User Reviews

The main weakness of the revival is, unfortunately, Alexis Bledel/Rory. Bledel's acting is...terrible. She's so wooden it's hard to overstate it. In the original series, she had a young person's enthusiasm which she brought to the character. In the revival, that's completely faded and it's as if she's forgotten how to act. And her iconic character, Rory, is now a mess. Why the show's writers would chose to portray Rory as essentially a failure at 32 is a mystery. The original series was built upon Rory being a special, exceptional young lady. But now, as an adult, her career is a joke, she treats her boyfriend of 2 years terribly, and she is cheating on him with Logan - who himself is engaged. That's not how anyone could have envisioned Rory's future. Very disappointing. The other main character is Lorelei played by Lauren Graham. Lauren is normally an exceptional actress but she looks uneasy and uncomfortable throughout all 4 episodes. One gets the impression that she is well aware of just how subpar this revival is. And what's with all of the musical numbers??? It's been suggested that the creators of the show were dropping big hints of Gilmore Girls on Broadway. Whatever the motivation, the musical sequences simply don't work. The revival did have some positives though. It was great to finally see Luke & Lorelei get married. The scenes with Paris were actually very entertaining. Same can be said for the scenes with Michel. And the scene where Lorelei hears the song "Unbreakable" in Miss Patty's barn is very touching. Although I'm not counting on it, I'd love to see a follow-up episode just to give proper closure to these characters and this series.

I watched 7 seasons of the Gilmore Girls like a lot of people did, and I can't say I was disappointed in this "A Year in the Life." I will, however, be disappointed if there is not another season.

First of all, I think it was fantastic that the show managed to get all of the regulars from the original show back together, including Melissa McCarthy, now a big movie star.

The story picks up something like 9 years later. Rory is living a vagabond life, co-writing the autobiography of a raving lunatic (Alex Kingston) in London, visiting her mother in Stars Hollow in between trips, after leaving her Brooklyn apartment and dumping boxes everywhere she went. She had a good piece in the New Yorker, but although a website is begging her to work for them, the offers aren't pouring in.

Love-wise, she's a mess. She has a boyfriend named Paul who is a nonentity, and she's seeing the engaged Logan (Matt Czuchry) when she's in London. She finally moves back to Stars Hollow - temporarily, she insists, and takes over the local paper. She also starts writing a book.

Lorelai is living with Luke (Scott Patterson) and running her inn, which needs expansion; and her mother (Kelly Bishop) is dealing with the loss of her husband (Edward Herrmann).

The handling of Herrmann's death was wonderful and also sad; Lorelai has a heart-rending monologue on the phone to her mother toward the end of the miniseries.

One thing people didn't like was the musical that was thrown in. Despite the beautiful singing of Sutton Foster, I agree, it was too much and too silly. We could have done without it.

There were funny scenes: Lorelai tricked into going into therapy with her mother, a funny scene with Paris (Lisa Weil), who now runs a surrogacy matching service, a crazy town meeting with a loud air conditioner, movie night, Kirk and his OOOber cab company, along with the fast dialogue associated with the show. And it was great to see Melissa McCarthy as Sookie again.

The best moments were between Rory and her mother - what a great dynamic those two have, and the scenes were realistic.

Okay, people objected to Rory - her behavior regarding Logan, her non- sticktuitive-ness, and taking the easy way out by staying in Stars Hollow. First of all, she's 32. Thirty-two is nothing today. When I was thirty-two, it was a big deal. Rory is a product of her generation - an only child, things came easily for her, she found out she had to work harder than she has been, and she panicked. She's jumping from one city to another, one job to another - a ghost writer, a web site, a magazine -- and one bed to another -- a one- night stand, her boyfriend, and Logan. A right of passage. Believe it, don't believe it.

Rory is still finding her way. Everyone is very clear at 22. By the time they're 32, they've seen reality.

