• Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 15, 2012
Season #: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Metascore
76

Generally favorable reviews - based on 18 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 18
  2. Negative: 0 out of 18

Where To Watch

Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    Jan 8, 2014
    60
    Good actors pop in and out of their lives (including Richard E. Grant as another rehab patient, and Bob Balaban as a shrink), but Dunham’s narrow field of vision doesn’t accommodate much beyond her core. That’s fine, in most respects, except that as played, it tends to sap the reality from situations.
  2. Reviewed by: Hank Stuever
    Jan 10, 2014
    40
    It’s a lot less fun now; when watching these new episodes, I found it impossible to complete any sentence along the lines of “I hope [blank] happens to [blank],” not counting my hope that poor Adam (Hannah’s increasingly complex boyfriend, played by Adam Driver, who now provides the show’s only gravitational pull) will come to his senses and flee.
User Score
6.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 87 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 56 out of 87
  2. Negative: 21 out of 87
  1. Jan 21, 2014
    6
    Hard as it is to rate a season from its very first episode, it seems like "Girls" is taking on a funner direction, but the whole thing stillHard as it is to rate a season from its very first episode, it seems like "Girls" is taking on a funner direction, but the whole thing still feels like Lena Dunham's personal glorification. It is somewhat eerie that a show with such realistic characters (note: there are no hot, leggy blondes in the protagonists' roles for once, men are voluntarily ugly and New York City feels like a sort of backyard) does not instill a sense of comfort. What it does, instead, is give us some grotty dialogue involving semen of both sexes and pretend that's the way we would actually talk. The show is false, and perceptibly so. Lena Dunham's acting is okay, but definitely surpassed by any other of the actors.

    I hold "Girls" in serious consideration: in the future, we may look at it as an early, pioneering attempt to a new kind of tv-shows, where they'll want to show us how the world is, and not how it should be. But as for now, and as for all things pioneering, it is a draft, an idea. A good one, maybe.
    Full Review »
  2. Jan 31, 2014
    8
    The rom-com stench of the season two finale carries over into the first three episodes of season three, but all of that comes crashing downThe rom-com stench of the season two finale carries over into the first three episodes of season three, but all of that comes crashing down with "Dead Inside" (episode 4), which is genuinely one of the best episodes of the series. After episode 5, "Only Child," things are effectively back in order. Full Review »
  3. Jan 28, 2014
    9
    The third season of Girls started January 12th signaling the end of a long and barren December with very little new TV programming. The firstThe third season of Girls started January 12th signaling the end of a long and barren December with very little new TV programming. The first two episodes were shown back to back on HBO and I was pleased to note that series creator and conventional wisdom proclaimed “voice of her generation”, Lena Dunham had decided to put the com back in sitcom. If her current career as actress, director, writer and pop icon ever goes south her plan B could be overpaid sitcom writer. She could improve most of the crap on the networks while standing on her head in her pajamas in her bedroom.

    Girls tries, and succeeds at, filling the void between the teenage idiocy of “90210” and the pretentious old ladies club that was “Sex and the City”. Girls, while hardly aimed at the Old Man demographic is still relatable to most US viewers. It’s about 75% sex and getting laid and 25% about friends, acquaintances and miscellaneous people who drift in and out of one’s life. The added feature Girls brings to the table is that the millennials have pretty much figured out that “jobs” are for suckers so we have four educated women in so called menial jobs trying to figure out life while the clock relentlessly runs out on theirs. Marnie, the former art gallery assistant now waitressing, Jessa, the former nanny now just out of rehab, Shosh, the professional virgin and student, and Dunham as Hannah, the office drone, barista and struggling writer. Adam Driver plays the male lead, Adam, and I have no idea what he does to support himself but he gets a whole lot of sex without having to “putt a ring on it”. They’re all relatively poor so that “jobs are for suckers” thing doesn’t seem to be working out.

    The show is controversial and most critics either love it or hate it. Personally I’m in the love zone. Many criticize the lack of ethnic and racial diversity and others think a show about entitled urban white kids is irrelevant. My favorite controversy is “Why is Dunham naked all the time?” She has an average female American body and when she’s dressed up like for work or a night out most guys would consider her hot but she’s not what we’re used to. Think rail thin super models with giant cans or Carla Gugino. The photography seems to use a lot of uncomplimentary angles for what reason I do not know. It takes a little getting used to but after a while it’s just part of the show. Ironically Dunham was also criticized for being airbrushed to beauty on a recent cover of Vogue so I guess sometimes you really can’t win. In my mind Lena Dunham is the person on the cover of Vogue. Recently at some kind of show roundtable for reporters Dunham was asked why she’s naked on the show all the time and the co - creators got all defensive and bat **** crazy. That seemed like a valid question to me and one which I think every guy who watches would like to know. I think she talked about it on the Howard Stern Show if anyone wants to try to find it on You Tube.

    One criticism I have is of the Adam character who is Hannah’s on off abusive boyfriend with a sensitive side when he’s not being rude or abusive. I think he’s a composite of several guys in Dunham’s past life so he’s kind of not believable. I guess he communicates what Dunham wants to say, he’s OK just not spot on. The other males in the show are plastic stereotypes but that’s ok since the show is not about them.

    I’m old school so I wouldn’t call Girls a sitcom at least not in the tradition of The Honeymooners, Cheers, or Seinfeld. There is some Louie though but the difference is Louie C. K. is a professional comedian and Dunham is a professional writer. I think much of Girls is sad which is disturbing but that is not a criticism and Lena Dunham put Girls on the map as one of the better shows of the cable era and I think it will stand the test of time.

    I get all of my research from Wikipeda.
    Full Review »