IMDb > "Clueless" (1996) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votes
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsmessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
"Clueless" More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 22 reviews in total 

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

A stylish "Saved by the Bell"

Author: Clay-Pigeon from United States
19 September 2001

Except for the occasional bad word and mentions of sex this show was nothing more than innocent teen fodder in the tradition of "Saved by the Bell". Though stylish it fails to match the cleverness, hipness and satire of the original 1995 hit film. The pacing of the show seems off as well and Cher's commentary, a highlight in the film, here it seems like it's coming from a completely different show. The show hardly even resembles the film, if it wasn't trying to be like the movie then they should have changed the name but since they stuck with the title "Clueless" then they should have tried to keep the spirit of the film. On it's own it's pretty lighthearted fun so if you haven't seen the film then you might enjoy it but if you're a fan of the film then this series might depress you especially considering that so many of the same people who worked on the film also worked on the show including writer/director Amy Heckerling and producers Twink Caplan, Julie Brown and Scott Rudin.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Watch the movie instead!

Author: xxlittlekittenxx from United States
23 October 2003

This show was a total embarrassment to one of the few truly good teen movies. I remember being excited to watch this series, but it disgusted me so much that I could barely sit through it. 'Clueless' is a highly original and charming movie, but in the series they just turned it into a typical '90s sitcom that almost NOBODY liked.

I'll just leave it at that. If you like dime-a-dozen sitcoms, then this is the show for you. Otherwise, forget it.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Movie was Austen but TV was Hannah Montana

5/10
Author: SnoopyStyle
22 August 2013

Amy Heckerling turned her movie success into TV mediocrity. All the originality and joy is squeezed into kiddie wackiness. It lasted three seasons and was probably one season too long. Rachel Blanchard is the new Cher. Stacey Dash, Donald Faison, and Elisa Donovan revised their movie roles.

Whether it's the expected lower production value or the weaker teen level story lines, the movie was Austen and the TV show was Hannah Montana. However I don't blame any of it on the cast especially Rachel Blanchard. She does a pretty good version of Cher. Stacey Dash, Donald Faison and Elisa Donovan return to do the TV show. They all do a fabulous job.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Blanchard's the biggest problem

Author: S Bradford from New York, NY
31 July 2010

The first season of the TV version of the hit movie reassembled a good chunk of the movie's cast, plus the movie's director Amy Heckerling as executive producer. So why was it such a pale imitation? Two words: Rachel Blanchard.

Blanchard took over as lead character Cher from Alicia Silverstone (who understandably had other things to do at the time). Though Blanchard was physically right for the role, her flat performance makes you realize how perfect Silverstone really was for the role, with her fizzy, lighthearted, charismatic performance. Blanchard, by contrast, was dull as dishwater, with no spunk or charisma or anything. She pulled the whole series down. They should have hired Christine Taylor (Marcia in "The Brady Bunch" movies) instead.

The second season got even worse. Moving to a smaller network (from ABC to UPN) necessitated budget cuts, so Heckerling was gone as well as movie vets Wallace Shawn and Twink Caplan. "Very special episodes" started to creep in as well. Ugh.

Skip this one and rent the movie again instead.

Was the above review useful to you?

Left Clueless Because I Haven't Really Seen It

8/10
Author: RavenGlamDVDCollector from South Africa
16 March 2014

Only saw some episodes years ago, and as a fan of the movie, liked it. Trying to find it on DVD is useless. Downloading it from the Net? Only a couple whole episodes, lots of parts adding up to incomplete experiences. Seems every bit as great as I remember it. Judging by one of the reviews, there are people who compare it unfavorably to the movie, and trashes it instantly. Okay, it does take getting used to, we do miss Alicia Silverstone, but Rachel deserved credit as well. This is so much better than so many of the other stuff out there. And SABRINA THE TEENAGE WITCH got released on DVD but not CLUELESS? That spoiled little brat is considered a better marketing venture? My vote would have gone unreservedly to CLUELESS, even without Lady Alicia.

There really should be a DVD release! And don't worry, Rachel, you have fans too!

Was the above review useful to you?

Echoes of past sitcom greatness

Author: Phillip Blanchard from Bethesda, Md.
7 March 2013

It's a mistake to compare "Clueless," the sitcom, with "Clueless," the moved on which it is based. A more apt comparison is with "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis." Although separated by decades, the shows share a sharp writing style and great supporting roles (compare William Schallert and Wallace Shawn). Rachel Blanchard (no relation) was well-suited for the starring role; her portrayal of Cher was more like a high school student than Alicia Silverstone's in the movie. That said, "Clueless" the sitcom started strong, peaked, and began its declines all in its first season. Subsequent episodes seemed strained and self-conscious.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A great low key tribute to a hilarious classic

Author: Easter Bradford from New Orleans, LA
15 May 2004

The T.V. series "Clueless" takes off right where the extremely funny film left off. Here we find the character of Cher Horowitz portrayed by newcomer Rachel Blanchard, but the rest of the cast remains in tact. Minor characters like Ty and Josh have been removed (which makes sense because their "stories" were neatly wrapped up in the film) and instead we focus on the day to day adventures and teen-struggles of Cher, Dionne, Murray and Amber. The series takes the sardonic outlook of 90s teens that made the movie a success and expounds on it with great effect. The expansion of the Amber character to be a double edged uber-villain-cum-confidant is beneficial and often makes the episodes so enjoyable.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A full on Monet...

Author: Duch-ess from Australia
26 October 1998

What a let down! I was so excited to learn of the existence of the television series 'Clueless'. I loved the movie with Alicia Silverstone and was looking forward to weekly installments of Cher's life. The television series pales in contrast to the movie. It lacks the same zest as appeared in the screen version. Rachael Blanchard can't quite carry it off the way Silverstone as is the case with Doug Sheehan who plays Mel. Overall, this series is really a Monet; alright from afar but up close it's just a big ol' mess.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

oh dear oh dear oh dear

Author: reg-4
3 November 1999

yet another example of industry bigwigs trying to milk success far beyond the limit. What made the film a success was the way in which Jane Austen's Emma was cleverly adapted for 1990s Los Angeles. The television version removes all trace of Austen and adds extra vacuity - this may be an ironic gesture, but somehow that seems doubtful. Overall, a steaming pile of pants.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

There are Differences Between the Movie and the T.V. Show

Author: anonymous from San Jose, California
24 June 1999

The movie itself is not my all time favorite, but after seeing both the movie and the t.v. show, there are some differences. Number one, the t.v. show lacks in continuity with the movie. For example, why is Lawrence (the character who was seen shaving Murray's head in the movie) called Sean on the t.v. show? The show also seems a bit hypocritical when you compare it to the movie. For example, the show had many episodes that could be considered "special episodes" i.e. episodes bringing up the subjects of teenage pregnancy, drive by shootings, smoking, drunk driving, and safe sex. Also in a "special episode" the cast would usually come on at the end of the episode to deliver a special service announcement; I always hated it when sitcoms would do that type of thing because it's overused in my opinion and preachy). When you see this and then look at the movie, you can find a scene were characters are seen smoking pot but not much emphasis was placed on it. As for the comedy, the humor comes off as being lame and much of the slang words from the movie are missing in the show.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history