told of homosexual monarchs and the games played around them.

A perculiar mother and son relationship...

[DukeEman · 8/10 · 5 March 2024]

Julianne Moore is wickedly delicious as Mary Villiers, a somewhat noble mother of four who had her sights set on rising above the ranks of nobility with the help of her son, George (cheeky performance from Nicholas Galitzine, who at last sinks his teeth into a real role).

Together, mother and son plot and weave their way through the depraved King Charles' court (Tony Curran effective as the king). What unveils before ones very eyes will fascinate those who seek not to judge, but watch in a perverse sense of wonderment how this all took place in the 17th century.

Creator and writer, D. C. Moore, has crafted a telling tale of what could have occurred behind the King's golden secret doors, delivering treachery of the highest order and other wild shenanigans one has to endure in order to climb that royal social ladder.

The Fast Times with the Villiers

[akoaytao1234 · 7/10 · 22 March 2024]

Practically concerned with George Villiers and his mother, Mary, as they traverse the wild post-Elizabeth 1 monarchy, and try to improve their standings in court by attaching George as the next-in-line male concubine of the King James, son of Mary Queen of Scott.

I think it was very well noted how George took advantage of the King James's and Charles I's affection. Unlike the show, it was unanimously seen unfavorably. A lot of his charms are pretty much publicized with the vast number of arts pieces centered around him. His mother was less written about, but the characterization was similar to the show - greedy and ambitious, deeply unpopular.

The writing is meant to show the messiness of it all, and it works for the most part since it is really salacious history. This was meant as a show of flesh and trashiness. It is a not that inspired if you think about it BUT its hits enough checkmark for fun tv viewing. I would say that it could have been less on the nose, with all the mother knows best storytelling AND could have made paced the storytelling for the first and last two episodes better but it is what it is.

Also, a lot of other reviews are really riled up by its historical inaccuracies BUT I think you watch this not for those reason. It was not meant to be this deep show anyhow.

Acting wise, I still find Galatzine not that good. He has his moment but I felt that he strays in moments of ineptitude. Its so glaring sometimes that he looks like he does not know what emotion should he show in a scene. He should thank god his pretty because I think that was the only prompt he stood well on. I think Moore and Curran faired better but pretty much was phoning it in with 'camp' aspect. They are in the end, somewhat of a caricature.

Overall, I think this is fair introduction to the Villiers. Reading about them a lot, and I think they are fascinating. If I would compare it to what I saw, there clearly is a huge real estate that the show jumped out off BUT this would be fun if your into this kind of material. Recommended.

👑 Masterful Storytelling

[floridacalisurferboy · 9/10 · 14 April 2024]

👑 Ignore ALL those reviewers that claim this 7 hour miniseries isn't excellent.. Because it most definitely IS. Those viewers are just "morality-entertainment police" who allow their moral judgment to paint their views on superb cinematic art. They obviously HATE the Fact that this historical miniseries is based on the King James who we know as the man behind the King James Version of the Bible that most modern Christians use as their most prized edition. Given that King James was historically a well known extreme homosexual who surrounded himself with handsome younger men to fulfill his sexual needs daily. This theatrical quality level 7 hour film shows what we already know, that royalty over the centuries is filled with Betrayal, Corruption, Cruelty, Murder, Ambition, Sex, Manipulations, and Lust For Power at Any Cost. But, what this movie has to offer is Superb Performances by a very professional cast led by Julianne Moore in a very juicy diabolical lead role. Also, a very enigmatic performance by Nicholas Galitzine as her son who is a pawn in his mother's chess game for power and wealth. The production is very detailed and wonderfully written. Locations, Sets, Costumes are historically accurate. You can't go wrong with this handsome production and its not an accident that it's been critically acclaimed around the world at every Film Festival it played in. Don't Miss It (and forget about those morality police)

Could have been great but wasn't

[moralpollution · 6/10 · 27 April 2024]

Just finished the show and was left with zero emotions. I was so excited when the trailer was released, esp to have more LGBTQ shows on air, and though the production and cast are great, esp Julianne Moor, the script is not good and does a disservice to the show. The pacing is weird all around and very bad in the last episode, the dialogue was not good and also felt weirdly cut and blocking during the dialogue was strange at times too. Someone else mentioned the mixing for the dialogue and I can only agree, had to watch most of it with sub titles.