She's writing a book, and people on various boards consider this a major cop-out. Why? If she can get it published, it will open a lot of doors for her. Authors write articles for big magazines, op ed pieces, and do all sorts of things besides writing books.

At the end of the show, there's a twist. What will it mean? We don't know, and why speculate? Let's see first if there's another season. If not, we can speculate then.

I enjoyed it, what can I say.

Note: If they'd shaved five minutes off of the musical (which still made me laugh a lot), this would be a 10. It just falls short.

A year in the Life was outstanding and extremely satisfying. I sincerely hope that all of the upset fans out there griping about the plot lines don't discourage that Palladinos from exploring more of these characters if they truly want to. Warts and all, these are some of the best characters ever written.

So Rory's a mess. What's new? She's been a mess since meeting Logan. Or did we conveniently forget dropping out of Yale, stealing a boat, getting arrested, doing community service, and having a huge blowup with Lorelai? We wanted her to be "more together" in the interim? I'm not sure I know anyone whose 20s weren't a mess. It comes with the territory. Maybe being pregnant is what will FINALLY get her to come to grips with growing up, something that Logan (as much as we kinda like him) wasn't ever going to insist that she do. Quite the opposite, actually. He can't grow up either.

Lorelai's a lesser mess, but still a mess. At the Inn, she misses Sookie like she misses her right arm. She still can't commit completely to Luke or be completely honest with him. She's holding back and stuck. Somewhere inside her are some serious daddy issues that she can no longer resolve with her dad. The scene with the "Unbreakable" song was gut-wrenching. Lauren Graham didn't have to say a word to make everybody bawl -- she just sat there and looked scraped raw. It was powerful stuff.

The real heroine of A Year in the Life -- the character with the biggest arc -- is Emily. She owned the revival. Emily sees what Lorelai and Rory have and it hurts her because she'll never have it. She never knew how to have it. But she had -- and loved and adored - - Richard. And now he's gone and she's just wrecked and lost (sleeping until noon!). But she's tough and she'll get through it and burn whatever bridges need to be burned. Kudos to the Palladinos for making Richard's death the linchpin event of the whole revival. I can't think of a better tribute to Edward Herrmann than having Richard's palpable presence driving the narrative. And Kelly Bishop was awesome. I think both her and Lauren Graham deserve Emmy nominations (if not actual Emmys) for the revival. That's what great acting looks like.

Here's the skinny, folks. These characters, with all of their mistakes and bad decisions, belong ultimately to the writers. They do not belong to us. We can love them, but with these particular characters, it's kinda like loving a real live human. They will say and do things that will confound and frustrate us. They've been doing that the entire time, maybe some of us weren't paying attention. Carping about what happens in their lives is like carping about what happens in your friends' lives. You can choose to care for them or not, but they're gonna do what they do. And thank you to the Palladinos for doing it your way. If that's the end of the story, it was a great, great ride.

**CONTAINS SPOILERS**

There is no way they could do a revival and make everyone happy. Fans are bound to be disappointed in something.

I can't write all I'd like because of IMDb.com limits, but will try to get the highlights.

The Bad:

1: Rory is not who we would ever expect her to be. She has a completely forgettable boyfriend that clearly cares more for her than she does for him. It's supposed to be a running joke that she keeps forgetting him, but it's not funny, it just makes Rory look like a jerk. To compound that, she is Logan's mistress. Really? After the whole Dean thing, Rory would be "the other woman" again?

Also, it seemed against character for Rory to be so upset at the suggestion she become a teacher. I'm not saying she should be psyched about the idea, just that it didn't seem right that she found it almost offensive.

2. The Naomi Plot Line: The character was beyond obnoxious and we knew from the get go it would fall through. A waste of time.

3. The Musical: Just a bad idea. So painfully bad. And when all was (finally) said and done, it added nothing but cringes galore and chances for the writers to make a lot of pop culture references. But aren't they supposed to do that anyway?

Side note: Sophie from the music shop, always a grouchy curmudgeon, has apparently been reborn as a smiling, chipper, joiner. So wrong.

4. Life and Death Brigade: At first I was sure it was a dream. Why would she be going to the paper late at night? What's up with the talking bird? And Esther would never go in on anything with them. Another musical number? Rory breaking into Doose's? Shooting golf balls off the roofs? The dance number in the tango club? Sorry, should've just been a classic Logan Grand Gesture to say good-bye to Rory.

5. The Chef Parade: I know Sookie couldn't be there, but the story line fell flat. We got it. Michel was angry and Lorelei can't accept anyone else. Could have been done without the hoopla and name dropping. Would've been better to write it in a way that moved the story and characters along.

6. Needless Cameos: I realize they wanted to have as many characters reappear as possible, but some were SO incredibly forced and unnecessary to any plot line that they were almost an insult. Dean - no point. Seriously there just long enough to say he was there and no purpose. Francine? Really? Why? Just why? April, ugh! It didn't further anything. No show of her and Luke's relationship. And Lane's dad! One of the biggest mysteries of the show and we get the lamest cameo. Either make him a real character or leave him a mystery.

7. Wild: I thought this was the worst departure in the whole series. Lorelei and Luke are set. They have been together 9 years. We didn't need another Lorelei road trip. She was in therapy. She could have had her epiphany there. And come on, we ALL knew she was never going to hike.

8. Emily's New Maid: Emily Gilmore, who holds the World's Record for firing maids would never, ever, under any circumstances accept a maid she cannot understand and she would certainly not allow her whole family to move in and over run her home.

The Good and Bad (Mixed Things)

1. Rory's Book: I love the idea of Rory writing about her and her mom. But Lorelei's reaction was wrong. She is always Rory's biggest champion and never shies from being the center of attention. I can see her saying she wouldn't want certain things written about, naturally, but not to be dead set against it.

2. Jess: I have never liked Jess one bit. Could not stand his character. But the scene where he suggests the book to Rory is one of the best. It makes sense he's there, and their dialogue is easy and authentic.

3. Rory Takes Over the Gazette: I love the idea of her saving the paper, but ... trite stereotypes and jokes. Eh. Seemed lazy.

The Good:

1. Back to Stars Hollow: it was like visiting an old, dear friend to go back to the endearing, quirky town that celebrates everything.

2. Remembering Richard: The way all 3 of the Gilmore girls mourn the passing of their patriarch feels true and right.

3. The Evolution of Emily: More than any other character, we go on a journey with Emily. We watch her deal with her grief and her new situation in a way that is satisfying like nothing else in this series. Relocating to Nantucket, Emily finally puts her history degree from Smith to use along with her flair for the dramatic (that she would never admit she shares with her daughter).

4. Kirk: The town chips in and buys him and Lulu a pig (named Petal) when they discuss having a child. Petal gets a starring role in Kirk's second short film. Not as funny as the first film by Kirk, but it's funny. And you will never hear anyone say Uber again and not think "Ooo-ber".

5. Emily Tells Off the DAR: Seeing Emily tell off the DAR ladies and tell the trophy wife she wasn't getting in was one of the best moments of the whole thing.

I'm sure I'm forgetting lots of stuff. Plus stuff that doesn't warrant enumerating, like what the heck is up with Cesar's hair?, why can't anyone figure out what language Berta speaks? etc. But all in all, I have to say I enjoyed it more than I disliked it.

A quick scan of the reviews reveals quite a startling level of loathing for the reboot of the much-loved 'Gilmore Girls'. My tip to the haters: give it another go. I first saw 'Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life' 18 months ago and I wasn't keen. I've 'given it another go' a couple of times since then and, trust me, it gets better.

Yes, it's not the same - but seriously, what did you expect? If later series of the original failed to be 'the same' as the early stuff - never quite returning to the freshness of early episodes - then what hope is there ten years on?

