Critical response
For the first season, review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported an approval rating of 61% based on 57 reviews, with an average rating of 5.7/10. The website's critics' consensus reads, "Though its depiction of France is très cliché, Emily in Paris is rom-com fantasy at its finest, spectacularly dressed and filled with charming performances." Metacritic gave the first season a weighted average score of 58 out of 100 based on 18 reviews, indicating "mixed or average reviews".
The second season has a 61% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 24 reviews, with an average rating of 5.2/10. The website's critics' consensus states, "Emily in Paris remains a sugary soufflé, but it's liable to give a toothache to viewers seeking anything more profound than a frivolous romp." On Metacritic, the second season received a score of 64 based on reviews from 11 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".
For the third season, review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported an approval rating of 67% based on 18 reviews, with an average rating of 5.7/10. The website's critics' consensus reads, "Emily in Paris' bubbly watch ability keeps threatening to go flat in a third season that seems content to spin its wheels, but this gallic travelogue will still be a pleasant enough journey for fans." Metacritic gave the season a weighted average score of 54 out of 100 based on 10 reviews, indicating "mixed or average reviews".
The fourth season has a 68% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 37 reviews, with an average rating of 5.9/10. The website's critics' consensus states, "Emily in Paris' frivolous charms begin to sag in a fourth season that tries on some serious conflict for a change, but it remains pleasurable enough that fans won't be forsaking their timeshares anytime soon." On Metacritic, the fourth season received a score of 47 based on reviews from 13 critics, signifying "mixed or average".
The fifth season holds a 76% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 21 reviews. Metacritic gave the season a weighted average score of 57 out of 100 based on 12 reviews, indicating "mixed or average reviews".
Daniel D'Addario of Variety described the series as "a delight that poses the question of what it really means to grow up, against a truly inviting backdrop", and that Collins is "an inherently winsome performer who has never been quite as well used as she is here". Kristen Baldwin of Entertainment Weekly gave the series a "B" and wrote, "If you need a five-hour brain vacation, Paris is a worthwhile destination." The New Zealand Herald considered the show "visually delectable" and that "Collins has a pixie-ish charm which makes her endearing", but also that the show is "as ephemeral as fairy floss". Kristen Lopez of IndieWire praised Collins for being a "jewel, make no mistake" and that "Emily in Paris is only as watchable and frivolous as its leading lady," but criticized the series as a whole, writing: "Emily in Paris is like scrolling through Instagram. It's a great way to waste time looking at pretty pictures with no depth."
A few critics have pointed to the show's self-aware engagement with social media. In the New York Times, Jason Farago called it "an anamorphic projection of @emilyinparis, Emily's Instagram account, into moving pictures." In the New Yorker, Kyle Chayka writes that "The purpose of Emily in Paris is to provide sympathetic background for staring at your phone, refreshing your own feeds[...] It's O.K. to look at your phone all the time, the show seems to say, because Emily does it, too." Defending the show in Artforum, Harmon Siegel argued that this effect is self-aware, writing that, "When it hurtles into bizarrerie, Emily mocks us for not paying attention. It anticipates and parodies its expected reception as 'ambient television.'"
Some people criticized Emily's character. Emma Gray from HuffPost called Emily a bland character, stating, "The show doesn't even make an effort to quirk her up or give her a more relatable, girl-next-door roughness: she's always immaculately coiffed and made-up and garbed in effortfully eye-catching outfits. But there's not much to the character except for enormous self-confidence and the inexplicable ability to attract new friends and love interests on every street corner." Rebecca Nicholson of The Guardian gave the series one out of five stars: "[...] if it is an attempt to fluff up the rom-com for the streaming age, then it falls over on its six-inch heels." Rachel Handler opined "Darren Star has done it yet again: centered an entire show on a thin, gently delusional white woman whimsically exploring a major metropolitan area in wildly expensive couture purchased on a mid-level salary."
Sarah Moroz of Vulture.com opined, "The most egregious oversight [...] is Emily herself, who shows zero personal growth over a ten-episode arc. [...] Emily's vapidity baffles anyone who has moved from their native country." Sonia Rao of The Washington Post compared Emily to the heroines of the Amy Sherman-Palladino universe: "Like the Gilmore girls, Emily is strong-willed and refuses to let anything get in the way of her schemes. Like Midge Maisel, her actions can be quite rash, but she still wins over her fictional acquaintances while utterly baffling viewers." Megan Garber of The Atlantic was critical of Emily, writing, "An expat who acts like a tourist, she judges everything against the backdrop of her own rigid Americanness. You might figure that those moments are evidence of a show poking fun at its protagonist's arrogance or setting the stage for her to grow beyond her initial provincialism. But: You would be, as I was, mostly incorrect. Instead, other people change around her. They grudgingly concede that her way (strident, striving, teeming with insistent individualism) is right. The latest show from Sex and the City creator Darren Star—sells several fantasies. Primary among them is the notion that Emily can bulldoze her way through France and be celebrated for it." Siegel cast Emily as a personification of the critic's own self-loathing, saying " I am now sincerely, even zealously convinced that, in my initial reaction of smug self-satisfaction, I was lured into an ambush, my response anticipated and rebutted[...] For it is not just that I need her; I am her."
Some critics, such as Jo Ellison, writing for the Financial Times, appeared ambivalent. On the one hand, she expressed admiration for the way Darren Star manages to depict "a version of womanhood in which promiscuity, bossiness, and shopaholics are depicted as qualities to be celebrated"; on the other, "the major plot lines might have been written in the 1940s and the Frenchies are routinely cast as vain, preening and parochial." She concludes, "Cliché-ridden and completely outdated: Darren Star's 'Sex and the Cité' will no doubt be monstrously successful."
Many French critics condemned the show for negatively stereotyping Parisians and the French. Charles Martin wrote in Première that the show unfairly stereotyped and depicted the French as "lazy [individuals who] never arrive at the office before the end of the morning [...] are flirtatious and not really attached to the concept of loyalty [...] are sexist and backward, and [...] have a questionable relationship with showering". A reviewer at Sens Critique wrote: "Emily in Paris projects the same twee, unrealistic image of Paris that the film Amélie does". RTL.fr wrote: "Rarely had we seen so many clichés on the French capital since the Parisian episodes of Gossip Girl or the end of The Devil Wears Prada."
