PodBill Just what I expected

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Charles Herold (cherold) I only watched the first episode - some people claim the show improved somewhat by the time it was canceled a couple of episodes later - but wow, that first episode was pretty disastrous.Written by Amy Sherman-Palladino, whose work on the Gilmore Girls was brilliant, and starring talented "indie queen" Parker Posey, on paper this was going to be great. But it wasn't. Posey's performance is shrill and brittle; she acts the whole episode as though she has realized she is in a bomb and hopes that if she talks loud enough and fast enough people won't notice. And while the writing isn't terrible, it's not especially funny.Which leads us to the laugh track. There is perhaps nothing so destructive to low-key witticisms than a boisterous laugh track. Sherman-Palladino is not a sitcom writer, and trying to persuade the public that she is by dropping huge laughs on every wry remark or deprecating comment just makes the show seem to be full of unfunny jokes. I had a similar reaction of Sports Night, another show where dry wit combined with loud laughs created nothing but dissonance (although my reaction to that show wasn't nearly as negative as my reaction to Jezebel James).So, if Posey were calmer and the laugh track were gone, would the show have been good? Maybe. I would be curious to see Jezebel James sans laugh track with Posey replaced by, say, Lauren Graham. My gut feeling is that it still wouldn't have worked - that Amy just couldn't find the rhythm of the half-hour sitcom - but I'm not sure. All I am sure of is that the network executive who insisted the show have a laugh track should have been demoted to a janitorial position.

pancake_repairman i'm kinda surprised Posey and Sherman didn't fight the laugh track to their death. it's the main thing that confuses the tone of the show and probably contributed the most to the bad reviews. i expect theatre critics would be kinder to the show. many scenes seem more written for the stage than the screen, apparently another thing the audience has trouble accepting or comprehending. the show does have lulls, a lack of character depth, and reaches for unearned dramatic moments, but however flawed the presentation of ideas is, the ideas are at least present, there is at least some value placed on originality and creativity which is more than i can say for most shows.

Emma Givens While Gilmore Girls can never be beat, it's great that Amy Sherman Palladino is still making good t.v. shows. Obviously nothing tops Lorelei and Rory's incredible personalities, so Amy seems to have incorporated some of their quirks into the characters of 'The Return of Jezebel James'. There are many similarities in the characters and relationships to those in Gilmore Girls, starting even in the second episode with the fact that Sarah is crazy about Hello Kitty. Parker Posey even looks like Lorelei. Coco is very much a Rory to Sarah. Many of the lines and situations in 'Jezebel' could very easily have been in Gilmore Girls as well.The on screen chemistry looks slightly just like that; ON SCREEN. You can tell that they are acting, unlike in Gilmore Girls where the chemistry between all of the characters seems real. The worst thing about Palladino's new show is the laugh track. It kills anything funny! I'm sure that 'The Return of Jezebel James' would be a much better t.v. show without the uncomfortable fake laughter. It's just not 'Two and a Half Men'. 'Jezebel' is meant to be in the same style as Gilmore Girls, with the viewer's laughter only. Maybe the laugh track is there to try and separate Jezebel from the Gimore's. In summary: lose the laugh track. Over all, if 'The Return of Jezebel James' becomes better over the episodes, it may be a show worth watching every once in a while. Let's give it a chance.

rlurda I'm a huge fan of Gilmore Girls and a huge part of my fanship (fandom? I'm not sure how to verbinate "being a fan of") is the dialogue: quicked-witted and intensely smart, it appealed to me on a fairly deep level. More than that, there was a real sense of character to back up not only Lorelai and Rory that made them more than just cardboard cut-out clichés. There was heart as much as there was humor so naturally I expected to find the same things in Amy Sherman-Palladino's newest show. But as anyone can attest, you can give the likes of Shakespeare to an ill-equipped actor and it will come off as clumsy. Whether or not it's the fault of Amy having phoned in a script that seems like it was culled from dropped scripts of GG, the show just doesn't work. Fact of the matter is that Parker Posey is a horrible stand-in for Lauren Graham's comedic talents and Posey seems to be overacting the material in front of her when the brilliance of AS-P's writing is that the jokes work best when the only laughing is from the viewer and not the "live studio audience". The laugh track *kills* the humor in the show.What's more is that the dynamic between Sarah (Posey) and her on-screen younger sister Coco feels like it was transplanted haphazardly from Gilmore Girls, with Coco acting the role of Rory. It's infuriating because it feels like AS-P got lazy and went for the cheap laugh. I rate this show poorly because I feel that Amy Sherman-Palladino had the chance to follow up the six years of Gilmore Girls she was present for with another hit and that instead she delivered a thinly veiled insult to television audiences en masse.