• Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 15, 2012
  • Season #: 1 , 2 , 3
User Score
6.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 296 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 60 out of 296

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Apr 16, 2012
    8
    Like musiqfanatic, I was prepared to be strongly annoyed by the show - the lead character in particular. But the first episode won me over. There's an authentic, non-cliched feel to it. I'm looking forward to getting to know her and her circle of friends. One issue - I like Peter Scolari as her father, but her mother is a miss. I won't get specific as to the why - it's too harsh.
  2. Sep 12, 2012
    10
    I feel that I have to defend the show. Don't get me wrong I don't think it was the perfect start for a freshman series. It was very good, though. It showed how it feels to be young, confused, bold, dreamer, a failure, in love, and above all humane in the city that never sleeps in 2012 where everything is possible and thus in question. By the end of the season finale, I was quite impressed by the universe Mrs. Dunham created and I anticipate the next season eagerly. P.S For those of you who think the protagonist is ugly well...It's not Sex And The City!!! Expand
  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 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Apr 23, 2012
    10
    Ignore the nay-Sayers: "Girls" is brilliant and Lena Dunham is a major talent. Painfully, brutally honest and, above all, funny. You will see yourself somewhere in the first two episodes.
  6. 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
  7. Apr 23, 2012
    8
    I don't really understand why people are getting SO aggravated that some of these girls come from money, and depend on their parents. Like stated in other reviews here, there are moments where feeling sympathy for these girls can be hard, but this didn't bother me THAT much. While most people do not have constant financial support from their parents, people like this definitely exist. And if you can't look past this, then don't watch the show. From the first episode, I can say that this is a well-made show with well-written characters. It kept me interested throughout most of the show, and is genuinely funny. By the end, I wanted to see what happened next. Expand
  8. Jun 18, 2012
    9
    The amount of times I've been forced to watch The OC or Gossip Girls in my life makes me sick. I have found entertainment through the ridiculous and contrived situations on those shows like an episode of Jersey Shore. But now! Finally, a silly little show about boys and girls that is so entertaining and relateable I find myself ruminating on the situations of the characters for hours after. It's weird and I love it! Expand
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. May 31, 2012
    9
    I wasn't expecting much when I began watching the first episode, but it took me by surprise. The writing is quite clever and I was really impressed by Lena Dunham who is not only the show's creator, but one of the main characters. She's witty, self-deprecating, and raw. As a New Yorker and someone who understands this generation, this show is a genuine portrayal of white, female over-privilaged post-graduates. You sympathize with them and at the same time you cringe at them. Definitely give this show a go. Expand
  13. Jul 27, 2012
    10
    It is subtly funny and audacious. When I watched the first episode, I wasn't that impressed, but it grew on me over time to the point where I actually looked forward to watching the newest episode. Jessa is the highlight.
  14. 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
  15. 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?
  16. Apr 29, 2012
    10
    Girls is a triumph of excellent directing, memorable dialogue and characters who are as close to a realistic interpretation of many today's young adults as you're going to get on any TV show. The opening scene of the first episode sets the tone for the main character and the whole show; this is not a character designed to be "likable" or "relatable" to a large audience, it's a character to study and a character to laugh at. The amount of self-delusion, entitlement and awkwardness is a perfect recipe for comedic situations and dialogue on almost every front. Just from two episodes it's obvious HBO has hit the jackpot with this one. I'm just incredibly disappointed at the audience members who actually think a character being "unlikable" is a bad thing. Expand
  17. May 9, 2012
    5
    This is a tough show to love, but not easy to hate either. Yes, the characters do come off as spoiled babies for the most part, and their problems seem pretty shallow compared to what others in this country are going through right now. At the same time, I would be lying (and I think some of you other reviewers would be, too) if I didn't admit I see at least some of my own (unfortunate, but still real) everyday shallowness within these characters. In that sense, it's hard for me to be too judgemental of them, lest I be a hypocrite. However, I would like to see these characters grow and become less shallow as their lives go on. Not that the (mostly) witty dialogue or smart situations need to change in the process, but I don't want to see characters a couple of seasons from now (if by some chance this show makes it that far) that are just as narcissistic as they are now. Overall, I think "Girls" has promise but is a long way off from being something great. Expand
  18. Jun 10, 2012
    10
    It's so funny to read the negative user reviews for Girls - 'nepotism!' they cry, 'RICH SPOILT WHITE PEOPLE' they screech, 'HBO what have you done - have you gone mad?' they whine. Get a grip. This show is refreshing and brilliant and funny and edgy. Sure - the characters aren't all loveable and perfect all of the time - but then, who is? Anyone comparing this show to Sex & the City is doing it a disservice - in SATC you have 4 one dimensional characters who you never believe could be friends in a real-life situation (they're so different to each other in such obvious ways that they wouldn't last a minute in each other's company), however, in GIRLS, the characters have real and complicated emotions, they are sometimes disloyal, they can be selfish and they make stupid decisions - but they can also be supportive and sweet and the kind of friend you would want to have on your side. All of the naysayers could be male because every female I know absolutely loves this show - perhaps seeing females as normal people who look like they forgot to shave their legs and may not have showered today turns their stomach a bit. If you are a fan of shows like Freaks & Geeks or the 'mumblecore' style of movie making, watch this. If you're not - steer clear or you will be outraged (read the red reviews for a comedic demonstration of utter indignation and unbounded fury). Expand
  19. Sep 3, 2012
    10
    OMG. How could the user reviews be so wrong? How can *The Wire*, with its droll attempt at reality, outrank this show with users? Bizarre. If you haven't seen this show, please try it out. It's so honest and likeable. I watched the whole first season over labor day weekend. My fav line: "I am 13 pounds overweight and it has been awful for me my whole life!" The show feels like an attempt to portray everything embarrassing about being a girl in her 20's, while somehow still finding acceptance and joy. Expand
  20. Jul 11, 2012
    10
    Usually I pay metacritic's user score more heed than I do the actual critic score. This is because I find people obsessed with critic ratings to be the best critics out there. They know not to put all your eggs in the basket of one critic, but coming to metacritic also means they appreciate incite that critics offer. In the case of Girls, the metacritic user base has completely and utterly failed me. I have not seen such an innovative style for a show in a long time. The humor is wry and witty, while somehow managing to be equally vulgar. The issues and the characters feel real. I was not going to give this show a chance after I saw the extremely low Metacritic user score (at the time it was like 5.X), but my wife loved it, so I gave it a try. I'm really glad I did because it by far my favorite comedy of 2012. Expand
  21. Nov 21, 2012
    7
    It's a love-hate relationship with "Sex and the City" that Lena Dunham explores in "Girls". The thing is, yes, not everyone is Carrie from that show, but most people aren't Lena Dunham either which seems to be the thing the show forgets. Thankfully, the over-honesty is mostly endearing and Dunham is as likable as she could be playing what I'd assume is herself.
  22. Apr 24, 2012
    9
    Let me just say, I love this show. Although there are only two episodes, this skilled ensemble has managed to be incredibly involving, funny, and surprisingly substantial- which many funny shows often forget to do. It is a brilliant commentary on the life of a middle-class girl trying navigate the struggle for independence in a time when a college degree is about as useful as, let's say, a curling iron. I love the witty banter and utter lack of pretense. I hope that it only gets better, as I think it will! Expand
  23. 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
  24. Apr 22, 2012
    10
    I first learned about this new TV show while watching an episode of Chelsea Lately, where Lena Dunham was the special guest on the show. I was intrigued by the way Chelsea Handler raved about this show that I decided to give it a try and watch it. From the beginning scene of the daughter and parents sitting at the dinner table, as the parents proceed to tell their daughter she's being financially cut off, I feel most 20 something year olds can relate very well to this scene. The writing on this show is one of a kind, yes this show is geared more towards woman, nevertheless this show has spunk, and I highly recommended it to my friends or to at least give it a try. Expand
  25. May 7, 2012
    10
    Don't understand the recent backlash against this show. I wish I didn't have to compare it to Sex and the City, but all the critics already are. In short this show is for 20-somethings what Sex and the City tried to be for 30-something career women. Whats more, Girls seems to be attracting fans from both sexes, which I don't think you could claim about Sex and the City.

