Girls (2012–2017) User Reviews

Mixed feelings

[CharWoman · 7/10 · 22 May 2012]

I hadn't been following the show yet but decided to get caught up since all the episodes were available on demand, and since they are nice and short it didn't take much time.

I have mixed feelings about the show. I'm definitely not in my twenties anymore, and even when I was my situation was different from Hannah's (I was broke and struggling through art school without any family support, and not in New York). That was years ago--Hannah could theoretically be my daughter--yet I recognize and sympathize with a lot of what goes on in her world. A good bit of the show is funny and smart, and I do care about her--she's afraid and a little lost and going through a series of disappointments. I get how it feels to have something to say and find yourself (or others) questioning whether it really needs to be said, which must be really rough when you've spent the last few years in a crucible of complete focus on self-expression (grad school). I'm just not sure I like her. And maybe that's OK, since Hannah doesn't seem to like herself very much despite little bursts of ego and a chronic exhibitionism--but the occasional moments pop up where it feels like I'm supposed to cheer her on when I want to shake her instead. Her motives seem hollow, and too focused on trying to actively *impress* others, which could be intentional. It's hard to tell if she's having trouble being herself or if the trouble IS that she's being herself. Maybe the generation gap is to blame, or maybe there is no message and she's just packaging up and delivering a slice of life without any adjectives or claims printed on the box. And there is certainly more going on in the show besides the protagonist's character study.

I'll continue watching to see how Hannah progresses. There is value in the writing, and it's pretty original. Feels a little like a graphic novel (a la American Splendor), weirdly. Glad to see Zosia Mamet after being introduced to her on Mad Men, and hope her character (Shoshanna) is allowed to grow out of what appears to be comic relief. Also good to see Becky Ann Baker again, the warm and authentic mom from Freaks and Geeks. She's less cuddly here but just as real.

If you're in your twenties you may well like this more than I do. If you're {ahem}older you might like it more than me anyway. But it's certainly worth watching an episode or two to find out.

It's a Car Crash

[OGmacadamia39 · 7/10 · 22 December 2021]

Here's the thing about HBOs once huge hit 'Girls'; The central character is an insufferable person the first three seasons. It is actually painful to watch this person behave as she does. Hanna (Lena Dunham) is not a likable person. And the constant display / confrontation of highlighting her own body so vagrantly and to an unnecessary degree. Shoving her point in our face like, almost violently. It's in your face agenda anunviodable in its also rubber-necking story telling and cast.

Hanna is Lena - it's not as fiction as it wants to appear. That's both unique intriguing but also uncomfortably narcissistic. This is tragically - what keeps you watching.

The strange thing is, Lena can write OTHER CHARACTERS, and OTHER PLOT NARRATIVES FOR THEM, that hold this thing together. Jemima Kirke, Adam Driver, Zosia Mamut, Alex Karpovsky - honestly they're all written beautifully (and bizarrely) intriguing. Each one of them couldn't have been played better.

So you have these good people inside of stories, with Hannah (Dunham) shoving herself in your face. If you can bare that, which is an honest feat, then you might find some dark yet laughable moments on your ass watching this show.

Love it or or hate it I'll forever remain undecided - but I did watch it. There strain in trying to reframe Hannah in seasons four+ was palpable. It got a little painful there too but in a slightly different way. Final review is truly + almost tragically undecided. Like; what did I just subject myself to? Lena is practically a sex offender, I'm sorry. It's like a modern age Only Fans. Why???

Just, why?

We get it, does it have to be so purposefully BLATANT? It's mildly assaulting. The show over all is graphic - be she - in every way - is above and beyond over the top.

Then she feigns intellectual superiority in all her *wOkEness" - her "progressive and radical demonstration of all bodies are beautiful" on LD crack. It is over the top and just sooo dreadfully unavoidable, though to a degree you wish it would just simmer. In one scene, Hannah and her mother are on "vacation" at some spa weekend and Jesus Christ let's see we watch her having extremely awkward completely implausible sauna sex with some rando mystical trainer girl who "beautifully breaks the rules" then turns out to be blatantly broken and of course Hannah just happened to bury her face into her vagina in the meantime. Thrusting her naked body onto screen, while overtly giving head to such a degree that was in fact just display. Then a side shot of her and her mom crawling into bed for the evening. Instead it's this capture of Hannah taking off her her underwear, flashing her vagina to the screen before getting under the covers. Like: playing off a Sharon Stone moment with her boss? Again, opening her legs while HBO zooms in.

Why?

It's over the top.

We do see other characters in awkward life positions but they're often relatable to a degree. There is something that far off of that when it comes to how Lena writes herself into Hannah. To me, it seems slightly psychotic.

Hence, Car Crash.

Idk.

Lena Dunham is just so tragically narcissistic. How she managed to keep such amazing people around her is actually mind blowing to me.

A mumblecore sex&the city for millennials

[cesiraurzi · 6/10 · 19 May 2018]

In the 2012 male dominated world of TV shows, Girls has been a welcomed addition. The fact that its main character is also the show's creator, writer and often director, makes it even more welcome. But, as an avid consumer of films and TV, I cannot rate Girls more than 6 (and I am being generous for the previous reasons). The most obvious comparisons to Lena Dunham's "Girls" is Sex & the City, both because of its 4 female leads living in NYC , and because of the emphasis on friendship and relashionsips. However, to me, Girls is more similar to any mumblecore movie (think Noah Baumbach's Frances Ha) or to a certain extent TV shows like Freak and Geeks or Love (unsurprisingly, Judd Apatow is an exec producer). Ordinary stories about ordinary people with ordinary feelings and ordinary ideas who somehow believe to be extraordinary. The show is well crafted, the acting is good, and the characters are believable, but like the whole mumblecore genre, it is too focused on the inner life of middle class, self obsessed, ordinary people and so it risks to be just as boring as the people it tries to portray. I do applaud Lena Dunham's courage in exposing her imperfect naked body and inner psychological issues, especially given the abuse she had to go through (even on this website with some of the reviews gratuitously cruel). However, I doubt that is enough to make good TV for a sustained period of time. Interestingly for a show written by a girl for other girls, the male characters (Adam, Ray) are a lot more interesting and have a lot more life in them than any of the female characters, except for Hannah. While the boys in the show have interests and thoughts,the girls are defined by their relationships with men (or lack thereof). We learn more about the internal life and motivations of a marginal character like Thomas John in his two minute monologue than about Marnie or Jessa during the entire first season. It's true that except for Carrie, the characters in sex & the city were also fairly thin, but that show was a hell of a lot more fun. Finally, since Lena Dunham is now heralded as the bulwark of modern feminism, does it really matter if the writer/director/producer of a show is a woman when the female characters she creates are so thin?

I loved Girls

[jlwarmington · 9/10 · 22 April 2022]

I might be in the minority but I loved the show from start to finish, albeit better in first couple of seasons. I always felt like people took it too seriously. There are some great comedic moments and yes most of the best moments were Adam Driver scenes or Andrew Rannells. Don't really understand why people would be so bothered about characters being naked, especially when a lot of them involved Adam 😉 had it been a show about a bunch of stereotypical "hot" guys I bet no one would be complaining about the naked characters.

Fresh, funny, and also a bit depressing

[bayou_hannibal · 9/10 · 29 May 2012]

I went into the first episode of Girls with pretty low expectations. I figured that it would maybe be another Sex in the City, with some pointless softcore porn here and there, but I decided to try it out. It is now, along with Game of Thrones, one of my favorite shows on television. In fact, when we get a fresh set of shows on the DVR, Girls is always the first show that I want to watch. It is fresh, funny, and also a bit depressing at times. This is definitely not Sex and the City. That show was glamour and lightheartedness. This show, on the other hand, is about that bad experience that lots of people have coming out of college called "the quarter life crisis".

The tone of "Girls" is somewhat dark, cynical humor. It is about four young women out of college a year or so. They live in New York City, but unlike the Sex and the City ladies, they are struggling financially and, overall, they aren't very happy people. There are Sex and the City posters in a lot of scenes, as if to remind you that you are NOT watching that show. Their jobs are deadend-ish in nature, or just plain nonexistent. They have lots of what looks like unsatisfying or awkward sex. There is an undercurrent of disillusionment and shattered dreams with all of the plot lines. Graduating from college and moving to New York City, isn't the world supposed to be your oyster? Since you still have youthful good looks, freedom, and income, shouldn't your 20s be the most fun part of your life? Maybe for some, but that's not how it works for a lot of people. For some folks, either men or women, the years immediately after college are when you find out that the world truly doesn't care about you, or that you don't have the talent to do what you wanted to do. It is when you grow apart from your college boyfriend or girlfriend and wake up one day to find that you have nobody of significant romantic interest in your life. It is when you find out that there are jobs out there that are horribly boring and unsatisfying.

I normally get annoyed by the excessive (and often boring and pointless) sex in HBO's original series, but it fits into this series just fine. This show centers around the trials and tribulations of young women in their early to mid 20s, and one problem that they all share is an unsatisfying sex life. Having been raised and gone through college with today's "hookup" culture, the men in their lives are lazy. They barely have to lift a finger to get laid and they don't need to be romantic to seduce a woman at all. They have sex and then somebody goes home right after. If you are looking for one big feature to distinguish this show from Sex and the City, I think that this portrayal of modern sex culture would be it. Sex and the City portrayed it as glamorous and empowering for women. This show (and I am not sure if this is intentional) portrays it somewhat the opposite. Hannah has been having sex with her partner, Adam, for a long time, but she barely even knows him. Marnie has a long time boyfriend, but she's not turned on by or in love with him. The relationships that these women have are shallow and unsatisfying.

The themes are interesting, and the writing is clever too. The one liners are usually funny. The hijinx are sufficiently wacky and unpredictable. If you have shared experiences with the characters in this show, then I think that you will "get" it, and that you will find it funny. If you haven't, then this show might not appeal to you. If you were turned off from the show by its marketing or because you didn't want to see another "Sex and the City", then I highly encourage you to give it a look. Especially if you feel that you can identify with some of the characters. As a 38 year old man, I still could, despite being older and, well, male. This show doesn't appear to be too popular, and that disappoints me, because I really want there to be a second season.

My go to show

[biancadark-00403 · 10/10 · 22 October 2020]

When I'm having a bad day throwing on an episode makes everything all better. I always laugh, smile and wake up a better person.

From a guy's perspective

[EddyOne · 7/10 · 28 May 2012]

I am a straight (if that matters...) 30-something guy and I just watched the first five episodes of HBO's "GIRLS". So in a nutshell:

I really dig this show. I think it has an extremely unique vibe to it, that kinda reminds me of "How to make it in America" (with a pinch of Woody Allen). It's nothing like "Sex and the City"... well it's about a group of Girlfriends, that happen to live in New York City and well... yes Sex is an issue. But still, it's nothing like "SATC". It's much more down-to-earth, realistic and... different. I like all the girls and their facets. The casting is great. Though they work with some (New York) clichés in the show, I really have the feeling that I know people like that from my own life and experiences. The early 20s, an age where you're on your own for the first time of your life, grown up but still clueless about life and what to expect from it. It's kind of an adventure to figure out who you are, what you want and where to go. I really feel that "GIRLS" makes a great job capturing that feeling. Lena Dunham, creator, director and protagonist of this show is crazy talented. People will hear (even more) from her in the future. Mark my words.

Hopefully HBO won't axe this show as they did with "How to make it...". It's a great show and I really enjoy watching it.

Realistic and more than relevant to my generation

[platero-pam · 10/10 · 23 April 2012]

I'm twenty three. My girlfriends and I have real conversations like this. We're poor, fresh out of college, and headed toward grad school (hopefully.) What I'm getting at is this show is relevant to our lives, it's realistic and actually funny. Not all women were like Sex and the City and it's been said that Carrie's extravagant lifestyle was not realistic, this show is. I hate to compare the two but Girls blows SATC out of the water. This show is fresh, funny, and so true that it hurts. Lena Dunham is not only a phenomenal actress but the entire premise is so new and amazing that it's hard to believe she writes and directs each episode. Love is so far and I recommend it.

Time to end this show

[dragonbate · 6/10 · 11 July 2016]

I actually liked Season 1 but it went downhill from there. Now I'm watching Season 5 and am appalled by how bad it is but at the same time very interested to understand why Lena Dunham feels she must have her character show her vagina to her supervisor, steal a poor guy's bike, hike a mountain in her bikini and generally show off her naked body in random moments even though the plot doesn't require it. The answer is simple.