Wisely the creators knew this, hence a feature-length format and a feel that is disturbingly the-same-but-different. To be fair, a large part of the same-but-different vibe comes from the actors themselves. What have the years done to them all? Precictably, it's greyer hair and paunches for the men, and 'Too much make up'/'Has she had work done?' for the ladies.

Once you get past all of that and start to enjoy the thing on its own terms, it really works. The bits I once had the most trouble with - 'Stars Hollow the Musical' and the surreal 'Life and Death Brigade' Halloween sequence - I now really enjoy, because I know what to expect and, Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore.

The story of this particular year in the Gilmore girls' lives works because, when we meet up with all *three* of them again, they are all at a point where they are really struggling. The aftermath of Richard's death, Emily having lost the love of her life, and both Lorelai and Luke's relationship, and Rory and Logan's, drifting aimlessly and holding them back emotionally and creatively - and the resolution of all of these - is what gives 'A Year in the Life' its satisfying and carefully-crafted story arc. No, Rory isn't president, and she's not perfect. Newsflash - adults screw up and good intentions and a Yale degree are no guarantee of lifelong success. Plus Rory had form for making baaaaaad decisions. Where is the interest in seeing a perfect Rory living a fairytale life anyway? That's not a story.

The script is littered with cultural references lampooning developments since the original series ended - the story around Luke's Diner and the internet password is a brilliant running joke, the type of thing 'Gilmore Girls' always did so well. A lot of the humour is borderline tasteless but just gets away with it - another 'Gilmore Girls' speciality.

High points for me were Paris, who was always going to be brilliant, and of course, Emily. Her performance at her very last DAR meeting is an absolute hoot and perfectly pitched.

And no. The ending is not a cliffhanger. It's obviously Logan's baby, she's going to bring it up alone because Logan is her Chris, and then marry Jess, her Luke.

So give it a go, or another go, with an open mind. You might just enjoy it.

I have been waiting for November 25th to come for a few months now. I wasn't counting down the days like crazy or pronouncing the day a national holiday, I just wanted to see what happens. On the internet, I have come across several comments about season 7, how it is just not worth watching and how evident it is that the Palladinos were no longer part of the show. Personally, I didn't notice any major differences, to me it felt the same. Sadly, I cannot say the same about "A Year in the Life".

It just didn't feel right. The conversations between Lorelai and Rory seemed forced, everything did actually. How they were trying to relive their usual banter and the super long dialogues, but failed. The same goes with friendships: Sookie and Lorelai, Rory with Lane and Paris. The infamous "Gilmore pace" got lost somewhere in the last eight years, with only a few small chips of it surviving the passage of time, mostly to please the fans. And here we are, the "please the fans situation", the one that sucks. I hate when the revivals come down to it, I really do. Unfortunately, the "please the fans situation" is more than evident. The creators were trying so hard to bring all the characters back that it seemed kind of ridiculous. I mean what was with the back of Tristin's head, Francie, or showing Jackson just for the sake of it? Instead of trying to include so many characters, they should minimise the number and create better stories for them.

The biggest issue I have with "A Day in the Life" is the pace of it. Frankly, it doesn't feel at all like the show because it is muuuch to slow for it. From time to time I got a feeling that I was watching some sorts of a lifetime movie. It seems like they were facing quite some issues with filling those 90 minutes and apparently they figured that the best way to do it is with weird musical bits, slow long shots, even slower dialogue and unnecessary story lines that didn't contribute at all. The Stars Hollow musical (and other musical bits) was painful to watch, several times I wanted to skip ahead but forced myself not to. I don't know what was the point of it, perhaps they wanted to recreate the spirit of a typical Stars Hollow event. Anyhow - it was awful.

Also, I was not impressed with the whole Paul debacle. Maybe at the very beginning it was a bit funny how Lorelai and Luke couldn't remember the guy, but it all went downhill from there. Thinking back now, it seems to me that the writers were trying to downgrade the fact that Rory was (once again) having an affair even though she had a boyfriend. It feels like they were trying to portray Rory as an imperfect human being (which I applaud), but at the same time not disappointing the fans about her life decisions too much. Therefore they came up with this horrible idea to pair Rory up with this guy that she keeps forgetting about, trying and failing to make this fact funny, but resulting in making Rory a bit of a bit*h.

It seemed to me there were also quite a few story lines that were either completely unnecessary or too long. The part, where Lorelai has to tell a story about her father on his funeral was horrible. It was painful to watch and I think the story would progress the same way (or even better) without it. The way the writers approached the influence of Richard's passing on both Emily's and Lorelai's life was great. It showed Emily trying to handle the loss and reinventing herself as a widow and it sparked Lorelai's soul-searching. Which brings us to another needless story line - Lorelai's Wild period. Yes, at the end of it, it helps her realise that Luke is the man she wants to be with, but I believe if Lorelai's introspection would be set in therapy (where it started), the story would be much better and not so ridiculous and cliché. Which brings me to the kitchen scene when Lorelai returns home. Once again, spinning in circles, they portrayed Luke as this guy who would forget about everything he wants just to be with Lorelai. They touched this subject already at the beginning, but then at the end, having Luke say that he would change in a second if that meant he could stay with her, that was just horrible. Luke - Lorelai's puppy once again. Some people will probably think that I'm horrible to say this, but the whole thing about Rory writing Gilmore Girls book is just stupid. Once again the writers wanted to create that "oooooh" moment, bring the mother- daughter relationship to the centre of attention but failing miserably. To me it seems like an idea for this came from a mind of an eight year old who still dreams in unicorns and lives in teenage romantic comedies.

Finally, the end - the last four words. The Palladino duo really managed to bring the show full circle. Those four words we have been waiting for left us exactly where everything started, the history is repeating itself once again. Apparently, this is going to be a common theme with all the Netflix's revivals. Remember Fuller House I already mentioned once? The story is the same there. Different characters - same situation. Please, enough with nostalgia already. Based on the interviews with Amy Sherman-Palladino I knew better than to expect Rory to end up with one of the boyfriends for her happily ever after. But putting her in this position just so it would bring the nostalgic feeling to the end is just plain wrong. Next time, please, steer clear of the full circle idea and just write a real ending. Thank you.

The bad: I agree with many of the criticisms leveled here against this revival. The surrogacy plotline defies believability in several ways, from the notion that Luke and Lorelei haven't discussed marriage or children during their relationship until now despite the timeline coinciding with the twilight of Lorelei's fertility, to the superficiality of their discussion of it now, to the unfathomably stupid portrayal of Luke's misunderstanding of the process, and finally to the far-fetched position of Paris at the helm of the fertility clinic. It's all pretty whackadoodle.

The "Wild" plotline would have worked if Lorelei had actually gone hiking and discovered some pleasure in camping and nature, which we know Luke enjoys (these are among his very few hobbies) but takes little interest in without Lorelei, and could have supplied another line of intimacy between them and a means of healthy compromise on her part to match his many willing concessions in the relationship. Of course, we don't want to watch Lorelei go through a cliched journey of self-discovery on the trail, but a less-uptight twist might have been a concession to at least go glamping with Luke or something like that. As it is, though, her "now or never" explanation, the nonsense about the permit, and the cheesy lightbulb moment make the whole thing feel like a flimsy way to drag out the suspense before they finally get married.

There's clearly some awkwardness with the chemistry among the performers, I can take or leave the musical bits, and there are various other plot threads that seem half-baked, if not so totally absurd.

