Clueless (1996–1999) User Reviews (23)

Movie was Austen but TV was Hannah Montana

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 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.

Blanchard's the biggest problem

[sjbradford · 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.

Doomed from the start.

[calemiller-75547 · 1/10 · 20 January 2023]

How. How. One more time.... How did they think this would be successful without Alicia Silverstone and Paul Rudd... clueless isn't clueless without those two great performances. I can understand trying from scratch somewhere down the road but right after the movie you cannot do that bc Alicia Silverstone cannot be replaced I mean that is your main character you're replacing. You manage to bring back so many characters from the movie WITH THEIR SAME ACTORS. There is just no way you can expect you to be successful if you replace your main lead actor. I hate when actors get recasted movie and to me this is no different because you're expecting everyone to like your show when you don't even have the main characters actor that everyone fell in love with to begin with.

Stacey Dash Actually Used to Have a Career

[nafps · 4/10 · 6 April 2023]

Once upon a time, she was actually funny too. In both the film and the first year of this series. She wouldn't turn into a professional token for right wingers for years, and then that sad little turn of events fell apart too.

Donald Faison was years away from a near decade as Turk on Scrubs. The two of them as foils are the main reason to see this series.

For the first year only. As most other reviews note, the series went into the toilet its final two years on another network, one that was clueless (yes you knew it was coming) about where the source of the humor was on the set.

Nowadays, the laughs surrounding Dash are at her, not with her.

Cool Show

[mlaughlin22 · 10/10 · 14 May 2006]

I liked it a lot, some of the special episodes was a bit preachy. I like Rachel since "Dont Be afraid of the Dark" on NICK. The reason the first Mel left , He went to Film "Godzilla" I think? There could've been a Darren Stevens Joke when the season began but the writers had Cher say He lost weight. The Tim Conway ones are funny first a Shop Teacher then a Exterminater. Rachel looked darn good

in those outfits She wore.Noggin puts the Show on 3am now and it should be on in the afternoon seems like they skip a lot of shows on that network.Dionne and Amber insults always cracked Me up. The P.C. Christmas Show was funny and the 2 part Halloween too. Amber was on "Sabrina" a couple years cause the Irony that Sabrina was on one of the shows on the end and confuses Cher. Stacy made some movies, I have know ideal what She is doing now??

left Clueless because I haven't really seen it

[RavenGlamDVDCollector · 8/10 · 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!

{update, 27 July 2017, I'm currently spicing up the episode entries with Quotes. With what little I have downloaded, so, limited. Have recently learned it's a musical clearance problem withholding DVD release}

A great low key tribute to a hilarious classic

[yicktar2 · 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.

Echoes of past sitcom greatness

[blanchardp · 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.

Watch the movie instead!

[xxlittlekittenxx · 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.

oh dear oh dear oh dear

[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.

A stylish "Saved by the Bell"

[Clay-Pigeon · 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.

Give this show a chance

[kenny_c_hueholt · 9 December 2001]

I actually like the sitcom better than the movie. I don't know why so many people weren't that into this. One thing that makes this show great is it's more wholesome than the movie was. (Most episodes of the TV series are rated G, the movie was PG-13) As for the comparison between Alicia Silverstone and Rachel Blanchard, come on the two of them look almost exactly a like. If you stood them next to each other, could you honestly tell the difference? I'll bet the two of them are somehow related. The only problem I have is when they replaced Michael Learner with Doug Sheehan as Mel Horowitz. The two of them have nothing in common whatsoever. Other than that, this is a great show.

A full on Monet...

[Duch-ess · 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.

Pleasant way to spend your time

[jmatrixrenegade · 10 July 2003]

This is a pleasant television show ... nothing much, mildly amusing, and having likeable characters. This is quite acceptable UPN/WB type fare and is superior to some of the "comedies" on the air these days (think CBS on Monday) I don't know why some dis the tv Cher, who does a good job, and surely reminds one of the movie Cher. The other main characters (both dads have their charms) are fine, though Amber at times seems to be going through the "Amber" motions.

It should be remembered guys, especially all you adult fans of the show, the Stacey Dash (Dionne) wasn't a teen in real life in the movie, and surely wasn't a few years later. Thus, it is not "perverted" or anything to know she looks sexy in that bikini in the opening credits.

Writing ... mixed. Some of the episodes are pretty good ... some even touching. One problem is that there is not enough teen/"Clueless" speak ... we need more "as if" material.

-j

Great Sit-Com

[BexleyRy · 2 November 2000]

This show is one of the funniest sit-coms on TV. It's really hard for me to explain. The show is obviously not of Seinfeld quality but everytime I watch the show I laugh my a** off. I love it and hope that the WB keeps showing it for a long time.

The Directors/Producers are NOT clueless

[Peridot · 28 December 1999]

Even though this tv series may not be as good as the blockbuster film it still has many highlights. First of all it isn't like all those other stupid, superficial, predictable lame preteen/teen US sitcoms. Every Saturday morning from about 10am-12pm in Sydney, Australia these imported US sitcoms (albeit 2-3 years late) are screened, and the only decent one has been "Clueless". "USA High", "Saved by the bell", "Saved by the bell the new class", "Hang time" etc are all so lame and the ending is predictable 99% of the time. "USA high" is extra lame because of all those stupid fake accents. AARRGGHH!! And on every show there has to be some short/ugly/stupid/immature and/or fat guy that everyone makes fun of. .. wait, what am I saying? "Clueless" has that guy too (Sean). Anyway, I think the satire and witty lines are what makes the show special but most importantly DIFFERENT to any other show in the teenybopper age group. ... and I'm sure it's had far more success than many other spin-offs. I wish they didn't kill off the first Mel though :( Unless you are the very cynical/negative type, you might actually enjoy the show if you give it a try (even if you're not under 15 years old).

