Critics seem to agree: Netflix’s “Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life” is a successful reboot, although it has its flaws.
Entertainment Weekly’s Jeff Jensen wrote that the four-part revival is a “better, bolder, more fulfilling capper to a beloved series that finished just-okay back in 2007,” while IndieWire’s Ben Traver’s described the series as “clearly made with love.”
“Holy hell, does it ever deliver,” wrote TV Line’s Michael Ausiello.
However, some critics note that the focus on nostalgia sets the series back a bit.
“The heavy reliance on nostalgia and keeping things familiar and comforting are exactly why the ‘Gilmore Girls’ revival falls short,” wrote Wenlei Ma from News.com.au, with other critics adding that fans will be still asking the same questions they did before the series ended in 2007.
The four mini-movies will hit the streaming service on Nov. 25 at midnight PT, picking up almost 10 years after we last saw Alexis Bledel and Lauren Graham in their famous mother-daughter roles. Luke (Scott Patterson) and Lorelai are together, while Emily (Kelly Bishop) is a widow. Rory is now a hard-hitting journalist.
The original series debuted in 2000 on the WB, which morphed into the CW in 2006. It ran for seven seasons and ended on May 15, 2007, following single mother Lorelai Gilmore and her relationship with her daughter. They lived in the town of Stars Hollow, Connecticut, which was populated by a wide range of eccentric characters.
See seven reviews of “Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life” below.
Jen Chaney, Vulture:
“While watching ‘Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life,’ you may find yourself asking the same thing, and you may conclude that there is still plenty to love. But you also may find yourself looking more critically at this Main Street, U.S.A., and more easily spotting some of the flaws that co-exist alongside its charms.”
Michael Ausiello, TV Line:
“I’ve seen all four 90-minute episodes of Netflix’s revival (which begins streaming on Friday, Nov. 25) and I’m here to assure you — one ‘Gilmore’ acolyte to another — that it delivers. Holy hell, does it ever deliver.”
Ben Travers, IndieWire:
“Perhaps what’s most important to realize about the new material is that it’s clearly made with love. There’s very little eye-winking involved, and for a series as sincere as ‘Gilmore Girls’ has always been, that’s the perfect attitude to take. In era of revivals driven and manipulated by the almighty dollar, ‘A Year in the Life’ is refreshing in its genuine creation.”
Jeff Jensen, Entertainment Weekly:
“It’s a better, bolder, more fulfilling capper to a beloved series that finished just-okay back in 2007, produced without creator Amy Sherman-Palladino and husband Daniel Palladino. But they’re back for this ‘special event series.’ Listening to the rhythm, lilt, and inspired language of their dialogue is music to the ears — 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.”
Chris Harnick, E! Online:
“Where ‘Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life’ leads, fans will follow–and they won’t be disappointed. The journey the Netflix revival takes Lorelai Gilmore (Lauren Graham), Rory Gilmore (Alexis Bledel) and Emily Gilmore (Kelly Bishop) on is one of self-discovery, with happy and sad moments and enough nostalgia to satisfy any hardcore ‘Gilmore Girls’ fan. There’s fan-service galore, but ‘A Year in the Life’ doesn’t just feel like a victory lap like some revivals, there’s closure and character development–more than viewers got in the show’s seven-year run. Yes, the Gilmore girls finally grow up.”
Robert Biano, 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.”
Wenlei Ma, News.com.au:
“The heavy reliance on nostalgia and keeping things familiar and comforting are exactly why the ‘Gilmore Girls’ revival falls short. It is exactly what you expect — which is both fulfilling and disappointing at the same time. It gives you a much-needed dose of warmth in a world that has become increasingly alienating, like a visit from a childhood best friend who’s spend the better part of the last decade on another continent. Except that friend is still caught up in the same petty grievances as 10 years ago.”
Related stories from TheWrap: