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

Universal acclaim - based on 20 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 20
  2. Negative: 0 out of 20
  1. Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    Jan 11, 2013
    Exasperating but fascinating.
  2. Reviewed by: Tim Goodman
    Jan 4, 2013
    Girls kicks off its second season even more assured of itself, able to deftly work strands of hard-earned drama into the free-flowing comedic moments of four postcollege girls trying to find their way in life.
  3. Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    Jan 9, 2013
    Sharper, smarter, more richly layered, detailed (and acted), Girls has improved upon its first season.
  4. Reviewed by: Ed Bark
    Jan 11, 2013
    Girls above all is about uncomfortable creatures. That can be a helluva thing to watch at times. But still very see-worthy.
  5. Reviewed by: Mark A. Perigard
    Jan 14, 2013
    There hasn't been a show since "The Sopranos" so concerned with bodily functions, and it makes its oft-compared predecessor "Sex and the City" look like a TeenNick production. But it's also fresh, bracing and original.
  6. Reviewed by: David Wiegand
    Jan 10, 2013
    The entire constellation of impetuous, ambitious, determined and insecure young urbanites in Girls is realigning in the new season, but at no point in the four episodes sent to critics for review do you feel that any of it is artificial.
  7. Reviewed by: Ken Tucker
    Jan 3, 2013
    As bright-eyed and bushy-tailed as it was in its first season, Girls may now be even spunkier, funnier, and riskier. [11 Jan 2013, p.80]
  8. 90
    It lets you simultaneously laugh at and with the characters, and feel justified for laughing, then ashamed, and then the pendulum swings back again; this is a much messier and more fascinating set of reactions than what sitcoms typically evoke.
  9. Reviewed by: Joanne Ostrow
    Dec 19, 2012
    The new season contains more laugh-out-loud funny moments, the characters are well defined and the male characters get more prominence.
  10. Reviewed by: Tom Long
    Feb 1, 2013
    Girls continues to delight and provoke in a way too few shows can.
  11. Reviewed by: Chuck Bowen
    Jan 10, 2013
    Girls is still undergoing ultimately minor growing pains, but it's frequently poignant and audacious, and actors who made little impression in the first season are allowed to flower.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 146 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 26
  2. Negative: 8 out of 26
  1. Jan 14, 2013
    Dear Lena Dunham, your show is dull and your characters have no redeeming qualities. Aside from a chuckle here and there season 2 of the spectacularly undeservedly praised show, begins with a whimper. The pilot is a rehash of everything that was terrible in the first season. The characters are cardboard stereotype cutouts and their dilemas are the same drama that is featured on shows like the hills and gossip girl. Yes the dialogue is realistic, but that doesn't make it compelling, Dunham's dialogue is dull and lifeless and the stories are pointless loops of one another. Also if you're gonna have a token black guy on your show, at least give him some cool lines or god forbide characterization beyond simply being "her new black love interest". That's not a personality, pandering. Full Review »
  2. Jan 17, 2013
    HBO's worst show since Arliss. A ponderously unwatchable mess. That Girls gets so much respect from critics is one of television's greatest mysteries.
  3. Jan 14, 2013
    There's lots of hate towards Girls and I can clearly understand why since they're all about "relativity" issues. Much like season 1, season 2 is fun, clever and entertaining in it's own way. It's creative and original. This show is not for everyone, but if you're into it you'll love it. Full Review »