The show is doing terribly. The plot is silly, the female characters are all variations of one character, that of a narcissistic, confused, spoiled brat. The only thing that can make people passionate about this show and keep watching it, is their hatred for Lena Dunham's character. She must have thought "you want to hate me? I'll give you reasons to hate me". Hence this last year Hannah became even more obnoxious, spoiled, rude and narcissistic. But the worst thing is the flaunting of her naked body in every episode. This is not the healthy reaction of an overweight woman who feels confident in her own skin. Nope. It is provoking and of poor taste and every time she shows me her naked ass I feel like she's also screaming: "in your face then!" Agh. No, no thanks.

The life of a bunch of narcissists.

[rusty-61689 · 5/10 · 13 May 2019]

The life of a narcissists. Storyline is just ok but it misses the mark. People dont put up with such self centreness in real life and narcissts just dont be friends with other narcissists.

Just Enjoy It For What It Is

[sabrinaadelani · 10/10 · 4 May 2012]

I personally LOVE this show. It's incredibly funny and extremely refreshing. It's quirky and almost every dialogue makes me smile like an idiot. The sex is also a lot more realistic than in other shows (Since most of the time sex can awful and unsatisfying, not earth-shattering like they portray on romantic movies and also, not everyone is built like a model.)

I think people need to stop over analyzing the show and enjoy it for what it is; a heartfelt comedy about young women who traverse a complicated world filled with heartbreak and uncertainty with no one to lean on but each other. It's a unique take on an old idea and I will definitely stay tuned for more.

Not sure what to make of this show anymore

[asc85 · 6/10 · 27 July 2012]

The first four or five episodes were hilarious...it was one of my favorite new shows on TV, and I totally understood why it was so well-received by critics. Then, inexplicably, it changed from "a comedy with some dramatic parts" to "a drama with some comedic parts." The characters became extremely unlikable...especially Hannah. The episode with Adam flipping out multiple times was one that I despised, and I would have stopped watching the show at that point, but there was only like 2-3 more episodes to go, so I thought I should hang in there. The last 2-3 episodes got a little bit better, but the wedding in the final episode was so ridiculous, which I guess might have been the point.

So I'm not sure whether I'm going to give "Girls" a shot for Season #2. I probably will, but will keep it on a short leash. If it continues to be unfunny with unlikeable characters, I'm done.

Commits the sins of being boring and unfunny.

[angie_l · 4/10 · 13 January 2013]

I have seen many complaints about Girls only being relatable to a small sliver of the audience. I have also read someone defending it saying that we can't relate to the characters on Dowtown Abbey but still love it. I like Downtown Abbey. I think of Mary Crawley as a bit spoiled, high-minded, even snooty but still good natured and I like her with her faults and I am far from a British aristocrat. The maids, footmen, valets, and cook - I can't relate to their situation either... Secret is we do relate to them through their experiences, like Daisy learning to stand up for herself in a respectful way. Enough about Downtown Abbey...

I think you CAN write a show about spoiled privileged self-absorbed white girls in their early 20's. Actually, that show could be really funny because on some level who doesn't like laughing at privileged sheltered girls stumbling through a big city? At the same time we are laughing, we are also being comforted by the fact that life isn't easy for anyone, learning from their mistakes, and watching them grow. I'm also not troubled by the fact that all the friends are white - I found this to be somewhat realistic. Even a boyfriend who is too nice can be upsetting - you want a partner, an equal, with opinions and not a puppy dog that follows you around. This sounds like I am going to start praising the show? All the main complaints about it don't bother me. However, my point of criticism was it forgot to be entertaining and the situations are poorly written. It isn't funny and I am bored to tears while watching it. The characters are also often just plain annoying.

I saw an episode one night not knowing what it was. It was so boring, drab, and lifeless, I kept thinking what is this? Is it a show? Who could produce something so vanilla, limp, and dull? Thanks to the info button, I learned it was 'Girls.' So I googled it and found rave reviews and decided to watch some episodes - maybe I couldn't appreciate the show without seeing the story that came before. I watched the first 3 episodes, that makes 4 total and 4 too many. The show just fails on multiple levels, mostly at the satire it tries to be. I admit there are brief moments when the show rises above and realizes its potential, again, very briefly. Sometimes the lack of comedic timing kills a scene. The dialogue and interactions are also very simplistic and there is never any subtext.

