Girls

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.....

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.

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?

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.