Gilmore Girls Revival Is A Wrinkly Quilt Of Quick-Talking Nostalgia — With An Ending Fans Always Deserved! Read The Review Roundup!

no title

It’s been almost a full decade since Lorelai and Rory Gilmore executed their signature rapid-fire repartee while discussing love, life and happiness — and thankfully, Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life fills that void in all its small-town glory.

At least, that’s what most of the critics had to say in the first round of reviews for the highly-anticipated Netflix revival series!

Fans of the original WB dramedy have to wait until November 25 to see Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel return to Stars Hollow, but the lucky reviewers who got a first look at the four-part miniseries say it’s well worth the wait!

Related: Lauren Says Reuniting With Melissa McCarthy Was ‘Icing On The Cake!’

While most critics agree the cast seamlessly fit back into their hyper-caffeinated characters, there was also a consensus that the 90-minute episodes felt a bit drawn out and muddled down by extensive cameos.

Like most TV reboots, Gilmore Girls also felt a little stuck in the past — and while the pop-culture references were updated to include Kardashians and man-buns, viewers felt some storylines were forced, sacrificing character development for fan-service.

But on the whole, critics seemed to agree: the Girls are back in town, and fans will NOT be disappointed!

Ch-ch-check out the reviews for yourself (below)!

Jeff Jensen, EW: “Listening to the rhythm, lilt, and inspired language of [the characters’] dialogue is music to the ears ├óΓé¼ΓÇ¥ and in one hilarious passage, expresses in the form of an actual musical. It provides a welcome dose of hilarious and humane escapism that satisfies like a nostalgia trip even while subverting it. It tells a story about grief and change, rootlessness and restlessness. The show is basically a reboot about the struggle of rebooting.”

Maureen Ryan, Variety: “Everything Gilmore Girls tries to pack in ├óΓé¼ΓÇ¥ the wit, the whimsy, the pop-culture references, the family conflict, the perfectly calibrated insults, the set pieces that go on a bit too long ├óΓé¼ΓÇ¥ can feel pretty pummeling at a 90-minute running time. The show is sometimes too overstuffed for its own good. So here’s a recipe for enjoying this new edition of Gilmore Girls: Get a blanket and a mug of cocoa, and watch 30 or maybe 40 minutes at a time.”

Daniel Fienberg, The Hollywood Reporter: “Especially in the early “seasons,” A Year in the Life is warring with itself, as Sherman-Palladino wants to be picking up right where she left off, to act like there wasn’t a seventh season and there wasn’t a cancelation and like it isn’t 2016, leaving the miniseries stuck halfway between stagnation and needing to over-explain that the sand has continued through the hourglass.”

Jen Chaney, Vulture: “Graham, who was always the show’s most valuable player, slips back into Lorelai mode without missing a sarcastic beat. She’s still a deft handler of sharp, quick-draw dialogue, and… convincing in the more emotional moments as well. Bledel, always the weaker link in that mother-daughter chain, has become more assured in her performance, too, although, for a supposedly dogged journalist, she still types with all the urgency of that sloth in Zootopia.”

Chris Harnick, E!: “There are moments that went on for far too long and felt completely unnecessary, like the Stars Hollow musical and reappearance of a few characters. Not everything is perfect. However, Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life has come along at just the right time. It’s comforting and familiar, with enough resolution to satisfy and enough open-ended questions to make revisiting Stars Hollow absolutely necessary, sooner rather than later.”

Alan Sepinwall, UpRoxx: “Even some of the stronger material falls victim to the compromises required of almost any reunion. Because Melissa McCarthy is otherwise engaged being one of the biggest movie stars in the world, for instance, we get a lot of clumsy rationalizations for why Sookie is never around whenever something’s happening at the Dragonfly Inn, despite being Lorelai’s best friend and business partner. The one scene in which she was able to appear is excellent ├óΓé¼ΓÇ¥ one of the highlights of the entire enterprise ├óΓé¼ΓÇ¥ but it also makes her absence from a later scene more distracting than if she hadn’t popped up at all.”

Robert Blanco, USA Today: “For every misstep, there’s a moment from Graham or Bledel that makes you laugh or breaks your heart, or that cuts through the cuteness to ring absolutely true. And even at its most exasperating (as with those infamous “final four words”), there is so much talent and charm on display, you’re likely to be in a forgiving mood.”

Dave Nemetz, TV Line: “The town of Stars Hollow remains a quaint throwback that’s seemingly frozen in time ├óΓé¼ΓÇ¥ Miss Patty’s still teaching dance; Taylor’s still an annoying busybody; Kirk’s still a weirdo ├óΓé¼ΓÇ¥ but the dialogue is peppered with up-to-date references to the Kardashians, Game of Thrones and man-buns. The typically clever, rapid-fire Gilmore banter is super charged here, as if creator Amy Sherman-Palladino has been gathering one-liners for years and finally found a place to put them.”

Emily Yahr, The Washington Post: “The bad news: It’s not perfect. It’s actually far from perfect. The revival has four 90-minute chapters, and it turns out that 42-minute episodes were the perfect amount of time before the famously sparkling dialogue and wacky plotlines start to drag ├óΓé¼ΓÇ¥ and characters’ flaws go from endearing to irritating. The best news: Fans won’t care. Because Gilmore Girls is back.”

[Image via Netflix.]

Nov 16, 2016 5:40pm PST

Share This