Also, for an LGBTQ show to still perpetuate the "one of the lesbians has to die" trope was certainly a choice, when there are only 2 lesbians.

All in all I am down for funny-and-dramatic shows, such as BEEF, but sadly this one did not deliver though it had good parts/moments in between that if strung together by a stronger script would have made a great show. Please hire better writers. The LGBTQ community especially deserves better with the few shows that actually focus on complicated queer characters.

Meh...

[KittenOnTheMoon · 3/10 · 5 March 2024]

PROS: Great cast, including the always marvellous Julianne Moore and Tony Curran. Sumptuous sets, costumes and locations.

CONS: The plot was pedestrian, predictable and dull. No delicious twists or shocking turns were to be found. The cast gallumped along from one tedious plot development to the next. The dialogue was absolutely abysmal. No wit or bite. No cleverness. If you were just there for the sex and nudity, you'd be well catered for, and the endless parade of bare bums were beautifully filmed by golden candle light. However, if you were hoping for a well-crafted tale of ambition, power and palace intrigue, you'll probably be sound asleep mid-way through Episode 2.

The makers of toss like this should be made to watch I, Claudius on repeat.

Yes, yes, and yes.

[btcbmy · 9/10 · 11 March 2024]

The work is a historical drama, go watch a documentary if you want historical accuracy. But oh how you will miss out!

As the story goes, a woman played by Julianne Moore (what a performance!) was born into nothing and rose through the class system by advantageous, but insufferable, marriages. She is doggedly determined to achieve wealth, power and control for herself and family... by any means necessary.

Where Mary & George really comes into its own is in the script and acting. The sharp and witty dialogue had me rooting hard for the protagonists Moore (esp!). Plots abound. Sex is very much power, a means to an end. Whoever has the king's eye has his ear. The series portrays an electrifying romance between a young Buckingham and King James I whilst various machiavellian characters seek to influence the king through his newfound lover.

Costume, casting, art departments have done an excellent job. Truly blown away by the sets, acting and insane garments.

9/10.

Tacky Porn

[multi-13657 · 2/10 · 7 March 2024]

I've nothing against sex in TV series. Versailles did it well, as did The Great. But Mary and George seems to treat sex the same way you'd expect to see in a seedy porn romp.

There's little plot to speak of, the script is terrible and the story, such as it is seems to lurch from one bedroom scene to the other with not much happening in between.

It's had a fair amount of money spent on it - the costumes are great and the locations well chosen, but none of that can make up for a show that tries to add edge by ramping up the F-word led language and long shots of naked people hanging (literally) about.

Raucous and Regal: A 17th Century Romp That's Naughty but Nice.

[drhemp · 9/10 · 10 March 2024]

Some of the criticism directed at Mary & George appears unwarranted, potentially arising from discomfort with its gay storyline and homoerotic elements. Yet, this show stands firmly on historical characters and events, blending fact with creative freedom to craft a captivating black comedy. Its clever humor had me laughing out loud, a rare occurrence for me.

The series ventures boldly into LGBT themes, and while it features its share of sexual content, these scenes are approached with tasteful restraint. The instances of nudity, though certainly risqué by the standards of television 30 years ago, especially concerning same-sex relationships, are skilfully filmed. They often suggest rather than show, adding to the intrigue without overshadowing the comedic and scheming aspects of the story. Far from being hardcore pornography, the portrayal is mature and perhaps not suited for children, but it's handled with care.

Nicholas Galitzine's portrayal of George Villiers is remarkable and fitting. The historical description of Villiers by the Bishop of Gloucester as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England" finds a perfect representation in Galitzine. His stunning appearance and history of playing gay characters, despite being straight, add a genuine and convincing layer to his role.

The show also stands out for its exquisite cinematography, breathtaking locations, and detailed costumes, all of which deserve praise and contribute to a high IMDb rating.

