Girls: Season 1
  • Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 15, 2012
  • Season #: 1 , 2
User Score
7.0 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 241 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 179 out of 241
  2. Mixed: 17 out of 241
  3. Negative: 45 out of 241

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Casper
    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 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.
  2. killingspree
    Apr 22, 2012
    0
    WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE WANT TO WATCH A SHOW ABOUT RICH SPOILED WHITE PEOPLE? NOTHING IS GOOD ABOUT THIS SHOW AND THE CRITICS ARE DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT'S GOOD OR BAD.
  3. templario9002
    Feb 4, 2013
    0
    Expanding my previous comment.... the only thing I`m assuming this show is liked for many critics is because shows the stupid that are white imbecile self entitled rich kids... Oh.. some kid is doing coke... oh... the not so atractive girl is naked.... this is the state in every art... put shocking things in your book/paint/sculpture/tv show and idiots will watched and claim that is the best thing ever.... by the way... the music is horrible.. hipster crap..… Expand
  4. skantea
    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. 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.… Expand
  5. TheKiddy
    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 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?… Expand
  6. laguy38v
    Apr 20, 2012
    2
    The show is ok. Its a rip off between freaks and geeks and sex and the city.
    I do not think this will ever be an International sensation.
    It could turn out to be interesting but i am not really that into to go any further.
    The lead is annoying.
  7. TastyJamProject
    Apr 18, 2012
    1
    This is legitimately one of the worst shows I have ever seen on television, and it frightens me that HBO would have this on their otherwise respectable network. I am in awe that Judd Apatow was involved with this, as he's usually hilarious. The acting is stale, the lead characters are privileged, dumb and annoying and there is scarcely any humour to the show. It's just about a pathetic, whiny rich girl. If you think this is intelligent humour, you're probably the type of person who reads "Into Thin Air" and thinks they've climbed everest. Poor writing, poor acting, poor everything. This is extremely shallow, unintelligent, bland, repetitive crap. Stay away.… Expand
  8. Rewrite
    Feb 17, 2013
    2
    Over-rated self-conscious self-obsessed show about unsympathetic over-privileged girls. So what's to like? My god, these girls are in the 5% of the world and well into the 1% of the world. Why would anyone care about their whining?
  9. FriedConsole
    Apr 29, 2012
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. They should just title this show Sex and the City: Next Generation but that would insult the former show. What is it about a fantasy New York setting that captivates women to make them actually move to New York to try to create this fantasy that doesn't exist? Stay in the suburbs spoiled white women this is not the real New York. Sex and the City at least had likable characters. I was hoping all of them would get run over by a NYC taxicab. It is amazing how the 4 characters fit right into the Sex and the City stereotype characters. Oh the one that is a virgin is soooo Charlotte and so on. This is waste of earth resources.… Expand
  10. thecurrentstate
    Apr 22, 2012
    2
    We're welcomed to the show with a run of the mill conversation between an average american brat and its unforgiving parents whom have suddenly decided to cut off life support rendering said brat to throw an inconclusive tantrum from which nothing is resolved, the title screen rolls 'GIRLS' and before any are formally introduced, we already find ourselves disliking them all.

    A few awkward     transitions later we're presented with a failed attempt of affection between two of what appears to be a triad of mentally stunted individuals under a single roof. Two of them deciding upon bathing mutually, likely to cut expenses that were forfeited to purchase a cupcake the more androgynous of the two engulfs while assuring the other that her boyfriend must have a vagina because he's chemically drawn to a **** who confirms to those watching she knows nothing of the opposite sex as she discusses men in an elementary fashion while she walks down the street with her equally confused sidekick.

    Another awkward conversation follows between the seemingly clueless female and her boss as they discuss the potential of herself being officially hired by the company on a permanent basis, he proceeds to take a dump on the idea of her future opportunity and sends her on her merry way frowning like she just soiled her diaper we begin to feel an ounce of sympathy for the girl and pray to the conclusion that she'll finally get her **** together until we see her dwindle into the arms of a pimply white knight who knows exactly what to say to get her to remove her panties to silence their incompatibility and life confusions leaving a feeling of disgust inside our body as we're left to witness him take advantage of her reproductive orifice.

    The camera shoots back to her apartment where her roomates are boring each other to death and cracking awkward jokes until ms. haven't a clue walks through the door apparently smelling of so much sex it overpowers the stale stench emitting from all currently known characters until we're treated to a bathroom **** fight between best friend and british newcomer which is just enough to get you half stiff until we find out one girl is already pregnant and ofcourse by accident because none of these girls have what it takes to even take care of a goldfish.

    So, if you're interested in further speculation of twenty four year olds leeches who act they're four years old. I recommend you stay tuned.    … Expand
  11. TheVegan
    May 6, 2012
    3
    OMG I can not believe this show has such strong reviews. Plus it's not just on TV it's on HBO so it must be good. Well, it's not! I watched the first episode and didn't enjoy it at all. But it was highly rated and on HBO so I thought I would give it another chance. I then watched the second episode all the way through and that was it. I can take no more. There is nothing interesting about this show at all. At least from my point of view.… Expand
  12. VasyaNYC
    Apr 25, 2012
    1
    For all the froth collecting around this show regarding its excessive nepotism, racial exclusiveness/insensitivity, sloppily uninspired and weird sex, etc., what really matters for a viewer in the end is that the show just isn't any good. The characters are uninteresting, not relateable; the script tries but isn't actually funny; the question you'll keep asking yourself over and over will overwhelmingly be "Who cares?" Seriously, Who cares? I'm giving it a 1 for providing the service of helping to more easily identify really dumb people without having to seriously engage them ("Girls" fans are sort of like the people reading Thomas Friedman books on the subway... except dumber and more vapid).… Expand
  13. Ingeniat
    May 19, 2012
    1
    Why are the critics saying this is fantastic. From their perspective it might be challenging new boundaries in TV. For a viewer it's just hard work; you feel little empathy for any of the characters. It shows how sometimes critics are far removed from audiences.
  14. TheTick
    May 28, 2012
    0
    Main characters are stupid and make pointless decisions and I don't care about them. They annoy me and I'm sure they will annoy most level headed people.
  15. Delixu
    May 18, 2012
    1
    I started watching the show with very high expectations, and I was very disappointed. The characters are too shallow (read: spoiled little brats), and it seems to be nothing but a pathetic attempt at recreating Sex and the City with younger girls. I gave up after falling asleep during all 3 episodes I watched, and I could not put myself through any more. Woeful.
  16. wasabcl11
    Jun 4, 2012
    1
    This is likely one of the worst shows on television. While the program certainly achieves its goal of presenting a painfully ironic collection of poorly behaved twenty-somethings, aside from a few scenes, it is hardly funny, regardless of one's comedic preferences. Although the show is undeniably well-produced in many respects, the acting ranges from mediocre to atrocious (For a salient example, see the opening scene of the first episode.). Naturally, the only one of the "girls" who appears to show any degree of consistent talent is the Jemima Kirke, who happens to be the show's only major actress devoid of superior cultural connections. Yet, the worst aspect of "Girls" is that is an enormous chore to watch. No, this is not because of its complexity or abstraction- in fact, there is little in the way of these elements- it's just the ubiquitous awareness of the viewer that the sources of show's plot line are infuriatingly petty. I might give some deference to Dunham's artistic intent, if I knew the writing here were mostly or completely satirical, but I'm almost absolutely certain that it is not. Having graduated from the same artsy liberal arts college (Oberlin) as Lena Dunham (In fact, though I didn't know her, my tenure overlaps with her own for a couple of years.), been a freelance artist for several years following my stay, and seen her god-awful film "Tiny Furniture," I can safely say that Dunham likely believes that her depiction of these caricatures of the most spoiled post-college "creative types" is insightful and compelling. Furthermore, and even more sickening, I believe Dunham, to some degree, is projecting herself in the nature and behavior of all of the major characters. And, I imagine should would readily admit this, too. Being constantly in contact with these sort of insufferable characters throughout my professional life, I thought TV could provide refuge from their vapidity. I was wrong.… Expand
  17. alistairwhitman
    Jun 18, 2012
    0
    Possibly the worst show HBO has put on air. Not clever. Not insightful. Not funny. In the words of Peter Sellers, 'There's no there, there.' Haven't we had enjoy of privileged, young, Anglos gone wild in New York City see Felicity, Sex in the City, Gossip Girl. This is really the worst of the bunch. Quirkiness has to come naturally it can't be manufactured.
  18. minadomingos
    Jul 9, 2012
    0
    The show is just like the main actress: An Granade. It's the worst thing I ever saw.It's boring, most of the girls are very ungly, slow, not point and absolutely not funny at all.
  19. LuminousEgg
    Nov 30, 2012
    0
    Intolerably bad. Seriously. I didn't just watch the first scene of episode 1 & get sick to my stomach either. I forced myself to watch the entire season & to remain "open minded". What a complete waste of time. I guess if you're into complete **** or if you're an old fogey that wants to live vicariously through these zero- dimensional characters, then have at it.
  20. JoannaStelling
    Jan 8, 2013
    1
    This is an addendum to my previous review, which is stated far more elegantly than anything I said. It is by the author David Foster Wallace, who talks about the "shallow rebelliousness of TV. Irony and ridicule are effective and entertaining but are at the same time agents of a great despair and stasis..." The full quote is below. I find this show to be too ironic, too full of ridicule and yet at the same time, totally static. ______________________

    Wallace's fiction is often concerned with irony. His essay "E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction",[33] originally published in the small-circulation Review of Contemporary Fiction in 1993, proposes that television has an ironic influence on fiction writing, and urges literary authors to eschew TV's shallow rebelliousness: "I want to convince you that irony, poker-faced silence, and fear of ridicule are distinctive of those features of contemporary U.S. culture (of which cutting-edge fiction is a part) that enjoy any significant relation to the television whose weird pretty hand has my generation by the throat. I'm going to argue that irony and ridicule are entertaining and effective, and that at the same time they are agents of a great despair and stasis in U.S. culture, and that for aspiring fictionists they pose terrifically vexing problems." Wallace used many forms of irony, but focused on individuals' continued longing for earnest, unselfconscious experience and communication in a media-saturated society.[34] Literary critic Adam Kirsch said that Wallace's "self-conscious earnestness" and "hostility to irony defined a literary generation    … Expand
  21. LindaW
    Jan 17, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I watched the first three episodes after seeing the Golden Globe awards. This show is not only bad but disturbingly bad. How interesting that the critics rate this higher than the users, just the opposite of the the uplifting and empowering film Cloud Atlas. This TV show reinforces the lowest expectations that a young person might have for love and romance, as do recent reports in the New York Times about "the end of courtship" and "an oil town where men are many and women are hounded." I don't care whether the characters are rich or poor, but how dispiriting that they demand so little respect for themselves, in relationships and at work.

    *** SPOILER ALERT *** There is a lot of nudity and fairly explicit sex scenes, but so joyless! One character halfheartedly participates in fantasies of humiliating under-aged prostitutes, never comes herself, gets a disease, and begs for more. Another one is confronted by a guy who says he will "make you afraid the first time I f*ck you, because I'm a man and I know how to do things" -- and she finds this so exciting she has to run ... run!... back to work to masturbate. Everyone seems to be an unpaid intern or babysitter. Back in Cloud Atlas terms, Girls is a step toward a more barbaric society. There are many more uplifting ways to spend your time, including washing the kitchen floor.    … Expand
  22. krnology
    Feb 14, 2013
    4
    I watched the entire first season of Girls to make sure I wasn't missing anything. After the final episode concluded I was left confused why so many critics gave this show glowing reviews. It has moments that are interesting, but they are maybe 2-3 minutes per episode in length. I also was unable to connect with any of the characters since the show did its best to make them all equally unlikable. For me, Girls is one of those shows where the numerous critics glowing praise was completely off base.… Collapse
  23. jessegirl87
    Mar 29, 2013
    1
    I think this show is just a Lena Dunham vanity project. It's self indulgent and certainly not a reflection of reality for young people, as others suggest. It's about poor little privileged girls, living the hipster lifestyle and not being particularly funny or interesting. I also find it quite odd that it's completely white washed when it's supposedly set in New York City which happens to be one of the most diverse places in America, let alone Brooklyn. I mean, even the background actors are all white. I think the alleged feminism is also very misguided.… Expand

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
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
  1. Zap2it (Inside the Box)
    May 7, 2012
    80
    Four episodes in, and Girls is still packing tons of jaw-dropping, head-shaking, eyebrow-raising scenes into 30 minutes each Sunday night.
    Read full review
  2. 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]
  3. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »