Girls : Season 3

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

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: Tim Goodman
    Jan 13, 2014
    Going into its third season, Girls is as refreshing and audacious as ever and one of the few half-hour dramedies where you can feel its heart pounding and see its belly ripple with laughter.
  2. Reviewed by: Tom Gliatto
    Jan 10, 2014
    After an awful season 2, Lena Dunham's Brooklynocentric comedy celebrating coffee, ambition and sex is fixed. [20 Jan 2014, p.41]
  3. Reviewed by: Ed Bark
    Jan 10, 2014
    There’s a gainful, functioning relationship among the four oft-miserable principals. And so far it’s still in place after the first three episodes.
  4. Reviewed by: Sonia Saraiya
    Jan 10, 2014
    Now, three seasons in, Dunham and her team are better at doing what they’ve been trying to do all along: create a string of lovely character vignettes, with a deliberate disinterest in plot and a fascination with a certain zeitgeist. This is specific enough that it has its disadvantages, but now that the characters have been around for two seasons, it’s become easier to understand their different versions of cluelessness.
  5. Reviewed by: Michael Landweber
    Jan 13, 2014
    The show is becoming more complex along with its characters, and as a result, the viewer feels a greater investment.
  6. Reviewed by: Kevin Fallon
    Jan 10, 2014
    The Season 3 premiere of Girls is good. It isn’t brilliant and life-changing nor is it terrible trash. It’s not as profound as we force Girls to be, nor is it meaningless. It’s just good. Sometimes it’s very good. It’s certainly enjoyable. But it’s neither the best nor the worst thing ever.
  7. Reviewed by: Mary McNamara
    Jan 10, 2014
    Along with the story line insights, there is a feeling of control overarching the early episodes, a narrative fluidity replacing the spikier, and quickly tiresome, need to shock. Oh, Hannah's still naked and body fluids anchor several conversations, but Girls seems to be maturing as a creative enterprise just as its characters are maturing as people.
  8. 80
    Girls is well aware of the conundrum Hannah and Adam and other characters are trapped in--we're all trapped in it, to some degree--and it has sense enough to let us figure this, and a lot of other things, out for ourselves.
  9. Reviewed by: Alessandra Stanley
    Jan 10, 2014
    These four women are amusing, at times poignant, but not easily likable. The show is caustic and hard to watch, but harder to turn off. In Season 3, their solipsism and callousness are even more pointed, all the more shocking, and still quite funny.
  10. Reviewed by: Willa Paskin
    Jan 9, 2014
    Girls and its girls are funnier and more cartoonishly sociopathic than ever. The show continues to engage with and undercut criticism about its characters’ myopia and flaws by owning it.
  11. Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    Jan 9, 2014
    The early part of the third may not be as good as the first season or stretches of the second, but for a few million anxiously awaiting Sunday, it's still good enough.
  12. Reviewed by: Jeff Jensen
    Jan 8, 2014
    A lighter season that engages the chief criticisms of Girls--Hannah and her maturity-challenged pals are self-absorbed; they're actually hideous friends to one another--if only to say: That's part of the point.
  13. Reviewed by: Mark Lukenbill
    Jan 3, 2014
    Girls remains just as disaffected and misanthropic as ever.
  14. Reviewed by: Neil Drumming
    Feb 3, 2014
    Eventually one starts to think about what one is doing with one’s life and how one actually wishes to spend it rather than tripping from one youthful, unconsidered mishap into another.... I can say that Dunham and her co-creators understand that progression.
  15. Reviewed by: Christopher Muther
    Jan 9, 2014
    This is still not conventional TV, but season three gets closer, and that’s not an entirely bad thing. The cringe ratio is down--slightly--and characters begin to emerge in unexpected ways.
  16. Reviewed by: Michael Starr
    Jan 10, 2014
    It’s more fun hanging out with some of the other girls.... More of them please--and less of the Hannah and Adam show.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 85 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 3
  2. Negative: 0 out of 3
  1. Jan 21, 2014
    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
    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
    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 »