'Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life' Review Roundup

The #GilmoreGirls revival is comfort food for the soul. Here's what the critics are saying: https://t.co/tr1xU72quQ😯 pic.twitter.com/sNNfPgYAce

— Entertainment Weekly (@EW) November 16, 2016

• Entertainment Weekly has a roundup of a few reviews of the Netflix revival of Gilmore Girls.


• Alan Sepinwall of Uproxx writes: "because the Palladinos are trying to squeeze nearly every significant Gilmore character — not to mention exposition about what they’ve been up to since we last saw them — into four double-sized episodes that each cover an entire season of the calendar, and because TV reunions almost always feel out of sync from the shows that spawned them, it’s not a surprise that A Year in the Life is frequently a mess, and one that occasionally feels at best like a well-studied imitation of the genuine article..."


• Maureen Ryan Ryan of Variety suggests you "watch 30 or maybe 40 minutes at a time. The show is sometimes too overstuffed for its own good."


• Jeff Jansen of EW is far more optimistic: "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.”