Are You There, Chelsea? (2012) User Reviews

Chelsea Handler's life and nobody's laughing

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 20 August 2013]

Chelsea Newman (Laura Prepon) is struggling to get her life in order. When she gets a DUI, it's not the drinking but the driving she's cutting out. She and her friend Olivia (Ali Wong) move in with Dee Dee (Lauren Lapkus) whose apartment is within walking distance to her job at the bar.

This is suppose to be based on Chelsea Handler's life and her book. Her drunken exploits may be funny in book form but as a traditional bodied sitcom it never worked. In the show, she plays Chelsea's straight-laced religious sister Sloane which becomes annoying. I think Prepon was miscast. In the 70s Show, she's the straight laced mommy character of the group. She's wrong for this and the group never gels. Honestly, it never had much of a chance but bad writing really meant it had no chance at all. Laura Prepon is strangely out of place. Lauren Lapkus has the quirky best friend down. The rest of the gang is just unlikeable. Jake McDorman's charm is not there. The show doesn't work.

Lead Actress Doesn't Act!?

[tombowman6 · 5/10 · 3 March 2012]

I liked that girl on "That 70s Show." But in this show, she acts just like herself. She has Chelsea Handler's flat tone down (because it's her own tone as well) but it's like she's trying to be so cool and hard. She doesn't exhibit any of Handler's happy-go-lucky, chuckling, self-deprecating crassness. I'm watching this week's episode (01x08). She just said, "Wiggling, my friend. Wiggling." The real Chelsea would totally say that, but not the way that girl did. Sorry I don't know her name. This could be a lot better if she had the character down a little better. I dunno, it's just disappointing when we love the real Chelsea so much.

Could have potential..

[mkenyon719 · 4/10 · 21 January 2012]

I was also bummed with this show. I was expecting Chelsea Handler to be the main character, but Laura Prepon is. I think Laura can be funny, but they need to chill out with the sexual innuendos. Sex talk ALL. THE. TIME. is not that funny. This was the second pilot I watched this week and all it was about was sex. After awhile, it becomes tasteless. Writers, can you not come up with anything original?

The character Nikki, I believe her name is Natasha Leggero, is completely annoying, not funny. She was in the short-lived Free Agents and played the same type of annoying character. I think her appearances on the show could grind it into the ground even more.

This should could have potential, but without more of Chelsea Handler acting like herself, I don't see it happening.

Another unbelievably bad sitcom

[parlance-263-43691 · 1/10 · 11 January 2012]

Where do I begin? Laura Prepon couldn't act her way out of a box; the timing and delivery of whatever comedic value there is in the writing is completely lost when it falls limply out of her mouth.

Some of the acting is so bad that I'm in disbelief they wouldn't have done another take; I think they must have filmed the pilot in almost realtime.

The show seems like it was written by a team of 17 year olds. The characters unbelievable, unlikeable, generic cookie cutter stereotypes with about as much attitude as a loaf of bread.

This is probably one of the worst shows on television at the moment.

Not impressed.

[Asteri-Atypical · 2/10 · 12 January 2012]

I find this new brand of sitcom, a la Whitney, to be most unimpressive.

No matter what you think of these botoxed femmes, in terms of their stand-up routines, this scripted pap doesn't translate well.

In short, the jokes are nothing we haven't heard too many times, before. It appears the writers have supplanted genuine cleverness, humor and wit, with trying to "shock" people, by pushing the boundaries of decency.

Don't get me wrong; some of the best comedy in history has pushed the boundaries of social ideals of "decency", in the past. HOWEVER – those comedies did so with a purpose. They often challenged our sensibilities and old ways of thinking with unique, clever or thoughtful ways. Conversely, shows like Whitney and Chelsea seem to just try to make the audience say "I can't believe she said that" in social realms, which are already loose and maybe a bit crass. Crass is no substitute for clever.

Anti-intellectualism is taking hold in shows like this.

This show embarrasses 'Whitney'

[dookie43 · 7/10 · 12 January 2012]

I guess many of the negative reviewers have never heard of exposition. The first episode is expected to be a little light on jokes because it requires characters, settings, and backgrounds to be explained. The supporting cast is a bunch of circus freaks, which is a plus. The jokes Chelsea bookended on the end of the scenes for obligatory exposition were all very good. While it's too early to make an early good or bad conclusion (in spite of other reviewers' predeterminations), I'm definitely interested.

If anything, Are You There, Chelsea? could end up killing Whitney (a brutally unfunny show that's trying to be Friends...again) because it's actually funny. Hopefully, Whitney won't kill this show by preceding it.

such high expectations...