The good, and the controversially great: Like others, I really liked Emily's story, but unlike others, I loved Rory's character development. I understand that fans were disappointed and perhaps struggled to believe that Rory would wind up floundering in her thirties despite all of her wonderful qualities and the best launching pad into life that anyone could hope for. But this does, in fact, happen all the time, especially to people with aspirations in creative and wobbly fields like traditional journalism and writing (and is probably much more realistic than the revival's portrayal of Jess's moderate success with a small publisher). Even more importantly, the Rory trajectory comports with the universe of the original show. A central theme and source of comfort is the idea that life's paths are winding and crooked, that plans go awry, but that happiness can be found even in unconventional circumstances that crusty old fossils disapprove of. Richard and Emily and the hoity-toity worldview of their country club and DAR friends would certainly expect Rory's early success to translate directly into career success and a respectable relationship ten years later-a steady, clear, upward progression-but life just isn't that linear or guaranteed. That works both ways; just as Lorelei could drop out of high school and become a single mother at 16, and yet still make a happy, successful, and fulfilling life for herself by 32, Rory can do everything right at 16 and find herself adrift at 32, and even find herself single and pregnant. And that's okay. So what if she hasn't become Christianne Amanpour? So what if she's not ensconced in a rat race of bourgeoise success and respectability? Her aimlessness is analogous to that of Jo March when she writes the fictional "Little Women" in Louisa May Alcott's book. And in that same vein, Rory's fictional "Gilmore Girls" reiterates the original show's fundamental themes that made it so great, which also echo those of "Little Women": women's lives and loves and whims aren't just frivolous detours on the way to some grand, real, serious destiny, but are the stuff of life itself. The Gilmore girls make mistakes as they try to define themselves and meaning in their lives, and those mistakes largely constitute the story. The girls aren't perfect, even if others want or expect them to be. Like everything else on the show, their perfection lies in their imperfections, and in coffee (and pizza and movies and jokes and snow and kisses and twinkly little lights). The revival gives us Emily and Lorelei's happy endings, for now, but it's just the beginning of Rory's story, just as the original series began with Lorelei's life at the same age. It's okay if she doesn't have it all figured out already at 32 or whatever. Many ways to skin a cat.

The revival is flawed, but if you're a fan of the original series and you've already come this far, it's all worth it for Emily's new leaf and the gosh darn wedding at the bitter end, finally, at last, thank goodness.

The four-part revival attempts to capture a year in the lives of the characters, revisiting Lorelai, Rory, and Emily Gilmore. It's a mixed bag of emotions and storylines that aim to tie up loose ends while also presenting new challenges.

On the positive side, the revival maintains the signature fast-paced dialogue and pop culture references that made the original series so endearing. The chemistry between the characters remains intact, and there are moments that evoke the same warmth and charm that fans fell in love with. Additionally, it's heartening to see the characters' growth and how they navigate the new phases of their lives.

However, the revival does have its drawbacks. Some storylines feel forced or unresolved, leaving viewers wanting more closure. The pacing can be uneven, and certain plot arcs might not resonate as strongly as others. Furthermore, while it's natural for characters to evolve, some of the choices made for their development might not align with fans' expectations or the essence of the original series.

I wish there had been more closure with Rory and her love life.

Also that Luke and Lorelai had been married before and had some children.

Upon a re-watch I don't really get the bad reviews, this revival is not perfect but it is not so bad.

The bad: Almost no Sookie, and way too little Jess time.

It didn't make sense that Sookie was not on the wedding, I get it, Melissa M had scheduling conflicts but come on! A bit of effort to make it happen would've made a big difference.

The weird: Rory and Logan. Yes the whole affair was not my cup of tea, I'm not against a casual thing but having Logan engaged and cheating with Rory, and her cheating on that boyfriend everyone kept forgetting, something was off there. The brigade and the wedding magical montages, not sure that was Gilmore Girls. Luke acting a bit ignorant on the surrogate thing. And Zach looking older than Gil.

The OK: Town people as crazy as ever. Kirk being Kirk. I liked Lorelai's epiphany trip. Rory not being the success everyone predicted, I liked that, it is realistic, many overachievers fail at their first or second attempts, and at the end you get the feeling this is it, the book is the door.