    It's thoughtful
    and specific, it's seinfeldian in its quick discovery and interrogation of a world with completely new mannerisms - ones now found in the wild ubiquity of smart phones, laptops, mp3 players.

    It also presents four very different, well-rounded, and interesting characters in believable situations. For all those who are immediately turned off by the critique that the show is "white people problems", I'd ask why you weren't talking about that when sex and the city was on. Next, I'll have some questions for you about any cop, doctor, or lawyer show you might watch (they inevitably feature lead characters who are just as white as those in Girls, but a lot more rich, judging by their apartments.

    There is a totally different sociality which this generation interfaces with - it is tragedy and destabilizing anxiety that eventually leads to self criticism for feeling bad. A weird kind of neurosis in which you're unsure how to characterize the experience - am I sad? - have I a right to be sad? Even the feelings are afterthoughts. Girls is the first show I've seen to generate that in a pitch perfect way - the showender that was funny on its face, but for some reason, made you feel depressed and incapable as well.
    Expand
  26. Jun 14, 2012
    10
    I started watching this show a few days back, just decided to give it a shot after such superb critical acclaim and a very shocking awful response by viewers which is something i hate because they love Gossip Girl and PLL but hate "One of the Best Comedy Show of all time" no kidding this show rocks. Lena Dunham is a real genius, very supremely talented, she created it, writes it, directed a few episodes and is a executive producer. HBO always comes up with great TV shows but this is something else, last year was Enlightened and now Girls. The very raw, raunchy, bold, dark and yet quite touching, funny and utterly lovable nature of this show makes it one of the best offerings. They aren't just rich and spoiled because they actually work, or on the verge of becoming responsible, this is based on actual realistic experiences and shows much closer the life of ordinary GIRLS in New York. A brilliant effort, i truly love this show and very happy for Lena Dunham. Expand
  27. Apr 15, 2012
    10
    I usually hate and I mean passionately hate shows like this, however...This show lives up to it's hype. Thoughtfully written and the jokes vary from lighthearted to unexpectedly hilarious. Count me in for episode 2.
  28. Apr 16, 2012
    10
    Girls is a great work not only of television but of literature of the English language. While other TV shows portray young people as having lives of wealth, glamor, and hot sex, this series dares to display the painful economic and social realities of recent college graduates of 2012. It is easy to identify with and care about every character, even though some characters are indeed harsh; Hannah's mother may seem cruel, but if my daughter were sitting in front of me, high on Opium, asking for $1100 per month, I would be harsh too. Where this show is really spot on is its portrayal of how young women view relationships with men; they complain about guys who are insensitive and uncaring, yet they sleep with these very men - then a woman who has a nice boyfriend jokes that "he has a vagina". Expand
  29. Dec 23, 2012
    7
    Remember the four Manhattan based women on Sex and the City? Splashing the cash to keep up with the fashion and attending NY's most glamorous parties? Forget them. Four girls in New York is where the similarities end. These girls live in Brooklyn, struggle to pay rent and are more likely to attend parties in warehouses.

    Based on some of her own experiences, Lena Durham (who plays lead
    character Hannah) created and wrote the show, as well as directing five of the ten episodes. She deserves credit for writing such a fresh take on the 'girls story'. The girls in question are not always at their glamorous best, crude, promiscuous and are supported by a witty and often hilarious script. Their day to day issues are largely trivial, Hannah's parents cut her off financially, Marnie's boyfriend is too perfect, Shoshanna is a virgin and Jessa returns from travelling unhappy at adapting to the real world. Despite this, the script makes these trivial storylines more than amusing and the pure oddness of the supporting characters, mainly Adam (Adam Driver), really helps. One guy decides not have to have sex with Shoshanna when he discovers she's a virgin because "virgins get attached. Or they bleed.". To which she replies, "I'm a totally unattached bleeder". Chris O'Dowd makes a hilarious cameo in a later episode as a wealthy businessman who gets agonisingly close to having a ménage a trois with Jessa and Marnie, only for it to fall apart before his eyes and actually be more annoyed that the girls spilt wine onto his expensive rug. Collapse
  30. Nov 12, 2013
    0
    Couldn't watch past the third episode. Vomit reasons. Not worth the other 100 characters.....................................................................
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: 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.
  2. Reviewed by: Bruce Miller
    May 29, 2013
    80
    Girls was great last year. But this season it just got a little bit better.
  3. 80
    Four episodes in, and Girls is still packing tons of jaw-dropping, head-shaking, eyebrow-raising scenes into 30 minutes each Sunday night.