While some reviews indicate that Mary & George may not appeal to everyone, its comedic brilliance and exploration of gay themes within a historical framework should not be dismissed lightly. This gay-centric, humorous narrative offers laughter and enjoyment across sexual orientations, affirming that quality comedy transcends boundaries. Recognising the evolution of television content presentation, Mary & George should be commended for its progressive depiction of relationships and intimacy.

A headlong rush to tragedy.

[acmur · 8/10 · 9 March 2024]

Just finished ep7. An unrelenting rush to destruction. Not even the winners could be envied. This play is about animals rutting in a political trough.

Nicholas Galitzine plays the ingenu no longer. Within the ensemble, he's a beautiful, weak, psychopathic puppet, who fails because he thinks he's cleverer than the puppet master, his mother. This is his 14th film/tv role and his grittiest. He has the range, the charisma, the acting chops to climb to the top perch. I hope he soon gets the role that will push him from 'wow' to 'superstar'.

Julianne Moore plays a woman who doesn't need to quibble about pronouns to rule. Rule? She rocks.

Tony Curran gives a sly performance, allowing a brilliant humanity to peep though cracks in the orgy.

All of the cast deserve mention, it was a flawless ensemble.

Would you enjoy a sexy romp on the Titanic as it was cracking apart and sliding under? This show was a bit like that, the atmosphere was so fraught it overpowered any loveliness in the frequent coupling.

Another Disappointing Sky Production

[mike-499-205871 · 2/10 · 5 March 2024]

Why is it, that despite having a decent budget and decent actors , Sky productions so often end up being way less than a sum of their parts?

The locations are great, the camerawork is OK and the costumes are top notch. The premise is also intriguing. The problem is it seems to have been written by AI - perhaps it was.. What you get is everything you've seen in similar productions like The Tudors or Wolf Hall but with none of the ingenuity, none of the individuality and most of all, none of the spark. It is bland, predictable and at times nonsensical. Someone in production has clearly noticed this and ramped up the sex and language to 10 to try to compensate for the lack of much else going on.

Pretty disappointing.

Splendid.

[destiny_west · 8/10 · 8 March 2024]

I absolutely love movies and series that depict English history, especially the Monarchy. So when I saw Mary & George advertised, I knew that this was one I had to watch and I was not disappointed in the slightest.

Mary & George had me hooked from the opening scene. Julianne Moore is wonderful as always in her role as Mary.

The costuming and sets are wonderful as so is the acting. I don't have any problem with the script.

If you love historical series then do check this one out. It might be a bit graphic for some with the nudity, but personally, I love how they just went for it. I highly recommend this series.

What a mess of a show!

[bellab1972 · 2/10 · 18 March 2024]

I love period shows especially when most shows now, like Outlander and Downton Abbey attempt to recreate authentic period shows.. and why this show is so ridiculously terrible. The language is abysmal and so far away from authentic for the period it's insulting. The f word is thrown around so much which goes along with the gratuitous sex scenes which I assume are included to distract us from the choppy and ill conceived storyline that again, is not faithful to the period.. The accents are absolutely terrible especially Juliane Moores half American and poor attempt of an English accent.. she can't stick to one accent she's trying to attempt.

Basically, the story so far is a lower class mother who married for money.. gets rid of her husband and tries to pimp her son out to the King.. When her husband dies she discovers he left everything to his cousin because he knew his wife was a scammer. She then marries another man with money who has a cockney accent which again isn't realistic, to pay for her son's pimping education in France.

There is nothing entertaining, funny or interesting about this show so far but I will give it a few episodes, begrudgingly just to see how bad it gets.. With the total lack of attention to create an authentic period show from the costumes, language and even the carriages.. I won't be surprised with anything.. Apparently the budget was fairly high for this show so I suspect someone is pocketing some of it.. or Julian Moore is being paid far too much for her desperate performance..

I really think producers think viewers aren't very bright and all they have to do is add sex scenes and be controversial and people will ignore the total lack of substance or attempt to produce a quality show..