The best: Hands down Emily, her whole story was great.

I had the chance to start watching Gilmore Girls for the first time from season 1 until season 7 during the corona virus out break. I made sure I focus when watching every episode but this? You can clearly see major difference in the plot character etc. Like the rest of fans, all the personalities of a characters in previous Gilmore are turned upside down. This 4 episodes should be capped at 40 mins per episode because there are lots of unnecessary scenes prolonged and I even doing this review whilst watching the musical theater of Star hollows in the third episode. It gets that boring. I guess hiring your sibling as a writer does ruin everything.

Okay. I am one of those people who watched Gilmore Girls again and again over the years. Lets face it, when you don't have that small- town life with the cute boyfriends and a perfect metabolism that helps you never get fat from junk-food. When your stomach is fine with having huge amounts of caffeine without a glitch. Friends who stick by you forever, and a daughter/mother who is always around, never far from the dark sense of humor that they share. The togetherness in the common enemy of the grandmother/mother, who is rich and beyond.

Well, then it is easy to admire and adore Gilmore Girls. There are a few things that I never could get over in the first run of series. I would have liked to have seen just one single big laughter. You know when you keep looking at each other and just roar of crazy laughter's that never can stop, you get a tummy pain, and you want to be sick, but instead you just keep on laughing. Well, okay, that's one of the only things the series lacks..

So, it was with a sense of completion I wanted to watch the "A year in the life". I have no real idea what I was expecting of it, but it wasn't exactly more of the same. But yeah, that's exactly what I got.

Rory never seemed to be over 20, she was as dependent on her friends and family still, and even with the high education and all those homework's she did, and a degree in Yale, she is a failure. (of sorts) That made me sad. Ten years later, and Lorelai and Luke never fixed up the house, moved or anything. The Inn still is exactly the same, apart from Sookie who's actually moved on. It's ten years later. And nothing has changed. The town has not moved forward, the town leader is the same. No one seemed to have aged, even the people who were old already.

All of that, is okay. I've never lived or even really been in a small town. Not a perfect one like Stars Hollow anyway. As always, no one is talking about anything big. I'ts all relationships. Same same. The first two episodes are ...even a bit boring. Sadly. Rorys affair with Logan, Rorys having a boyfriend that no one remembers. And then, Rorys accidental meet-ups with her ex-boyfriends. Is this really the first time she'd met them in ten years? Has she not been home to visit? And what really happened (if anything) in the last ten years? Has she had any other important relationships, has she formed any new friendships. So many questions and no answers. In the third episode she get the idea from Jess, another well known character of course, that she should write the story of her and her mom. Very very VERY predicted. It was just a "bah moment". Of course the big writer, and reader, Rory, would be the one responsible for the whole TV-show. What didn't feel really predictable was Lorelais reaction. But of course she came around.

The one person who surprised the most, was Emily. I liked that she had a proper reaction to her life. Her life as a widow and her life with a "help" that stays, and is allowed to bring life into the house, and who bring Emely a new family, which she brings along to Nantucket. Sweet. I just wonder, how much money does she really have? How rich are they actually?

Anyway. The fourth episode was the one for me. It was sentimental and full of back-flashes with the people surrounding Rory and Lorelai. Or that's how I saw it. It was an hour and a half of tears, many tissues, specially as I knew that it was the last time ever that we'd see these special characters and their stand-still lives. There was Luke in his diner, always the same, trustworthy man. There was Jess...of course still in love with Rory, after only ten years. There was Dean, who probably also was in love with Rory still. There was Lana and her man still playing the music that they played ten years ago. There was the town, still exaggeratedly ornate.

And the pre-marriage.