Things that bugged me in the first 2 episodes:

The lighthearted abortion party was a little disturbing and I am completely pro-choice. So the British girl isn't the type to be emotional but she doesn't show up to her abortion and just confessed to you that she does want children (the conversation about her wanting children was one of the most badly written scenes I have ever watched.). What is your response? You are worried about your friend who is facing a huge life decision and is unsure about her choices? Worried she may be somewhere needing your support? Nope, you are annoyed she stood you up. What? The situation could be funny but NEVER in the way it is presented. The show then wimped out and balked on the unwanted pregnancy. (Also, she would have had a pregnancy test and medical exam to schedule an abortion so was she miscarrying?)

Hannah makes a joke about date rape in her interview. OK, nose-diving in an interview should be funny and make you uncomfortable. Her date rape joke makes you cringe but not cringe at how out of touch Hannah is but cringe with who wrote this terrible show?

Hannah's lover during sex wants her to pretend to be an 11 year old girl that he took from the street and is going to send home to her parents covered in semen (they use the other word) while shoving his hand in her face. He's a jerk but still this one, I... don't... get.

Alright, it's all to character development and we aren't supposed to think they are the greatest people in the world - they are real with flaws. They certainly are not completely awful but whether we are supposed to be laughing at or horrified by them, we should be invested in their story. The characters inspire nothing. They aren't interesting, they aren't funny. I didn't like them or hate them and I didn't care. You don't have to like a character to root for them. I also had a nagging sense that the show was telling superficial people, it is OK to be this self absorbed.

You shouldn't have to be living in a narrow section of society to like a show and relate to the characters - most shows I watch are far from depicting me but I like them, I relate, I laugh, I cry. So when a large chunk of people think a show is not relatable, it's the show's fault and not the viewers. The shows biggest failure is it's boring. I didn't absolutely hate it despite it making me cringe at times. It's just a blank void as vacuous as its characters.

Get off your high horses, this is reality

[kelly-louise · 8/10 · 11 May 2012]

If you are looking for the next glamorous Sex and the City show, this is not it. In fact, it is the opposite. 'Girls' doesn't advertise glamour in any way, which is a complete deviation from the average American show. It is odd how much controversy surrounds Lena Dunham and her 'Girls', because she actually writes a common scenario in a very familiar way. On paper, it is quite a lot like 'Sex and the City': four women from NYC who struggle with acquiring their careers and finding love. However, there are no Manolo Blahniks or Mr Bigs. There are crummy apartments and player boyfriends.

Life after college is nowhere near glamorous, and Dunham knows this all too well. If you find yourself at that little lost place, post graduation, taking any job that comes along your way and despairing over the fact that you might never get that career you've always dreamt of, or keep ending up in a less-than-perfect relationship because you are willing to pick up any love you can get, these 'Girls' might be some comfort for you. If you are in the mood for some real-life drama that is not sugarcoated in any way, this show might find you intrigued. And if you are still convinced this show is fake and its characters are unrelatable, at least watch it for Jemima Kirke, TV's very own too-cool-for-you bohemian hipster. She's the it-girl you don't want to miss.

Stupid people find it boring and unfunny

[ryangetzzz · 10/10 · 25 May 2020]

The show isn't slapstick humor and the characters change throughout the seasons. People need to relax and realize the show is satire. It's incredibly smart and funny

This show is a total knock off of sex and the city

[spoonercrew · 23 January 2014]

Before you say "no it's not!" Just hear me out. First of all I'd say this is what SATC would be like when Carrie and Co first moved to NYC before they got good jobs, before they got good clothes and shoes and before they could afford to live in Manhattan. Which by the way - working the jobs they DO work at in this show with supposedly no help from mommy and daddy - no WAYYY the can afford Brooklyn but I digress.

Hannah is Carrie without the love of fashion or shoes but she is a writer but she has Samantha's libido. Adam is her "Mr. Big". Marnie is a hybrid of Miranda and Charlotte - hello works in an art gallery?! Jessa has that blunt personality trait of Samantha. Now I can only imagine that Lena Dunham was watching Mean girls when she created the character of Shoshanna because that girl is the incarnate of Gretchen Weiner - go watch the movie and tell me I'm wrong. The way she talks the cadence of her voice. Seriously - Candace Bushnell and Tina Fey could sue. It's paramount to plagiarism.

Furthermore I don't know how this is classified a comedy - I haven't laughed once. And of course you can't discuss this show without the nudity aspect -I'm sorry but Lena Dunham needs to keep her clothes on and as vapid and shallow as twenty something hipster guys are - they aren't going to want the likes of Hannah Horvath just isn't going to happen and neither is the likes of a 42- yr old doctor. I saw that episode and thought "oh please". So it's not even close to "real life" either. Sorry.

