IMDb > "Two and a Half Men" (2003) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
"Two and a Half Men"
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
"Two and a Half Men" More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 27: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 261 reviews in total 

23 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

Not a likable character to be found

Author: S.R. Dipaling from Topeka, Kansas, USA
26 November 2007

From sampling the variety of use comments on this show,I've noticed that the huge majority of people when moved to comment have said they liked and/or loved this show. I cannot count myself among them.

To be sure,I've only watched a handful of episodes full-through,but I've seen enough to feel like this show,while blessed with a fertile premise(divorced dad with impressionable young son moves in with his brother,a swinging bachelor,and the dad and bachelor are polar opposites),seems to be an exercise in static character progression(or lack thereof)episode after episode. Charlie(Charlie Sheen,a talented and funny guy who is playing...himself,basically)the bachelor is an unrepentant sleaze who never changes,Alan the dad(Jon Cryer,who's done better. Anyone recall "Partenrs"? "The Famous Teddy Z"?)is a whiny sad sack who is good at playing the role of doormat and Jake(Angus Jones,who I swear has NOT aged since 2000's "The Kid"!)is basically a low-energy brat who seems to be laughing at his dad about as much as his uncle--and it would seem,everybody--is. The housekeeper is a burly,cynical air-sucker and Alan's ex is a clueless,emasculating buzz-kill. Throw in a revolving door supply of attractive,vapid(and not particularly moral)young ladies who fancy Charlie,and you have the formula for a show that seems more happy to run in place than add any apparent depth or dimension to the principals.

Before you think me some sort of prude,I can appreciate a sitcom that can revel in amorality--"Married With Children" and "Arrested Development" come to mind--but this show seems to just hold in place,with characters that become more despicable with each episode. Producer and creator Chucke Lorre was able to cull success from ABC's "Dharma and Greg",and while he plants good seeds for a show here,it seems to be little more than a chance to re-hash running gags and canned laughter. I guess you can do worse than this show for comedy,but you certainly can do better,network OR cable.

Was the above review useful to you?

63 out of 118 people found the following review useful:

the funniest show on television, bar none!!!

8/10
Author: renar from Frederick, Maryland
6 October 2005

I cannot get enough of this show. I laugh out loud through the entire episode, EVERY WEEK. The entire cast is hilarious. It is difficult to choose who is the funniest. In the season opener, I feel that Angus really out shined everyone else. His timing was impeccable. And, Jon Cryer with the girl's mother in the principal's office, I laughed so hard, I started crying. I hope that this program runs for many years, until Jake goes to college. We don't see enough of him, though and I know that is because of his age. The women are also awesome. The next to the last or last episode this past season was priceless with Holland Taylor being drenched because Jake left the bathtub running. If you haven't watched this show, don't miss it next week. I guarantee you will laugh a lot!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

where do i begin?

1/10
Author: nikitatyler91 from United States
25 June 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This show used to be funny. With Charlie Sheen I would give this show a ten out of ten. For anyone who didn't watch it before they killed off Charlie and replaced him with a moron (Kutcher) it was a fantastic show. Now its ridiculous! I have seen a couple episodes and all it was was really bad toilet humor and gay jokes. Jon Cryer's character has become an even more leach than before and he is incredibly annoying! Kutcher as internet billionaire moron is well very very sad. Kutcher CANT ACT! I have no idea why people even hire him for roles! The show that made me laugh now makes me cringe! I say stop watching this show and tune in for Charlie's new show ''Anger Management'' we all know Charlie made the show, Chuck Lorre should admit it and put Two and a Half Men where it belongs, in a casket and six feet under.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Get Charlie back!

10/10
Author: drax-844-424482
8 January 2012

First of all, my vote is for episodes which Charlie Sheen was acting (10 stars). Story, jokes and all that was good.

Now about Ashon. I watched some of his movies and they are great. However I cannot find him as good replacement for Charlie. Strange, but I don't laugh to Ashons jokes and all that nudity is really not funny at all. On top of it, I was horribly disappointed in first episode in season with Ashon. I mean they made some bad jokes about Charlie and they made impression that everybody was hating him - not cool at all.

I have been reading that Charlie was replaced because it was really "expencive" comparing to Ashon. I don't remember what sum was about, but difference was counting in millions. This is not excuse for me since Charlie built up Two and a Half Men and I believe that he deserves money.

In my opinion IMDb should separate voting for this show, 1 while Charlie was acting and 1 while Ashon is acting, otherwise it is not fair - reputation will go higher or lower for sure with new actor.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

For me, it's over...

6/10
Author: evalverdes from Portugal
3 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Forget about watching the new episodes, with Walden Schmidt. Not only, the actor is not very talented, not funny nor the character is interesting, but also has the huge job of filling Sheen's shoes. Let's be honest, the show is nothing without Charlie Sheen. OK, Jake and Alan are also great characters. But the thing about this show was the issues between the two brothers and their trouble raising a kid. It makes no sense to change the main character. They should have cancelled it. No doubt the Charlie-Alan-Jake seasons are fantastic. But that is it. Forget that someone even tried to make episodes without one of those three. It's better to remember it as good show, as it was.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

This show has officially gone down the tubes!

1/10
Author: stevealessini from United States
12 March 2012

Two and a Half Men has gone from being one of the best sitcoms on T.V. to one of the worst, which is quite an accomplishment considering how truly awful 90% of the sitcoms are these days. It was a great show with Charlie Sheen because he WAS the show! Maybe the ratings are still good, but that just shows you how clueless its current fans are. Ashton Kutcher is absolutely one of the worst actors of all time, both in movies and television. He was O.K. in That 70's Show, and a little less O.K. in Dude, Where's My Car? (basically the same character), but everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, he has done since has been atrocious. Punk'd is unwatchable, a third-rate Candid Camera rip-off. The fact that he is considered a success in Hollywood shows you how low our standards have sunk. If you have model looks you can go way further than your questionable talent would otherwise take you. And Angus T. Jones was all right when he was a cute little kid, but age has not treated him well. It will be a miracle if he does anything else watchable. Jon Cryer and the other actors in the series are good, but they need to look for other vehicles for their talent. Charlie Sheen's talent made their stars shine brighter in the series. Ashton Kutcher's lack of talent will drag them down into his whirlpool of mediocrity.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Please bring back Charlie!!

1/10
Author: laurens_posthuma from Netherlands
15 May 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Why? Why? I liked this show so much... But they ruined it.. It just sucks without Charlie.. The show isn't funny anymore. The character Charlie played was just awesome. But now its like there are to of Alan..

And then... WHY WOULD YOU PUSH CHARLIE IN FRONT OF A TRAIN??!?

This new character is as bad as hell. He isn't AT ALL!! Everything he says is just crap. Always crying about "his girl".. Every single episode is the same.. He and Alan are just gay at some points of the series..

I went from watching every night... To avoid it every night

Charlie.. I will always remember you.. Please come back

Show with Charlie 10/10 Show without Charlie 1/10

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Two And A Half Men hilarious with Charlie dreadful with Ashton

10/10
Author: miketaylor2007 from Canada
3 December 2011

I am rating Two And A Half Men 10 for all the laughs I have had over the years, but only with Charlie. Two And A Half Ashton is not the same show and is on a whole other level because it is the worst show on television today. I really think the role was cursed no matter who tried to replace Charlie Sheen because the entire show revolves around his life, the women he meets, and his family. You can't build a series based off of one guys life and get rid of him years later. Aston Kutcher is a good actor and im a fan but you can't stand to see his face on Two And A Half Men. Is it his fault? No I don't think it's Ashtons fault but the writers for making his character Waldon try to act like Charlie Harper and failing miserably. Waldon tries to be this ladies man like Charlie but comes off as a very bitter, scruffy looking guy with 8th grade jack off jokes and hes not funny at all. The way he comes into the picture also doesn't make any sense and it is retarded. I would call this season of Two And A Half Men the cancer of CBS and a wake up call for the next Hollywood jerk with an ego that tries to revive something that is so obviously dead. Please let this go Chuck you were wrong and Charlie was what made this show work.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Charlie Sheen made this

4/10
Author: Andy from United Kingdom
31 October 2011

Two and a Half Men with Charlie Sheen is was, if not, the funniest sitcom on TV, and easily one of the best ever made. Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer together was a match made in sitcom heaven, whilst Angus also added a lot, especially when he was a child.

Ever since they thought it was necessary and they could not forgive him, they got rid of Charlie Sheen and completely ruined the show. Ashton Kutcher isn't a good actor, hes mediocre at best and plays the role bad. He isn't no Charlie Sheen, and it shows. Ever since Sheen left, they have been trying to bring in jokes, that just don't work without his dry and sarcastic humour, Kutcher isn't of the same acting pedigree of Sheen.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Two and a Half original jokes per season.

5/10
Author: SacTreats from United States
17 April 2008

Imagine a day you've probably had. A day that wasn't that bad, but it was probably a regular work day. Nothing big happened, but it wasn't a particularly slow work day. You saw people that you normally see every day, but you didn't do anything all that special with them. You might have gotten a headache, but it wasn't that bad. You didn't really eat anything all that delicious. Just a normal, forgettable day.

Imagine every day of your life going that way.

Two and a half men would be the only show on television in that world.

Charlie Sheen is not the world's greatest actor or comedian, but he can do better than this. This show is only vaguely better than the average sitcom, and the sitcom, on average, is often lacking. Sure, it's a limited medium, but knowing that, it leads us to expect more from the effort that goes into making a sitcom.

2 1/2 Men does illustrate a change in shift of what sitcoms can be when viewed against...I don't know...10 years ago? But it doesn't take it any further than that. I just rests comfortably on its ability to do things that are "new" and "edgy", but it doesn't make any effort to be a part of any stride towards new ideas. It's riding the coattails of shows that laid the groundwork. It's more contemporary than Seinfeld, but it is way behind Seinfeld in it how original it is.

I've seen a lot of comments that rate this show rather highly. Come on, folks, expect more.

True, shows like Arrested Development often meet an untimely end (and yes, you can take that as my endorsement of Arrested Development as a watermark standard of what a good sitcom can be), but then again, look at Spin City. That wasn't one of the greatest sitcoms ever, but it was well above average, and it had a fair run. You can at least hope for that.

And sure, you kind of have to go with what's available, but you don't have to totally lower your standards just because almost everything on TV sucks right now.

2 1/2 men is just flat. I know, I know. It really should be good, and the powers involved (Charlie Sheen, the writers, the director and the producers) aren't evil for forcing this on us (though hardly benevolent), but come on...TV can do better than this.

5 stars is almost too nice, but less than 3 would be a little too mean...a little.

The shortcomings of this show don't offend me, but they do really disappoint me.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 3 of 27: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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