SummaryAllison McRoberts (Annie Murphy) has been living like a stereotypical sitcom housewife but after 10 years, she reaches her breaking point in this dark comedy created by Valerie Armstrong.
[Premieres on AMC+ on 13 Jun 2021 and then on AMC on 20 Jun 2021]
SummaryAllison McRoberts (Annie Murphy) has been living like a stereotypical sitcom housewife but after 10 years, she reaches her breaking point in this dark comedy created by Valerie Armstrong.
[Premieres on AMC+ on 13 Jun 2021 and then on AMC on 20 Jun 2021]
Very underrated here and elsewhere, in my opinion. Enjoyed the heck out of season 1. I feared the sitcom bits, cringey by design, would ultimately annoy or get in the way of the story, but everything's very well balanced, and the acting by Murphy and Inboden is spot on. Hope AMC renews it.
Brilliant, so fresh love Annie playing a gritty side , the way they portrayed the idiot husband and falsness of their happy marriage by a sitcom is brilliant
The conceit – a happy facade in front of friends and family, bleak realism when she’s “off” – is a good one. ... The problem comes as the series unfolds. ... We end up watching two increasingly unrelated narratives – the better of which keeps getting interrupted by a clunking 90s sitcom, complete with dull storylines about get-rich-quick schemes or the boss coming to dinner that neither illuminate nor complicate Allison’s story, nor create any thematic symbiosis.
The writers do an excellent job making the "sitcom" scenes authentically hacky and unfunny; unfortunately, that means about 30 percent of each episode is… hacky and unfunny. ... Halfway through the season, I'm still seeking any feeling that the main characters aren't just misshapen archetypes.
Kevin Can F**k Himself is a series about rebellion with a format that feels rebellious in only the most superficial sense, an effective visual statement that ultimately doesn’t do much more than very slowly mash together two eminently familiar TV staples, the bland sitcom and the escalating problems faced by a character who breaks bad.
The overarching problem is inertness. The show spends so much time vacillating between styles that it neglects to move what should be a thrilling plot forward. By episode 3 (Kevin and Neil go to war over who can make a better chili), Kevin is spinning its wheels.
To appreciate this show, one must understand irony. As demonstrated by Alanis Morissette in 1996, most people are completely unfamiliar with the concept. The ingenious twist of the show is that the dramatic irony is turned up a notch because the entire premise of the show is based on the complete lack of awareness by the characters of their own situation.
This is really two shows: a formulaic sitcom based on a stereotypical "Hollywood" version of a struggling middle-class couple, and a vicious documentary tearing apart the ridiculous assumptions behind that not-very-funny sitcom. But that is the actual humor of the show: it is funny because it is true, and that is the best kind of comedy, the kind I bet Aristotle wrote about in that lost volume. It is somewhat remarkable that feminists have not embraced the show, though as a guy, I do not claim to be one and I certainly would not want to tell them what to like.
The problem is that this show is much smarter than most viewers. The only people who do not love this show are the viewers who are just too stupid to appreciate its genius, and many people who would love this show are not big television watchers exactly because most television is too stupid to bear. Sadly, this scenario has played out before many times. See, e.g., Studio 60 or Sports Night (both by Aaron Sorkin), Pushing Daisies, Party Down, Deadwood, or, the mother of all botched cancellations, Firefly. If this show fails like these other great shows, it will have been a success simply by being made within a system that panders to the lowest common denominator.
The only reason this show has other "meh" reviews is cause it took a major risk. A MAJOR RISK. And it was willing to alienate its audience to get a point across. I commend that. I'd rather watch something risky. I almost stopped watching 3 minutes in but, please, give it at least 5 before tapping out. There's juxtapostion here to get a point across. Some call it male bashing, it's not. All the characters have a mix of good and bad qualities. Nobody is pure saint or villain here. How this show frames narratives is brilliant. Some of the most vicious things said and done to people are tied up in a bow of a joke, that's real, and the people that make those jokes are generally clueless to it. The only reason I'm not giving it a higher review is cause of some of it's depictions of the working class. It's a bit out of touch that way but, hey, so was Shameless and most shows on television depicting anything working class. It would be an absolute shame for this show not to get more seasons but, as it often is with something that tries something different, I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Charming at first, until it devolves into a show about two women in a terrible friendship and a lesbian police detective. Got to Season 2 episode 2 before I turned it off. There is no excuse for this show to be 2 seasons long. The gimmick of switching between shows could've worked for a single season of TV but it really overstays it's welcome after the season 1 finale. There's no real message to be gleamed from watching this. Some commenters have chalked this show up to being sexist, but with the story turning on our female leads as the perpetrators against an innocent bumbling sitcom man, it's clear that the story is not so one-sided. It just isn't entertaining after all is said and done.
As inane and sexist a series as can possibly be imagined. It’s patronizing elitist view of working class people is despicable! That anyone would produce or in any way encourage this sludge is a comment on how low our culture has sunk.