Great show with terrible people

[Larsii90 · 8/10 · 13 January 2023]

First off, this show is definitely not for everyone. I absolutely loved it from the jump, and I tried to get a few friends into it that didn't get it at all.

The characters are mostly unlikeable, so you watch this to kind of laugh at the mess and chaos, and there is some very good comedy and drama here. The writing is clever and cast is good. One of my absolute comfort shows, it always makes me feel good and makes me chuckle. The only think I think is really unfortunate about Girls is that the main girls are hardly ever together as a group. At most they are 2-3 together, and it's too bad because when the four girls are together it's always hilarious. I guess it's realistic for girls at that age, but I'd love it if they were together more.

It's going downhill in a fast pace

[deloudelouvain · 6/10 · 25 March 2015]

I am reviewing this show while I'm watching the third season. I have to say that in the beginning I was enjoying this series a lot more then right now. I just think it's going downhill in a fast way now and I don't think it will get better again. I give it a 6 star rating now as an average for all the seasons but the third season should get way lesser then that. It's not funny anymore and the constant whining of Lena Dunham is getting highly irritable. Also if I have to hear Allison Williams sing that stupid song one more time I might smash my TV screen. I try to remember what I liked about this show in the beginning because I did like it at first but that seems so long ago that the negatives from this last season erased any positive thing I had to say about Girls. I think I'm just going to finish this season and then just stop watching it because there are way better series then this one.

Welcome to the real world.

[linds-d-ross · 9/10 · 25 May 2012]

In a nutshell this show is great. If you're deluded enough to believe that this isn't an accurate portrayal of 20something girls in this day and age you need to get off your high horse. Almost every scenario in this show has happened to myself or a fellow girlfriend. Real life is like this, if you're just out of school, broke and a little lost you don't have a great Carrie Bradshaw apartment, walk around in $400 dollar Manolo's (you probably don't even have four dollars to your name) and you sure as hell don't meet gorgeous, rich Mr.Big type men. Life is exactly like Girls writer/director/star Lena Dunham has given us. It's a little drab, you wear the clothes in your closet, you date jerks who don't return your texts, you have a little bit of stomach fat and your breasts aren't meant for playboy. Not to mention how realistic the characters are, I dated a Charlie and an Adam, I have a friend that is Marnie.

Girls aren't perfect, we don't always strive for perfection, we can be neurotic and a little bit boring, yes I said it boring! Life isn't all art galleries, parties, gala's, shopping and eating out every meal. Real life is crappy dinner parties, crappy sex, crappy jobs and the occasional abortion, it's nice to see a show that doesn't make us all feel inferior.

Great Season 1, Head-Scratching Season 2

[the_brain888 · 6/10 · 31 May 2013]

I watched Season 1 in one sitting. It felt representative of my generation, the quarter-lifers. It felt real, very unSex and the City like. The posters of which pop up in the background reminding us how different this is from SatC. It was a novel and authentic take on the this generation, the angst, the uncertainty, the aimless wandering that we feel.

***SPOILER ALERT***

The scene of the first episode set the tone so perfectly with Hannah getting cut off. It's just such a perfect expression of the sentiment of the times. Our baby boomer parents must be feeling the financial drag and the emotional strain of nursing us from afar. The endless articles have documented this blight ad nauseum, the lost generation. And us children are left to float on, with the full confidence that our upbringing has afforded us, but the lack of focus, determination and put-togetherness to afford us the opportunity to prove our worth.

Most of this is our own fault, and we know it. Episode 2 gives that excellent and cringeworthy interview scene that we've all experienced like watching our own car wreck in slow motion.

All these characters are instantly relatable. There is nary a college weary urbanite that can't identify or have friends and acquaintances who aren't the less obnoxious versions of any characters on this show.

These characters and the absurdly funny Apatow-esque plots drew me in and kept me interested through the first season.

My favourite was Episode 9. It has so many memorable scenes: when Jess has that conversation with Kathryn Hahn's character, we really see her character challenged; similarly with Hannah's reading; and the fight with Marnie.

I couldn't wait to follow these characters into the next season! I couldn't wait to see what this scrappy upstart of Lena Dunham could offer the world and show what our generation can do if only given the opportunity.

