Early reviews of the series were mixed. Tom Feran of The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote that the series traded “vaguely and less successfully on the hanging-out style of Seinfeld”,[51] while Ann Hodges of the Houston Chronicle called it “the new Seinfeld wannabe, but it will never be as funny as Seinfeld.”[52] In the Los Angeles Daily News, Ray Richmond named the series as “one of the brighter comedies of the new season”,[53] and The Los Angeles Times called it “flat-out the best comedy series of the new season”.[54]

Chicago Sun-Times’ Ginny Holbert found Joey and Rachel’s characteristics to be underdeveloped,[55] while Richmond commended the cast as a “likeable, youth ensemble” with “good chemistry”[53] Robert Bianco of USA Today was complimentary of Schwimmer, calling him “terrific”. He also praised the female leads, but was concerned that Perry’s role as Chandler was “undefined” and that LeBlanc was “relying too much on the same brain-dead stud routine that was already tired the last two times he tried it”.[56] The authors of Friends Like Us: The Unofficial Guide to Friends thought that the cast was “trying just a little too hard”, in particular Perry and Schwimmer.[57]

As the series progressed, reviews became more positive, and Friends became one of the most popular sitcoms of its time. Critics commended the series for its consistently sharp writing and the chemistry between the main actors.[58] Noel Holston of Newsday, who had dismissed the pilot as a “so-so Seinfeld wannabe” in 1994, reneged his review after rewatching the episode, and felt like writing an apology to the writers.[36] Heather Havrilesky of Salon.com thought that the series “hit its stride” in the second season. Havrilesky found the character-specific jokes and situations “could reliably make you laugh out loud a few times each episode”, and the quality of writing allowed the stories to be “original and innovative”.[59] Bill Carter of The New York Times called the eighth season a “truly stunning comeback”. Carter found that by “generating new hot story lines and high-decibel laughs”, the series made its way “back into the hearts of its fans”.[60] However, Liane Bonin of Entertainment Weekly felt that the direction of the ninth season was a “disappointing buzzkill”, criticizing it for the non-stop celebrity guest spots and going into jump the shark territory. Although disappointed with the season, Bonin noted that “the writing [was] still sharp”.[61] Havrilesky thought that the tenth season was “alarmingly awful, far worse than you would ever imagine a show that was once so good could be.”[59] Friends was featured on Time’s list of “The 100 Best TV Shows of All-Time”, saying, “the well-hidden secret of this show was that it called itself Friends, and was really about family.[62]

“It may have been impossible for any one episode to live up to the hype and expectations built up around the Friends finale, but this hour probably came as close as fans could have reasonably hoped. Ultimately, the two-hour package did exactly what it was supposed to do. It wrapped up the story while reminding us why we liked the show and will miss it.”
— Robert Bianco of USA Today on the series finale.[63]
Reviews of the series finale were mixed to positive. USA Today’s Robert Bianco described the finale as entertaining and satisfying, and praised it for deftly mixing emotion and humor while showcasing each of the stars.[63] Sarah Rodman of the Boston Herald praised Aniston and Schwimmer for their acting, but felt that their characters’ reunion was “a bit too neat, even if it was what most of the show’s legions of fans wanted.”[64] Roger Catlin of The Hartford Courant felt that newcomers to the series would be “surprised at how laughless the affair could be, and how nearly every strained gag depends on the sheer stupidity of its characters.”[65] Ken Parish Perkins, writing for Fort Worth Star-Telegram, pointed out that the finale was “more touching than comical, more satisfying in terms of closure than knee-slappingly funny.”[66]