[soccergurl257 · 2/10 · 11 January 2012]

All I want to know is why? Chelsea, you are better than this, almost anything is better than this. I never thought I would see the day that Chelsea Handler/her life would be as funny as getting a flat tire on the highway. I am a die hard Chelsea Handler fan, don't get me wrong. I have read all her books, watched her other shows, but she managed to completely lose me on this one. While some of the jokes were funny, Laura Prepon just doesn't cut it as the boozy, witty, and offensive Chelsea. If Handler actually played herself the show would probably be just as hilarious as any one of her best selling books. Shame on you casting director for picking the wrong actress, and shame on you Chelsea for letting this happen.

Sincerely, Disappointed

Love it!

[kjmt92 · 10/10 · 18 March 2012]

My roommate and I love watching this! We have also read Chelsea's books and watched her show. I don't know the age of the other people watching this but, as 19/20 year old University students we absolutely love it. If you happen to be a young adult who enjoys things like; Easy A, 2 Broke Girls, and American Pie, you will probably enjoy this show. The show is definitely not for children, and unless you wish to explain a lot of things, I wouldn't watch with them. Many people have commented that it was hard to watch because Handler doesn't play herself, but her sister. I don't have a problem with it. I actually find it pretty funny. Watching Handler play Sloane, is part of what makes the show funny, because they are so different. Just watch one episode, if you don't like it... "I'll eat my hat."

Dee Dee Makes This Show For Me

[scarletminded · 7/10 · 1 March 2012]

I was one of those people in the beginning that got confused with Prepon playing Chelsea then Chelsea Handler playing Sloane. Like another reviewer brought up, it was like Chelsea Handler was talking to herself. Prepon isn't much younger than Handler either, only five years' difference, so I am not sure why there had to be an actress to play Handler that wasn't her. Maybe they should have gotten a 20 year old actress and that would have worked better. But, overall, it's confusing.

I do like the character of Dee Dee, played by Lauren Lapkus. She is the best part of the show. Some of the other minor characters like Olivia, played by Ali Wong, are funnier than the main ones. That would be the reason to watch for me, if I could find out how to watch it. NBC used to have the shows on their website to view, but now there are only clips and I've missed at least 2 or 3 shows. So I don't watch it now, because it's on Wednesday and I tend to watch Modern Family and other ABC comedies on that night. I would have kept watching, but I am sort of blocked from watching it right now and it is sad, because I do think this show needs viewership.

Are you there, Chelsea

[tmoulton5-266-485616 · 1/10 · 15 January 2012]

This program does not belong on network television. It is far too "adult" for this time zone. It is not my cup of tea, but those who enjoy this type of raunchy humor should have to see it at a later time on cable. Definitely not for the younger audience that could see it at this time on the air. The main character is not believable as Chelsea Handler. Who's idea was it that someone else should play her and have her play someone else. It does not work. I find none of the characters that likable. I just did not find the show that funny. I do not mind adult humor, but this is just shock value at best. I do not care to hear about someone who drinks to excess and sleeps with every guy she meets while criticizing all the one's she does bed down. Too many stereotypes and not enough character.

Still Needs To Work Out Some Problems But Still A Good Sitcom!

[Sylviastel · 8/10 · 3 February 2012]

I have to admire Chelsea Handler. If you haven't seen her on E! television with her own shows, you wouldn't get her sense of humor. A New Jersey girl who has come a long way. In this sitcom, Chelsea Handler's character is acted out by Laura Prepon (another New Jersey girl). She does a very good job in portraying Chelsea on the show. Lenny Clarke does a fine job as her father. Chelsea Handler makes a few appearances as Chelsea's religious sister, Sloane. Anyway, I like the show. I think it's different and funny at times. The supporting cast does a fine job but I don't know many of them except for Prepon, Clarke, and Handler. Anyway, I hope this show lasts for awhile. There is some great lines too.

Not One Laugh

[lukewarmstevecass · 1/10 · 12 January 2012]

I just watched this dreck with my wife. I didn't laugh once. Not because I'm male, but because, like Chelsea Handler herself, this show is not funny. My wife didn't laugh either. We aren't prudes, but even the jokes were too obvious and crude for us. By contrast, *2 Broke Girls*, which is in the same genre and style, is witty and clever. The rest of the cast is pedestrian at best, with the sexual tension having jumped the shark in the first episode. Speaking of that, the clichéd sarcastic good-looking lead is very in-your-face. I feel most badly for Laura Prepon. We both really do like her. This is my choice for the first show to get canceled.