A worthy sequel to THE TUDORS

[Committed_to_nitrate · 8/10 · 31 March 2024]

This is a very enjoyable and enlightening drama about relationships, ambition and power. The story could be set in Wall Street, Dallas or modern day London but it's in the fascinating and dynamic days of the early 1600s.

It's told totally through the life and experience of Mary Beaumont so don't expect a history of King James. So there's no commissioning of the Bible, nothing about how he skilfully avoided getting involved in the 30 years war or his penchant for killing witches. The James in this story is just the James who becomes enamoured with young men. Although not everything we see is based on fact, the basic history hasn't been altered too much which makes a nice change to a lot of what's made these days.

Similarly, seen through the eyes of Mary, George isn't the atrocious and incompetent member of the government responsible for countless disasters he was in reality. He was in truth promoted way above his skill grade and indeed in this story he's unaware of his own inadequacies - which was one of his biggest character flaws so it's a pretty accurate representation of him.

This offers very much a 2024 perspective on the story. In twenty years time or so this will probably look as dated as those period dramas made in the 1970s but for now it really works. Some people have criticised the accents and the 'modern' manners of speech. Since the English spoken back then probably sounded more American than modern English does, that's a pointless criticism but there does seem to be a lot of gratuitous swearing.

What makes this different to the historical dramas were used to that profundity of swearing and quite a lot of sex. That might put a few people off but its bawdy script does capture a certain mood which was a characteristic of James' court. It is therefore a refreshingly accurate depiction of England at the start of the seventeenth century and good fun.

Dark sexy sex

[blubabe-25267 · 10/10 · 8 March 2024]

I became interested in this show because of Nicholas Galitzine but the whole cast won me over. Tony Curran as King James is flawless and Julianne Moore is the right kind of conniving and conspiring mother. Nick's performance was as nuanced as ever and the character arc from the first episode to the last is so we'll acted.

There was humour, there was darkness (and I'm not just speaking of the lighting of the series which seemed reminiscent of candlelight and evoked the time period) and it was so well written. Many lines from various characters have stuck with me and some of the shots look like paintings.

Compelling and impressively designed historical mini series

[johannes2000-1 · 8/10 · 9 April 2024]

The story of king James I and his male favorites is probably not a familiar one for most people (including me), so this mini series is as well informative, as original. But there's more to enjoy: it has a good pace, some surprisingly steamy and daring (same-) sex scenes, the settings and costumes are beautiful, and the acting of almost all of the cast is great, especially that of Julianne Moore. I'm not always a Moore fan, at times she can be so dominant in a production that it turns into a Julianne Moore show (like in the 2021 miniseries "Lisey's Story"), but here she's absolutely excellent as the authoritative, scheming mother who'll do anything to promote her son's (and her own) position.

I was slightly disappointed with the part of Nicholas Galitzine, he acted (or was made to act) as an insecure upstart through all of the seven episodes. That was maybe realistic in his first encounters with the king and the court, but surely, after several years as Duke of Buckingham, residing in the highest ranks of the kingdom, he would have gained some self-composure and authority; his continuous awkwardness just didn't feel realistic.

As always in history-based movies, there's some juggling with the historical facts, and the way king James comes to his end in the last episode is definitely fictional, but it fits the story fine. It was a pity however, that after that the story rushed in hardly 10 minutes to a totally abrupt ending, with a sudden leap in time of some 3 years, and without any information of how we got to that point (like for instance how the relation between George and the new king Charles developed). It felt a bit as if the writers had gotten weary, or the budget ran dry.

But for the rest: absolutely worthwhile!

Fun! Gorgeous.The Kings are Queens!

[michaelisking-66226 · 10/10 · 6 April 2024]

Royal fun. Sexy, messy, danger is "the tea". How refreshing. Julianne Moore is perfect as the mother pimping her son (What? Aren't the fathers usually the ones pimping out their daughters for power and position?). Nicholas Galitzine could not be more beautiful or more perfect as "trade".

The future looks to be full of intrigue, danger, jealousy, backstabbing, buggering, and battles for power...and I for one can't wait! Everything is so well done. The show looks "rich". Wardrobe, cinematography, hair, makeup, are amazing...it's a pleasure to look at.