And then. "I am pregnant"

Well. Ten years later, she is 32 and not 16, but she is in the same predicament (sort of) as Lorelai with the no father thing...... but really... it's really not the same is it? I've read a couple of articles and reviews here, that says that it's the history repeating itself. But nah. I really don't think so. I think the only thing that repeated itself, is the need for another season.

And yeah, I'll wait for it with happiness and joy.

I happen to like the expected, when it comes to Gilmore Girls.

"Gilmore Girls: A Year In The Life" is a 2016 dramedy miniseries directed by Amy Sherman-Palladino and Daniel Palladino starring Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel. ⚪ All in all, the revival of the iconic small town located dramedy returns to Stars Hollow in the well-known witty way and delivers the usual amount of quirkiness, but aside from the nostalgia factor, some creative choices as well as some sequences were painfully poorly conceived and didn't do the original series justice, and thus it becomes an undeniably enjoyable comeback that at the same time could have been much better. ⚪ After watching all seven seasons of the iconic dramedy series "Gilmore Girls" from July to December, I thought I would kick off my TV reviews with the highly anticipated 2016 revival, and as much as I liked it as a whole, there are still some undeniable flaws and choices that leaves much to be desired. In general, I think that this revival worked out as a thing on its own without invading the original series too much. All important characters returned, they acted as always and in the almost ten years, they evolved and now live their perfect lives. All of them? Well, no, and that is already my heaviest point of criticism. Rory, an idol for young girls back in the day, Yale graduate and the example that you can achieve anything if you are dedicated enough, was a let-down, not going to lie. It is no secret that they made her character worse and worse after the end of season four, but what is shown here is nothing short of disappointing and caps it all off. After she has worked for the Obama campaign, she makes her bread with occasional job offers and questionable clients. What happened? She has been the epitome of success, an icon for many, why did they have to mess her character arc up so much? Like, she is practically unemployed, lost in life and without perspective. The thing is, even if that happens to many people that age, the writers also annulled her status as an independent woman. As we find out, Rory has an ongoing affair with her ex-boyfriend Logan, the man she famously rejected after he proposed to her, and it is just so wrong. She lives in the past, is (emotionally) dependent to a man who is about to get married and she is unemployed. How could they do it, seriously? This isn't the motivated and ambitious Rory we used to know, and it is downright disappointing. On the other side, Lorelai was handled pretty decently. Not perfect, but at least not as disastrously as her daughter. For the past few years, she has been living with Luke (at last) and lead a peaceful life. Aside from the fact that her best friend Sookie left the Dragonfly Inn (another stupid choice), it seemed to be idyllic - unless her father's sudden death. Yes, the dramatic core of this story arc is the passing of Richard Gilmore, the gracious patriarch of the family, and it really got me all the time. Even though it was the death of a fictional character, it gutted me, for Edward Herrmann, the actor who portrayed him, has died in real life in 2014 and you can feel how devastated everyone is. It literally suffers from the his absence, the lack of his warmth, and honestly, it was the first time in the series I was on the verge of crying multiple times, because they handled it so well. Emily's character, as macabre as it may sound, became unexpectedly interesting, as the proud housewife, who herself has said that it was her job, needs to adapt to a new life of being independent. Seriously, even though I heavily disliked her character, they managed to make her sympathetic and developed her decently. In the end, she succeeded to become independent and cope with her loss, making it heart-warming. You see what I mean? The writers managed to give my least favourite character a great arc, so why did they have to mess up Rory so much? Honestly, I liked her relationship with Logan in the original series, but now I am entirely Team Jess, for I think that they are perfect for each other. Logan is her Christopher, Jess is her Luke and that would be the best they could do in a possible sequel series. Overall, I cannot really say that I hated this sequel, it was in fact extremely emotional and felt like visiting an old friend, but considering that Amy Sherman-Palladino, the showrunner that left the series after the sixth season due to creative differences, penned this all herself, it was a let-down. Like, is this what she envisioned for her most beloved characters? Definitely enjoyable but at the same time unsatisfactory revival with some questionable writing choices.