Disappointed, Flat and Unlaughable

[haddesah · 2/10 · 9 November 2016]

Yawn!! Very disappointing comedy sitcom. There is nothing new written here just a lot of smutty corny jokes. It was flat and unlaughable.

Though I really like Laura Prepon and she was great in 'The 70's Show' she was not good in this. Whoever wrote this has no humour whatsoever!! Its disgusting and shaming to revert to toilet humour to try and get some laughs... they are NOT FUNNY at all. Its cheap, nasty, and badly written and acted.

And so fed up with seeing young women act like mindless bimbo's.

For goodness sake, keep this rubbish off the TV and give us something way better then filthy jokes.

The decor in her apartment was more interesting.

Disgusting.

[poorni_6 · 1/10 · 19 January 2012]

The worst pilot of any show I have ever seen- horrid jokes, the kind of sexual humor that you could not laugh at even at gun point and terrible actors- I'd be bad too if I had to repeat that kind of dialog... wow, people spent money making this?!

I cringed my way through it, embarrassed that I'd talked a friend in to watching it with me.

I generally don't 'hate' this much- but I don't understand why people make such low quality crap and release it- don't they have friends who give them ONE honest feedback?

Sad.

Laura Prepon is not Chelsea Handler

[cfitzhue · 3/10 · 11 January 2012]

It's unfortunate that the network made the mistake of thinking they needed a young twenty something to make this show marketable.

Chelsea Handler has a rather unique ill-reverent comedy style that is as much about her demeanor as it is about the jokes.

Laura Prepon is absolutely nothing like Chelsea. The timing and delivery of the material is twisted into something completely different. Ms. Prepon has struggled to recapture her success on "That 70s Show"

In this critics opinion Her problem is two fold. She is far more ascetically attractive than she is talented. Perhaps she would do better as a "picture" model. That way we could enjoy her beauty without having to listen to her unflattering...(mannish?) voice.

This show might be saved if instead of having Prepon as the lead, they could write the story from the older sister's point of view. The older sister played by Chelsea Handler. That way Handler could carry the show the way it should have been presented in the first place.

I like it!!

[Slaphap99 · 9/10 · 12 January 2012]

I genuinely look forward to watching Chelsea flesh itself out as time progresses, because as it stands now (and in the second episode, to a slightly less degree), the show faces the challenge of actually being about something. Then again, with so few series on right now starring women who don't regularly get degraded by men, maybe there's a place for it to just hang out after all. Tough evaluating the show so early, but personally I like Laura Prepon and always enjoyed Chelsea Handlers style of humor. I am still a little confused how so many can show disapproval of a show that has aired once? Sorry but I'm taking the high road on this one.

Chelsea should've played herself, or nothing at all.....

[iounu2 · 2/10 · 19 January 2012]

I'll start by saying in general, I like everything Chelseas's done before this show. I've read the books and watch Lately regularly. This show however is a disaster. First of all, it's very difficult to follow the show when Prepon, who is portraying Handler is speaking to Handler, who is portraying Sloan. It's like Chelsea is speaking to herself and it makes it nearly impossible not to think about while watching the two converse. Also, I feel like i'm on the set watching them act during the entire show. None of the conversations so far have flowed well at all. I really do hate the fact that I don't like this show because the book was a lot of fun to read. Oh well, good luck with your next project Chelsea.

If you're a fan of Chelsea Handler's humor or the books

[XjetdeagonX · 10/10 · 11 January 2012]

You'll enjoy it. Now I know that her type of humor is definitely not for everyone so I expect this to get not so great reviews, but fans will certainly enjoy it. It's less tame than I imagined they'd make it too, which is nice. It plays out just like her books and writing style which is instantly recognizable. Perhaps the best part of the show is Chelsea herself playing her own older sister Sloane, a religious goody goody type which is the polar opposite of how she is is real life. If you liked Laura Prepon in That 70's Show, I see no reason why you wouldn't like her in this, although I personally wouldn't say she's the absolute best choice for playing Chelsea, but I don't think anyone but Chelsea herself could express the humor best, so that's not really a knock on Laura. All in all I enjoyed it so far and hope it gets bigger and better and follows the rising hilarity that the books do. The laugh track I found somewhat unnecessary though, Chelsea's humor has never been exactly about punchlines like standard sitcoms, but it's not a big distraction, just a handful of times they roll the track at moments I feel weren't meant to be 'hahahaha' moments.

Canned laughter in this day in age?

[nevynh · 1/10 · 10 February 2013]

I wanted to like this. I really did. The show felt me feeling like the creators didn't trust in it's audience's intelligence to be amused at the right spots - with the addition with the god awful canned laughter.

