• Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 15, 2012
  • Season #: 1 , 2 , 3
Metascore
87

Universal acclaim - based on 31 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 31
  2. Negative: 0 out of 31
  1. Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    Apr 13, 2012
    100
    Lena Dunham's brilliantly raw and raunchy Girls [is] a true breakthrough series.
  2. Reviewed by: James Poniewozik
    Apr 12, 2012
    100
    It's raw, audacious, nuanced and richly, often excruciatingly funny.
  3. 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.
  4. Reviewed by: David Hinckley
    Apr 13, 2012
    60
    It's so intensely focused on these specific girls and their "Sex and the City" dream, though, that at times it may not resonate as much with a larger audience.
  5. 100
    From the moment I saw the pilot of Girls, I was a goner, a convert.
  6. Reviewed by: Hank Stuever
    Apr 13, 2012
    90
    As television, Girls is disturbing, sharply honed and even wickedly funny.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Reviewed by: Robert Bianco
    Apr 12, 2012
    100
    Dunham's simply writing what she knows, and incredibly well.
  12. Reviewed by: Curt Wagner
    Apr 12, 2012
    50
    These gals are at times so self-absorbed it's difficult to feel much for them when things don't go their way.
  13. 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.
  14. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    Apr 9, 2012
    80
    If "Tiny Furniture" filmmaker Lena Dunham's series is in places too mannered, it's also fresh, honest and raw.
  15. 80
    Four episodes in, and Girls is still packing tons of jaw-dropping, head-shaking, eyebrow-raising scenes into 30 minutes each Sunday night.
  16. Reviewed by: Marisa Carroll
    Apr 16, 2012
    80
    With its precisely drawn characters, winning performances, and frank, well-observed humor, Girls is a knockout.
  17. Reviewed by: Rob Owen
    Apr 16, 2012
    70
    Girls grew on me. As annoying as the characters can be, they also evince recognizable traits in absurdly realistic situations.
  18. 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.
  19. Reviewed by: Sarah Rodman
    Apr 16, 2012
    80
    Dunham manages to ties the grimaces and grins together with a comedic sensibility that allows you to see these characters as they are with all their irritating and contradictory behavior, but still root for them as they feel their way into adulthood.
  20. Reviewed by: Linda Stasi
    Apr 13, 2012
    75
    If you are female and under the age of 28, you may really relate to these women and their struggles. If you're over that age, you should hang in until episode three when the series takes off in a great way.
  21. Reviewed by: Paul Rice
    Apr 12, 2012
    75
    Though Lena Dunham's characters are far more sympathetic, she takes pains to debase them, and makes them both funnier and more recognizably human in the process.
  22. Reviewed by: Mary McNamara
    Apr 12, 2012
    80
    There is a cool cleverness to the show that is both attractive and off-putting; the characters are flawed and hyper-aware of their flaws, the stories so bent on covering every angle of self-examination that there is no real role for the viewer to play.
  23. Reviewed by: Ellen Gray
    Apr 12, 2012
    80
    [Dunham has] crafted an honest and at least occasionally hilarious show that might even live up to its hype.
  24. Reviewed by: Ed Bark
    Apr 12, 2012
    83
    It's a distinctive, signature series from a decidedly singular voice.
  25. 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.
  26. Reviewed by: Joanne Ostrow
    Apr 12, 2012
    80
    Dunham succeeds in making viewers uncomfortable while proferring a new (sharp, slightly bitter) flavor of introspective female comedy.
  27. Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    Apr 11, 2012
    91
    Extremely funny and extremely raunchy (consider yourself warned), but Dunham's a major talent.
  28. Reviewed by: Diane Garrett
    Jan 15, 2014
    80
    Overall, the season gets off to a very strong--and interesting--start. The writing is deepening along with the relationships depicted.
  29. Reviewed by: Bruce Miller
    May 29, 2013
    80
    Girls was great last year. But this season it just got a little bit better.
  30. 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]
User Score
6.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 301 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 46 out of 73
  2. Negative: 25 out of 73
  1. Apr 23, 2012
    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 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. Apr 19, 2012
    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. JustI'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. Apr 23, 2012
    1
    HBO should spare its subscribers! This meandering, rarely clever dramedy has clearly failed to catch on with viewers, just like Dunham's awfulHBO 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 »