Sundays 10:00 PM on HBO
Girls

Girls Review: Too Many Freaks, Not Enough Circuses

by at . Comments

After a couple of lackluster episodes of Girls, "It's Back" finally felt like we were back on track with the show we know and love. 

With Jessa on the lamb, the rest of the girls pick back up with their lives in NYC. Shoshanna is super worried about Jessa's whereabouts, but also mostly about what her outfits are. 

Hannah at Dinner

Marnie, on the other hand, isn't concerned about Jessa's location. This is what Jessa does. Truthfully, Jemima Kirke was just very pregnant at the end of shooting and probably needed to be written out for a hot minute. 

Back to Marnie: why would she be concerned if it's not about her? That's Marnie's M.O. The second Charlie's name and newfound success came up, Marnie ditched Ray and Shosh faster than she could say "bye." That's the thing about Marnie, whatever is the best for her and improves her status is what she's all about. It's part of why she dated that arrogant little gnome Booth Jonathan. For some reason she gets off on the idea that she messed Charlie up.

I feel like she only opened up to Ray because he's probably in a worse position than she is. As much of a slacker as Ray is, he's whip smart. A little too smart for his own good. Probably smart enough to pick up on Shoshanna's little makeout with the doorman. You know she's going to be guilty about that one! 

The reveal that Hannah had OCD is one of the reasons that I feel like people relate to Girls. Something that struck a cord for me was the fight between Hannah and her parents when they said they didn't understand why she had anxiety because she was raised well and she explained it's genetic and internal. This is something I personally understand, but Hannah has a really interesting dynamic with her parents. The session with the therapist was a trip.

I guess it's classic to have to masturbate 8 to 16 times a night until your legs shake and you're crying and you're trying to make sure your parents didn't hear you so you check their door 8 times. | permalink

Not gonna lie, sometimes she is just off her rocker entertaining. Love it. Adam's date with Shiri Appleby was also so true to life. Who the hell is relaxed on a date? Surely not this girl!

What did you all think of this week's episode of Girls? Do you think it was a good comeback?

Review

Editor Rating: 4.5 / 5.0
  • 4.5 / 5.0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
User Rating:

Rating: 4.4 / 5.0 (36 Votes)

Leigh Raines is a TV Fanatic Staff Writer. Follow her on Twitter.

Tags: ,
Like Us On Facebook

Want more Girls?

Sign up for our daily newsletter and receive the latest tv news delivered to your inbox for free!

More From TV Fanatic

Searching-for-eleanor

The Bridge Review: Butterflies

On tonight's The Bridge, the search for Eleanor continues. Will she kill again before she's found?
Telling-john

Extant Review: More Believable Than The Truth

On Extant, Molly reveals her pregnancy to John. However, Sparks' story isn't exactly a plausible explanation.
Paige-is-undercover

Graceland Review: Angels and Demons

On Graceland, Mike, Briggs and the team pull out all the stops to get Paige back. Read our review of "The Unlucky One" to find out if they were successful.
Isolation

Suits Review: Another You Problem

On Suits, Rachel and Jessica's life choices seep their way into the business of the men in their lives, some of which only cause more problems. Read out review of "Litt the Hell Up."

Avatar

 If you're not getting paid for your work on TV Fanatic, I apologize for evaluating you as I would a professional writer. If you're in high school and are doing some special "journalism exchange assignment" I say, "Congratulations! You  have potential. Stay in school and study hard!" However, If you are cashing a check for these reviews, you really owe it to your employer, your readers, and to all struggling "unpaid" writers to put forth your best effort.   By the way, the New York Times does have television journalists, and I would never mistake your writing for theirs. They generally make sure their sentences have subjects. If you do aspire to greater heights,  as I said before, I would run your reviews by someone with superior writing skills and grammar before you post.  Show them your current review, and they can point out where your sentences are incomplete, where you should have inserted a subject to make the meaning clear to the reader, where your misuse of commas (or lack of one when needed) changes the meaning from what you intended, etc.  Why not aspire to excellence rather than settling for "it's just a blog" mediocrity? Â

Avatar

By the way, I see you have corrected the "worse/worst" error I pointed out in my original comment.  I give you credit for at least checking out one of the mistakes  I was referring to and fixing it.  If I were in your shoes and realized that a reader's criticism about my piece was correct, I would have thanked him or her for helping me improve my writing and for preventing me from having blatant errors online for the whole world to see.  I wonder if the people running TV Fanatic know that one of their staff writers doesn't feel it's worth her time to proofread her pieces or improve upon them since she's  "not reporting for the New York Times."  If you're not getting paid for your work on TV Fanatic, I apologize for evaluating you as I would a professional writer. If you're in high school and are doing some special "journalism exchange assignment" I say, "Congratulations! You  have potential. Stay in school and study hard!"
However, If you are cashing a check for these reviews, you really owe it to your employer, your readers, and to all struggling "unpaid" writers to put forth your best effort. Â

Avatar

Dear Leigh, I am feeling pretty mellow and was also fairly relaxed when I commented on your review, so your command to "calm down" is appreciated but unnecessary.   On a serious note, I simply refuse to buy into the line that if someone "only" reviews  a tv show, or "only" writes on the internet, he or she doesn't need to write in complete sentences or use correct grammar.  There's a difference between a rambling personal blog or "readers comments" and a television review on a website by a "staff writer."  It's ironic that you seem to object to my candor about your grammar, as if it's blatantly wrong to criticize what someone else has written,  yet you thanked "Linda" for calling me "a dick."   It appears you find general crude name calling acceptable, even commendable, but specific criticisms about your grammatical mistakes, somehow cross the line of decency. By the way, I see you have corrected the "worse/worst" error I pointed out in my original comment.  I give you credit for at least checking out one of the mistakes  I was referring to and fixing it.  If I were in your shoes and realized that a reader's criticism about my piece was correct, I would have thanked him or her for helping me improve my writing and for preventing me from having blatant errors online for the whole world to see.  I wonder if the people running TV Fanatic know that one of their staff writers doesn't feel it's worth her time to proofread her pieces or improve upon them since she's  "not reporting for the New York Times."  If you're not getting paid for your work on TV Fanatic, I apologize for evaluating you as I would a professional writer. If you're in high school and are doing some special "journalism exchange assignment" I say, "Congratulations! You  have potential. Stay in school and study hard!" However, If you are cashing a check for these reviews, you really owe it to your employer, your readers, and to all struggling "unpaid" writers to put forth your best effort.   By the way, the New York Times does have television journalists, and I would never mistake your writing for theirs. They generally make sure their sentences have subjects. If you do aspire to greater heights,  as I said before, I would run your reviews by someone with superior writing skills and grammar before you post.  Show them your current review, and they can point out where your sentences are incomplete, where you should have inserted a subject to make the meaning clear to the reader, where your misuse of commas (or lack of one when needed) changes the meaning from what you intended, etc.  Why not aspire to excellence rather than settling for "it's just a blog" mediocrity? Â

Leigh-r

@Jim- calm down, it's a blog review of a television show. I'm not reporting for the NY Times. @Linda- Thanks!

Avatar

Nothing special this week .....best part was Hannah kept her clothes on ....

Avatar

Wow, Jim - you're kind of a dick!

Avatar

You might want to run your reviews by an editor. You have sentence fragments in your review. In addition, you used "worst" when you were comparing two things, which is totally incorrect grammatically. I hope this is not a paid writing gig.

Avatar

FINALLY! Another good episode of girls. The episode needs to be about all the girls, or at least have plot lines for Shoshana and Marnie. I like their characters the best. Even Adam ha great. I missed him. His date was interesting but I wonder what will happen with him and Hannah. Also, it kinda seems to me like they're going to lead to a marnie and ray hook up. She'll be greatful for him helping to push her to achieve her dreams, and he'll be heart broken after he finds out about Shosh. Shoshana is young though, she needs to experience life.