Laura Prepon, while having the right physical attributes for the role (i.e. looks like she could hold her own), left something to be desired. The character just didn't seem to come naturally to her.

Lauren Lapkus' character felt a bit unnecessary. In fact, I would say that it was this character that had the show feeling insanely formulaic. I kind of think that making this character not nearly so quirky and having her as a real character rather than just comic relief would have given this show much needed depth.

Not good

[rfaldrich · 2/10 · 22 February 2012]

Oh my, what a mess. I am a Chelsea fan and had high hopes for this show. But it just ain't happening. Not at all. If you're going to do an old-school 4 camera, laugh track sitcom you've got to make it really dumb to appeal to the 2.5 Men audience. But if you want to make a smart comedy you will be competing with the likes of "30 Rock" and "Modern Family" which have excellent writing and nice modern production values. "Are You There, Chelsea?" has neither. The writing is just a string of the stalest, lamest sexual double entendres which might amuse middle school children but only elicit groans and cringes in anyone older (chronologically or mentally) than 15. It never ceases to amaze me that nobody associated with productions like this seems to notice that it is drivel with no chance of success. But what do I know? I think "Two an a Half Men" is garbage.

Not good!!

[tsnc-41519 · 1/10 · 30 May 2018]

Like everything else Chelsea has done since leaving E-it's terrible! I used to like her but now she just seems mad and it's hard to be funny when you're angry all the time. Her story of being a drug taking, future alcoholic slut is just not funny, between her and Amy Schumer I've had enough of this type of comedy.

This show is great.

[darren5280-344-711444 · 9/10 · 14 April 2012]

This show is consistently, irreverently funny. I don't understand why people are so negative about it. It's fun to watch every week. I don't think it's trying to be anything more than what it is. It pushes the envelope a little, not so much as say the Sarah Silverman Program. The casting is great. The contrast between Larua and Lauren couldn't be more stark, it is the opposing sides of this dynamic that make the show for me. The rest of the cast seems a perfect compliment. I think they have done a great job. I love the appearances by Lenny Clark. (Was Chelsea's father really like this?) I need to read the book. Kudos to Chelsea Handler for providing the material. I don't have time for a lot of TV, this is a show I make time for, you should too(if you enjoy laughing).

If you love Chelsea Handler, you will love this show...

[othello-ltd · 10/10 · 5 April 2012]

Its pretty simple. If you love Chelsea Handler you will love this show. IF you do not like her, then you will not like this show. I wish they would have kept the original title, but didn't. This show is Raunchy, Blunt, Witty, Sarcastic and a little Taboo. I love the chemistry of the characters. I having worked the bar scene have had co-workers similar to them, and enjoy the subject matter that comes up because of its real world similarity. i didn't think that Laura Prepon could pull off the sarcasm but as the episodes progress, she gets more and more comfortable in her alternate skin. i hope you enjoy this show as much as my partner and i do.

This show was great! Now it's gone?

[galvincible · 8/10 · 14 June 2012]

I'm quite surprised this show disappeared as quick as it showed up. Laura Prepon was great as the lead character, and all the supporting characters were perfect. Lauren Lapkus is hilarious and steals any scene she's in. The little guy was awesome. The dad was right on the money. The bartender/boyfriend was really capable in his role. The Asian roommate and the diminutive rival coworker were appealing. Even Chelsea Handler in her subdued role as an uptight young mother was acceptable. This show was a typical modern comedy and needed a chance to grow an audience. I'm puzzled how the network could make decisions to air a sitcom like this, just to scrap it so soon. Should I stop watching TV?

I disagree with Chelsea fans I like it

[nathaliex6 · 8/10 · 18 April 2012]

I think its a good show the actress Laura Prepon i think she its perfect for the role and the thing that i realize reading all of the fans comments its that they would love Chelsea be herself and thats why the go so bad on laura but a lot of other people in the word who barely knows Chelsea from the lately show or anything they are really loving the show off course like its a series must to go slow in the storyline cant be as funny as the book even though i haven't read it but I really like this show some others compare this show to modern family which I love and yeah OK i think they are on different levels but others like 3rd rock i don't like it that much and its supposed an outstanding comedy the real thing is that not all of the people have the same opinion about stuff but some people believe too much of their selves while writing critics and I don't like it.

i will love to see one of those who judge so bad trying to fit the shoes of the people in entrainment the actors singers dancer and all other performers work hard to do what they do and its not so easy to do this things and be expose to the say of the world. so just get in their shoes if there something wrong with my writing don't tell me to learn Im Spanish, so my English is not perfect. but ill appreciated it if you have a constructive thing to say.