Girls

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.