We know where the story is heading. After all, it's based on actual historic figures. In light of actual current day drama, this is a much appreciated reminder of how much some things change and yet...how little some things change.

Thanks STARS. Can't wait for more of this historic "fun"!

Great TV Series based on a True Story

[marinani · 10/10 · 2 May 2024]

I fell in love with the 7 episodes, the plot and scrip are sublime, the costume, scenery and the actors are magnificently well played, Mrs Moore playing Mary Villers is a greedy, not warm mother only obsess with recover her power and instruct his son George Villiers played by the superb actor and rising star Nicholas Galitzine to become James I unique lover, King James I is marvellously played by the actor Tony Curran. The plot through the 7 episodes is about how even a King could be Queer and me married, nothing scandalous at all, it's a very brave tv series ans based of the true story written by Benjamin Wooley. You can see through the episodes how George Villers changes because first of the obligation of his mother and then because of power, you can see it in the final episode, George start being sweet, naive but because of all the plot against him and also the king he changes not in the best way but in my opinión was always to save the Villiers family and he did it. Is one of the best tv series I've seen in ages. I recommend it 100%

A great show that balanced the light & dark of court life

[alisonsore · 8/10 · 26 March 2024]

A brilliant episodic historic drama that left you wanting to know more about the characters.

Julianne Moore undoubtedly the star of the show.

Yes it could have been less glam and more gritty but it was a shiny and enjoyable representation of a real story of glamour, sex and influence in the court of King James.

I don't understand some of the negative reviews? This is a post-watershed show of a real life story that hinges on the tangled web of influence between the king, a handsome social climber and his manipulative mother. There was bound to be sex people! I wonder if so many people would be clutching their pearls if young George had been a young Georgina......

Stunning! Breathtaking!

[gohrbi · 10/10 · 3 April 2024]

Admittedly, I initially wanted to watch the series mainly because of Nicholas Galitzine. And he's really great as George! Breathtaking!!! He goes through the biggest transformation in the series and you completely buy it. From a naive, fearful youth to a scheming, corrupt upstart. But you stay by his side and suffer with him because he was created by a monster. Mary, his mother, is played sharp-tongued by Julianne Moore. But above all, Tony Curran's portrayal of King James is also wonderful. And, queer or not, I loved the love story between George and James, and Nick and Tony have incredible chemistry.

But the series is full of dark humor and exciting and sexy, especially in the first episodes, and has a great cast, right down to the smallest supporting roles! And the costumes, the make-up and the locations are just incredibly beautiful. So be sure to check it out and see that Nicholas Galitzine has more to offer than just playing Prince Charming. He will go far!

Should have been made in England

[lakeshore-98711 · 2/10 · 8 March 2024]

British movies and tv have a special something that cannot be replicated by any other country. This series is beyond disappointing and a total embarrassment in every scene. The diaglogue, characters, locations, and general feel of this mish mash is just tragic. Julianne Moore is far too American to get the rythym and nuances of an English noblewoman and simply does not fit the part. George and his brothers and in particular, the french teacher in the first episode are obviously newcomers to acting. There is absolutely nothing in this series that makes for amusement or even shock value because of the subject matter. Compare this drivel with Gunpowder, Treason and Plot, for instance, to see how this type of subject should be handled.

Mary and George:A perfect period drama

[carpediemprofitezletemps · 10/10 · 26 March 2024]

The serie it is a good period drama with a original story. I love the darkness and the plot of the different characters. The first 3 episodes are better with Oliver as director,but It has a good quality in general.

The last chapters maybe could put more intensity in some parts. The best about the serie are the fabulous performances of Julianne as a ambitious and hard mother who needs to survive. And Nicholas Galitzine shines with a special light,making his George more human and real. He can say so many things with his eyes that It is so easy to empathize with his happiness,pain and problems. Really you suffer with him while they tell a beautiful story of survival. George is real,and deep and complex thanks to him.

I have to see all the serie complete because i could not stop myself. A sexy story but much deeper than sex and power,also love,dependence,family relations,politics... I have rally loved this drama. Costumes and nature landscapes a plus. Waiting for Emmys nominations! You deserve people!