Critics weigh in on the 'Gilmore Girls' revival

It's almost Thanksgiving, and in the year that almost destroyed us and the month that still might, Americans everywhere could use a little more Gilmore.

Netflix's four-part miniseries Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life debuts at the end of the month, and early reviews look promising for the Stars Hollow squad.

The good news: Gilmore Girls is back and as comfortable as your favorite blanket.

Jeff Jensen, Entertainment Weekly:

The return of Gilmore Girls is winsome and riotous...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! News:

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...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.

Dave Nemetz, TVLine:

Gilmore Girls was about a lot of things — coffee, love triangles, talking fast — but it was ultimately always about family. So it feels right that as we gather to give thanks with our loved ones this year, we can all sit down together and enjoy this very successful revival of one of TV’s all-time great series. A sequel that actually exceeds our expectations? Now that’s something to be thankful for.

But Nostalgia easily turns into rose-colored glasses, which not every critic favored:

Jen Chaney, Vulture:

There’s something about the sameness of Stars Hollow that feels less quaint in A Year in the Life than it did during the run of the series. The town, some of its inhabitants, and even those who live a few miles away, like Lorelai’s parents, were always pretty tethered to the traditional. Given their disdain for snobbery and their appreciation of the quirky, Lorelai and Rory often acted as a counterpoint to all that, although even their fixation on old films and TV shows was, in some ways, an endorsement of the past over the present. But even mother and daughter, at times, come across as more judgmental and petty than they did before.

Maureen Ryan, Variety:

Breathe a sigh of relief: The “Gilmore Girls” we knew and loved is back, and at its best, it’s the equivalent of a platter of powdered donuts and extra-crispy french fries. Maybe it’s a little too much at times — and rapid consumption of the four 90-minute episodes Netflix commissioned is not advised — but when it relies on the notable strengths of its core ensemble, it is television at its most warm and reassuring.

Daniel Fienberg, 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.

Here's something that's a spoiler to no one: Lauren Graham is still amazing.

Maureen Ryan, Variety:

16 years after the show debuted on the WB, “Gilmore Girls” continues to owe a great deal of its success to Lauren Graham. She slips back into creator Amy Sherman-Palladino’s rat-a-tat dialogue without missing a beat, and her nuanced performance as Lorelai Gilmore supplies the show’s beating heart.

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 in light of the passing of her father — that’s not a spoiler since Edward Herrmann, who played Richard Gilmore, died in 2014 — she’s convincing in the more emotional moments as well.

For a show fans are used to consuming as 40-minute episodes, the 90-minute movies may be jarring.

Daniel Fienberg, Hollywood Reporter:

Episodes also don't seem to have been conceived with much by way of season-based thematic underpinnings or with much consciousness of in-episode arcing. The first half of the miniseries is all set-up and the payoffs are so concentrated in the last 100 minutes that A Year in the Life doesn't feel like eight episodes arbitrarily glued together or like a four-part miniseries but rather a six-hour movie that never bothers to breathe.

Maureen Ryan, Variety:

Everything “Gilmore Girls” tries to pack in — 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 — 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.

Whether or not they agree, critics know to fear Netflix stringent rules of spoiling.

Jeff Jensen, Entertainment Weekly:

I wouldn’t want to spoil much of the story even if I could: The Netflix spoiler guidelines are extensive and ridiculously severe.

Jen Chaney, Vulture:

Given Netflix’s determination to shut down any and all spoilers, I’m pretty sure I’d get arrested just like Rory and Logan did that time they tried to steal a yacht.

Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life premieres on Netflix Nov. 25.