Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
The Grammy Awards: Season 49
User Score
1.2 out of 10

Overwhelming dislike- based on 12 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 12
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 12
  3. Negative: 11 out of 12

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. HectorM
    Feb 15, 2007
    0
    A complete waste of time. Every year that U2 doesn't release an album full of anthemic turgidity, the Grammys don't know what to do with themselves. Fergie for album of the year? Yeah, brings real credability to the awards show. And since when is John Mayer a star? He should be cleaning out a toilet at an Arby's somewhere in Louisville.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. LauraD
    Feb 18, 2007
    8
    Lots of great performances. Liked also that there was not a show host this year.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. WalkerR
    Feb 21, 2007
    0
    What a joke! I won't watch the show and never will. The Grammy's are a total waste of time. They celebrate awfull american music. It's really a show for people that have absolutely no taste in music. Crap!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. TheFly
    Feb 25, 2007
    2
    Nice to see the police return to action, but I agree with Hector M - when U2 doesn't show and perform, the whole thing is a joke - unfortunately for those of us that love music, with the death of rock comes the death of meaningful reward shows. . .
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. TonyT
    Feb 14, 2007
    0
    what a horrible show!! who votes on this crap?
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. GaborA
    Feb 19, 2007
    1
    The Grammy's might as well be called the people's choice awards. Or better yet, the stupid people's choice awards. Unlike the Oscars and other awards shows the grammy's haven't even tried to applaud good music over the years. A high school talent contest award has more merit.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. ChrisC
    Feb 14, 2007
    0
    This installment of the Grammies served to do nothing but highlight how obsolete an affair they've become. It's really nothing but the mainstream music industry gratuitiously celebrating itself. I understand only giving awards to mainstream, major label music, but the winners aren't even very popular bands. Which leads me to believe the selection process is 70% politic, 30% arbitrary. They gave an award to My Humps for Christ's sake! If I had a choice between listening to the Spice Girls for ten straight hours, and listening to one Black Eyed Peas song once, I'd pick the Spice Girls.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. JakeB
    Feb 14, 2007
    3
    The Grammy Awards allways sucked.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
41 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 5 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 5
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 5
  3. Negative: 2 out of 5
  1. Boston Globe
    Reviewed by: Matthew Gilbert
    50
    Some of the performances were strong -- Aguilera actually managed to make good with her yodel on "It's a Man's Man's Man's World." And some were underwhelming -- the Chili Peppers singing a listless "Snow (Hey Oh)" amid crazy confetti.
    Read full review
  2. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Barry Garron
    60
    Mostly, it was a tasteful affair.
    Read full review
  3. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Robert Lloyd
    40
    With a host of performers skilled in delivering Big Effects, the evening regularly delivered top-grade professional pop music, though it was rarely thrilling in a way that made you reconsider an act or decide to change your life.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »