The Office: Season 1, Episode 6

Hot Girl (26 Apr. 2005)

TV Episode  -   -  Comedy
7.7
Your rating:
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -/10 X  
Ratings: 7.7/10 from 885 users  
Reviews: 3 user

Michael is just one of the many male staff who start vying for the attention of an attractive saleswoman in the office.

Director:

Writers:

(developed for american television by), , 3 more credits »
0Check in
0Share...

User Lists

Related lists from IMDb users

a list of 934 titles
created 27 Oct 2011
 
list image
a list of 506 titles
created 13 Apr 2012
 
list image
a list of 92 titles
created 18 Oct 2012
 
a list of 6 titles
created 06 Apr 2013
 
a list of 188 titles
created 7 months ago
 

Connect with IMDb


Share this Rating

Title: Hot Girl (26 Apr 2005)

Hot Girl (26 Apr 2005) on IMDb 7.7/10

Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.

Take The Quiz!

Test your knowledge of The Office.
« Previous Episode | 6 of 187 Episodes | Next Episode »

Videos

1 video »
Edit

Cast

Episode cast overview:
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Oscar Martinez (as Oscar Nunez)
...
Edit

Storyline

Michael is just one of the many male staff who start vying for the attention of an attractive saleswoman in the office.

Add Full Plot | Add Synopsis

Genres:

Comedy

Edit

Details

Country:

Language:

Release Date:

26 April 2005 (USA)  »

Company Credits

Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs

Runtime:

Sound Mix:

Color:

Aspect Ratio:

1.78 : 1
See  »
Edit

Did You Know?

Trivia

When Michael introduces Katie to Toby, they find they both went to Bishop O'Hara (High School). Bishop O'Hara is a Catholic high school on E. Drinker St. in neighboring Dunmore, PA. Though as of January 2007, it is now named Holy Cross High School. See more »

Quotes

Michael Scott: All right, girls, break it up; you're being infiltrated. Cock in the henhouse.
Dwight Schrute: Cocks in the henhouse.
Michael Scott: Don't say cocks.
See more »

Connections

References Sesame Street (1969) See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

Season 1: Struggles to find its own voice and comes over as a lesser copy of the original even if it is still pretty good
26 March 2009 | by (United Kingdom) – See all my reviews

A small branch of a stationary company in Pennsylvania is facing possible closure and redundancies and the staff aren't given a great deal of hope by having a bluffing clown of a boss in Michael Scott – a man who wants to be popular more than a boss. As office politics play a part, the staff try to deal with this hanging over their heads as well as the usual ongoing petty nonsense that is part of any office life.

Adapting what is really a very British sitcom to be suitable for American tastes was never going to be easy and the first season of this show (which has grown in popularity) shows the problems right away. Season 1 is, for the most part, a straight reproduction of the original in terms of some of the stories but also very much the painful awkward feel of the whole thing. What this achieves is a quite funny sitcom because the material is pretty good but it falls down quite badly when it comes to the more painful part of the material – which in the UK original was essentially the show. We all remember the original as hilarious but the truth is that much of it was funny while being unbearably awkward. This worked so well because the characters so totally sold it as real and you felt them dying inside as well as seeing them act awkward at that moment.

Here we have the conflicting aims of comedy and pain and the two don't sit well together. I got the sense that the US makers felt they wanted to do the UK version but that at the same time had a different vision for the show based on the US audience and also the different structure of the show (after all, the UK one was about 12 episodes total – not quite what the US networks expect from their shows). Perhaps it is better if you have never seen the original but the conflict can be seen in many areas but most noticeably in two key characters - Brent/Scott and Jim/Tim. Scott is very much a comedian who tries too hard and frequently falls flat, looking trapped by his own attempts at being "cool. Brent was similar but his character was much more convincing and real – a tiny man who one feels terrible pity for. Likewise Tim's pain and sense of being overwhelmed by the pointlessness of it all was palatable whereas Jim is far too perky and seems to be wearing it reasonably well.

Again this may be part of the longer game-plan as the development of characters over longer US seasons would be difficult if they arrived fully formed but it does the actors a bit of a disservice in this first season. Don't get me wrong though, the first season is still funny – even when it comes over as a bit of a lesser copy, it does still generate laughs and awkwardness. However it is best when it is creating new material totally and worrying less about getting everything the same as the UK original. This is encouraging because, with 4 or 5 seasons now made, it is clear that it must have become its own master now given how little source material there is. Here though it must be said that it is impossible to avoid the US/UK comparison because it is writ large across almost all of the six episodes and, in attempting the same thing, the US version does fall short of the mark – this is not protectionist sentiment, just the way it is.

The cast struggle by comparison because of the similarity. I think everyone is good enough to be able to raise their game when the show settles in but in this first season it is hard to avoid the sense of the cast not "getting it" in the way the original did. Again, I add the caveat of the longer game plan and the "pilot" nature of the first season but I cannot help say that Carell (who I like) is just not as good as Gervias at the pained stuff. He is at his best as the foolish clown but he cannot nail the inner emptiness and pathos that is what we all remember Brent for. Sadly the material makes this weakness more apparent. Wilson is a solid turn but again doesn't compare with the original. Krasinski offers more of a US sitcom role and I think will be good at this but again he struggles with trying to fit into the reproduced material while also having a less developed character. The only person of the whole cast who really nails the pained thing is Fischer as I totally believed the small deaths she suffered with every day in the office – she is excellent here.

Season 1 is generally funny and, if I had not seen the original then I would probably have liked it more. However it stays too close to the original, suffering by comparison and also never finding its own voice or direction. I think the potential is there though and will follow this with season 2 to see where it goes and what it does when it has to start to find its own way.


3 of 7 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Message Boards

Recent Posts
Jenna Fischer in season 4 rexcrk
Jim and Pam. He sure took long adrian-suniga
How many accountants does it take . . . ? ckanelevy
almost done! I'm on season 9 geecee2013
Love this show but.. DrBillHarford
of all the shows that i wish i could watch all over again whitwarren95
Discuss Hot Girl (2005) on the IMDb message boards »

Contribute to This Page