Girls

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.

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.

First season is fresh with original, young, interesting quirky characters. Their stories intertwine and we get to enjoy some weird side characters and situations.

The script is witty and often funny. The modern soundtrack offers lots of nice gems.

Except for the nonsensical last episode, the bar is pretty high and I'd give it an 8 out of 10.

With the second season instead the freshness is gone.

The writer, director, protagonist, monopolizes the scene with her weirdness and sexual life that stops being interesting and becomes trite and annoying. Until we get that under the weirdness there's something pathological.

A case study of psychological disorders? Maybe, but I don't like it mixed with the not-funny-anymore comedic attempts and the constant exhibition of unrealistic weirdness from almost all characters.

Even the soundtrack choices are bad. 4 out of 10.

I gave up with the end of season 2.

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.

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?