• Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 15, 2012
  • Season #: 1 , 2 , 3
User Score
6.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 289 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 59 out of 289

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 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
  2. 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
  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 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. May 16, 2012
    10
    The clever dialogue is enough to keep me entertained, but the characters are so well crafted that I can't help but care deeply for them. I await each episode with great anticipation.
  9. May 29, 2012
    10
    I found GIrls to be a refreshing comedy. The jokes are hilarious and scenes very real. Unlike several modern comedies, the characters feel very real, and relatable. The scenes can be very awkward - but don't leave me hiding under my cover in embarrassment.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. 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
  15. 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. Collapse
  16. 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
  17. Apr 17, 2012
    10
    Let's remember that a lot of people use their DVR and may not have watched this show on Sunday night but perhaps watched it and thoroughly enjoyed it on Monday night. This show is so funny! I really like the show. The girls are "real". Not everyone is a size 0 in the world nor does everyone have wealthy families that help them forever. I am really looking forward to the next episode. I don't know where the 87 came from. I would definitely give it at least a 99. Expand
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  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. May 30, 2012
    10
    This series is a must see for both young adults as well as parents. For once there is a show that actually shows how girls are for real. From trivial drama to life changing decisions, through trying so incredibly hard to please other people just to be loved and all that self obsessed me, me, me indulgence that most 20 somethings have to go through at some point in order to pass into adult life, wiser and hopefully as a better person. It's witty, right to the point and very addictive, with characters that you love to hate and then love some more. And most of all; it sure is a breath of fresh air for all those girls and women out there trying to fit their feet in to Carries expensive uncomfortable shoes, thinking life is like "Sex and the City", when actually for most people, it is more like "Girls". Watch, and love! Expand
  30. Aug 22, 2013
    0
    Intrigued by rave reviews and against my best judgement, I decided to give it a go. Turns out, this show is just as bad as I expected. The story revolves around four younger, poorer and charm-free versions of the notorious Sex & the City women.
    Said "girls" are depressed (and depressing) whiners, unable to earn a living and clueless about life and love. Granted we were probably behaving
    in a similar irrational way during our twenties, however, I do not watch TV shows to be reminded of the most difficult time of my life.
    The sex scenes are cringe-inducing. Probably more "realistic" than your average filmed, mainstream sex, but then again, who needs to witness so many scenes of humiliation and awkwardness?
    I can vaguely see the appeal for those in the same age-frame. I see none for everybody else. About the rave reviews… honestly no clue whatsoever how they got to be written.
    Expand
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.