Girls: Season 1
  • Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 15, 2012
  • Season #: 1 , 2
Metascore
87 out of 100

Universal acclaim - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 29
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 29
  3. Negative: 0 out of 29
view
per page
  1. TV Guide
    Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    Apr 13, 2012
    100
    Lena Dunham's brilliantly raw and raunchy Girls [is] a true breakthrough series.
  2. Newsday
    Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    Apr 11, 2012
    91
    Extremely funny and extremely raunchy (consider yourself warned), but Dunham's a major talent.
  3. USA Today
    Reviewed by: Robert Bianco
    Apr 12, 2012
    100
    Dunham's simply writing what she knows, and incredibly well.
  4. The Huffington Post (formerly AOL TV)
    Reviewed by: Maureen Ryan
    Apr 12, 2012
    100
    It's certainly been a long time since I was this beguiled by a set a characters, but Girls is one of those rare birds: It's a show that comes to us with its voice, characters and ideas fully formed.
  5. People Weekly
    Reviewed by: Tom Gliatto
    Apr 16, 2012
    100
    It's a raw, ironic, occasionally touching comedy of post-millennial manners. [23 Apr 2012, p.37]
    All this critic's reviews
  6. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Tim Goodman
    Apr 6, 2012
    100
    The new HBO series from Lena Dunham (Tiny Furniture) is one of the most original, spot-on, no-missed-steps series in recent memory.
  7. Hitfix
    Reviewed by: Alan Sepinwall
    Apr 12, 2012
    100
    It definitely has a voice, and it's a great one: witty and wise and warm and not exactly like anything you've heard before.
  8. Boston Herald
    Reviewed by: Mark A. Perigard
    Apr 16, 2012
    83
    Many young women, if they're being honest, will see themselves here. And many parents will see their daughters.
  9. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Alessandra Stanley
    Apr 12, 2012
    90
    Lena Dunham's much anticipated comedy about four single women in New York is worth all the fuss, even though it invites comparisons to Carrie Bradshaw and friends, and even though it incites a lot of dreary debate about the demise of feminism.
  10. San Francisco Chronicle
    Reviewed by: David Wiegand
    Apr 12, 2012
    100
    Girls represents an exciting moment in television history because, like a handful of other shows (MTV's "Awkward," most notably) it not only makes great use of the medium but has the creative guts to realign it for a new century and a new generation.
  11. Time
    Reviewed by: James Poniewozik
    Apr 12, 2012
    100
    It's raw, audacious, nuanced and richly, often excruciatingly funny.
  12. Uncle Barky
    Reviewed by: Ed Bark
    Apr 12, 2012
    83
    It's a distinctive, signature series from a decidedly singular voice.
  13. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Hank Stuever
    Apr 13, 2012
    90
    As television, Girls is disturbing, sharply honed and even wickedly funny.
  14. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Ken Tucker
    Apr 6, 2012
    100
    It possesses a different rhythm from any other show on TV. [13 Apr 2012, p.73]
    All this critic's reviews
  15. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Lori Rackl
    Apr 16, 2012
    88
    Its distinctive voice makes it feel fresh and original, and the poignant comedy gets better with every episode.
  16. Salon
    Reviewed by: Willa Paskin
    Apr 12, 2012
    90
    Girls is smart, bracing, funny, accurately absurd, confessional yet self-aware, but it is also undeniably about four white chicks with, relatively speaking, no worries in the world.
  17. New York Magazine (Vulture)
    Reviewed by: Emily Nussbaum
    Apr 12, 2012
    100
    From the moment I saw the pilot of Girls, I was a goner, a convert.

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
7.0 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 241 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 42 out of 65
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 65
  3. Negative: 21 out of 65
  1. TheKiddy
    2
    There seems to be a kind of knee jerk response from critics to many HBO shows: they must be good because they are HBO. Meanwhile, as here, there is a definite disconnect between professional critics and viewers. My bias runs the other way.. Based on history -- The Sopranos, The Wire, Sex and the City, Curb your Enthusiasm, etc. -- I take a more "prove it" stance. I want HBO to prove it still has it. This is the cable network that set the bar after all. "Girls" is simply not up to standards. Watch the first scene again. If this were not HBO, and you hadn't been told by critics and others that it is fantastic, would you watch beyond that scene?… Full Review »
  2. skantea
    3
    I'm not a big fan of nepotism, but I'm fair and will give credit where credit is due. That said, there is very little credit due here. Just rich kids trying to feel something real, giving up and just faking it. A lot of critics will give a project credit because of its pedigree. It's called the Halo Effect, when something's value is raised just because of the hands that touched it. That's happening here and people will continue to defend it for a while but as the viewers flee so will all support. It's technically polished but still just a fart in the wind.… Full Review »
  3. Casper
    1
    HBO should spare its subscribers! This meandering, rarely clever dramedy has clearly failed to catch on with viewers, just like Dunham's awful film (Tiny Furniture). Sometimes, critics (especially older ones) are so sheltered that anything representing a young lifestyle they're unaware of is suddenly considered brilliant. The world didn't need another Diablo Cody, yet here we are again.… Full Review »
See all user reviews »