And then Season 2 happened, and made me question Lena Dunham's abilities. It almost seems like what happened to Hannah on the show happened in real life to the writers. It felt like after the show gained attention (just as Hannah got her book deal), the pressure of it all got to Ms. Dunham as well. Season 2 hemorrhaged dialogue, plot twists, and detours that was not in the spirit of what Season 1 set this show out to be. WHAT HAPPENED?

Season 2 felt like the boring set of pages Hannah sent in to the editor. In fact, everything that George says about Hannah's writing can be said about this season: "I didn't know who was writing them", "Where's the sexual failure?"

When referring to her having sex with a teenager, George says that it's the stuff we need. Ironically, that episode when Jess goes to see her father, and also the episode previous where Adam and Ray go return the dog... THAT was the show I fell in love with.

The drama with Elijah, the Marnie/Charlie will-they-won't-they bullshit ("You won't get any of this" WTF?! This is so inconsistent with the Charlie we know from season 1), the sudden onset OCD (feels like an unnecessary and desperate attempt to add some drama and depth to Hannah but not too much), the doctor plot detour (a smoking hot 40 year old recently separated doctor... this just sounds like a writer's wet dream, not from an authentic show like Girls), Charlie starting his own company plot twist (seriously? a musician writes and app without any technical help, no co-owners/co-founders?). All of this just wreaks of Sex and the City, which is not why I wanted to watch this show in the first place!

It feels like Season 2 came from a newly successful writer that felt the crushing pressure recreate a best seller. And now we have a work that's just pedestrian.

I really hope season 3 improves or that's when I'll give up on this show.

4 stars, but only because of Adam Driver

[lenkaa · 4/10 · 23 January 2018]

Seriously, Adam Driver is the only good thing about this show. He is a great actor, but even he could not save this utterly silly display. And yes, one gets tired of seeing the main character naked all the time.

Hilarious and witty

[kerennasheeran · 10/10 · 17 July 2023]

I absolutely love this show! So quick- witted with hilarious one-liners and great casting. The love hate relationships among a group of girls in their 20s is so relatable. Just watch it and enjoy it for what it is - easy watching TV. Another plus to point out is the killer sound track that accompanies all six series. I absolutely loved the first series especially the warehouse party episode. I can see why other reviewers have criticised the narcissism of the four main characters, in particular, Hannah. But this is all part of the charm! Ray and Shoshanna are definitely two stand out characters for me!

Pretty good

[s201098765 · 6/10 · 18 February 2023]

I like the shows premise and the writing is good. Except for one aspect of it: the sexual situations and nudity is just weird and awkward and sometimes cringey. It is so gratuitous and completely unnecessary most of the time. I don't think it's even that relatable. Most of the characters are also entirely unlikable but that is like a lot of shows these days. It's like you should want to feel even a shred of sympathy or empathy but you don't because they are so narcissistic. Despite all of that, the relationships and dialogue can be a little relatable. I do love all of the music on the show.....

It's annoying.

[ken-961-47034 · 2/10 · 29 March 2014]

I can see some minor appeal to this show and I won't challenge the taste of anyone who likes it. My girlfriend watches it regularly, though she can't articulate why.

From my perspective it's a pointless meta-tragedy where rich 30-somethings attempt to act like poor 20-somethings but wield only enough emotional depth to emulate spoiled teenagers. Each character is a razor-thin veneer that barely manages to obscure the underlying actor's radiant sense of entitlement and profound lack of awareness.

These are truly despicable, irreparably self-obsessed people. Girls would work so much better if it were framed as satire rather than as a dramedy that wants to be taken semi-seriously.

Example of the Decline in Quality of Some Series on HBO

[JTegeur · 24 April 2012]

What a sad attempt to portray stray girls in the big city. This is a huge disappointment that fits in with the declining quality of many HBO series. If you want to see uncaring sex there is plenty of porno that is a whole lot better and readily available.

There is nothing noteworthy about these "girls" except they are all fairly doleful and apparently adrift. It is a gloomy indictment of current society if most young women living in a big city are in this blighted state. The melancholy of it is really the only thing that makes them sympathetic.

The acting is atrocious and borders on the junior high school level. Stone faced they read their lines in a near monotone. There is better acting from children on Nickelodeon. Hopefully it will improve over time.