A really dope tv-series

[Agnes-12 · 27 November 1998]

HI!!! For those of you who isn't into Cher-speak, dope means cool or fabulous. I watch Clueless almost every time it`s on tv, and I think it`s a really cool, stylish, sassy and funny series! I have to admit that the movie was a bit better than the tv-series. But it`s just as funny and has sooo many cool clothes and colors. That`s all I have to say about Clueless, it`s really worth a look!!!! I`m outti!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

[TMC-4 · 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.

Which episode was it???

[snoopygurll · 5 December 2003]

OK, I never watched this show before, but I happened across part of an episode in reruns quite a while back and saw something that I found to be HILARIOUS!

I don't know what episode it was, or what it was supposed to be about... all I know is that the kids were somewhere with this French restaurant in the background and the restaurant was called Chez Verbush! (In case you didn't get that it would be pronounced "shay verbush", as in "shave her bush")

Um, hello?!?!? Either the censors didn't catch this or they let it go thinking no one would notice? Well, I did and it was just the best part of the show. I cracked up! Unfortunately no one was at home with me to enjoy it and I have never even seen the show on TV since. :(

I wish I knew what the rest of the plot of the was so I could try to find that episode. (My boyfriend is DYING to see it. He loves hidden stuff like that.)

Anywho... if you know what I'm talking about please post a message & let me know. Thanks!! :)

Better than the movie? As if!

[Victor Field · 24 February 2002]

"Clueless," the movie, was a warm, clever, pointed and hilarious teen comedy that belied its title; "Clueless," the series, gradually lived up to it. The title, not the movie.

The first series benefitted from Amy Heckerling being more actively involved and from having a cast closer to the movie's (including Elisa Donovan, Stacey Dash, Twink Caplan and Wallace Shawn reprising their roles - plus Brittany Murphy appearing in one episode in a different role from the one she had in the movie); but as time went by the show became more like the sort of thing it sent up, with the rot setting in during the UPN years (seasons two and three). More predictable, more syrupy, and less sharp in the writing (the first season didn't need any jokes about how the characters would be in their mid-20s - "Just old enough to play teenagers on TV" - to be witty); when Dionne (Stacey Dash) sang on camera in one season the writing was on the wall.

Whereas Alicia Silverstone was very definitely the star of the movie, her substitute Rachel Blanchard was consistently upstaged by Elisa Donovan; and the inclusion of issue-centred episodes, though well-intentioned, just made the show seem even more like a departure from what it was. Perhaps it should have remained cancelled after the first season; although "Clueless" still ranks above "Running the Halls" and "Student Bodies," the lack of a laugh track is the only thing it shares with truly classy efforts like "The Wonder Years" and "Malcolm in the Middle."

Watchable? Missable? What-EVER...!

Major let-down - I'm postal!

[starlett_star · 24 October 2001]

As the movie Clueless (1995) is one of my favourite movies ever i was looking foward to a fantastic T.V show based on the movie. It was a big dissapointment to see that the T.V show was nothing like the movie at all. It lacked the acting talents of Alicia Silverstone as "Cher" and every storyline was ruined due to poor acting and directing. It was such as shame to see a great idea go to waste. I went so postal after seeing some of the episodes of the T.V show - i never want to watch it again as it just pains me too much.

Heavy-Handed

[TMC-4 · 27 November 1999]

It seemed like this show tried to mix together different styles. It tried to be a satire of life in Beverly Hills, California while at the same time, have a tendency of introducing semi-serious issues (i.e. smoking, teenage pregancy, drunk driving, etc.). But when these issues were presented, the show would fall into cliches by having the characters appear in some type of public service announcement (preaching to the viewer towards why these things are wrong). References to popular culture was probably something that Clueless had to fall back on. But somehow, the jokes in large part felt flat (perhaps the acting was a bit amateurish from time to time). What sounded like high violin riffs (which would come at a frequent basis) apparently replaced a laugh track. Not to mention that the web site was shamelessly promoted occasionally during episodes.

What's with all the Colors???

[RomanSeano · 15 April 2003]

The most noticeable stand-out of this series was not the acting or the writing, but the production values - or lack thereof. For some reason, the Clueless TV series - unlike the movie - opted to be an homage to the 70's, with a blinding array of mixed pastels everywhere. Never an earth-tone to be found. Conversely, the styles in the Clueless movie were late-80's inspired; creative, attractive, and appropriately unique to each character. The look of the TV series was homogenized, yet gawdy and distracting. But I guess that distraction might have been their goal....

Rachel Blanchard, or "Fake Cher" - what an awful facsimile of Alicia Silverstone. Rachel's Cher, unlike Alicia's, came off as passive and annoying; she was now a self-indulgent bore. What happened to the energy and drive that made Cher so likeable, in spite of her spoiled nature? All of that subtext was lost, and in Alicia's Cher, the subtext was where it was all at. The storylines were dumbed down for pre-teens and characters were sacrificed to fit the mold (for example, Alisa Donovan's Amber playing nice-nice with Cher and Dionne).

An intelligent, witty, and truly compelling comedy had transformed into one big joke. Sadly, Nogin has added Clueless to it's night-time line-up - exposing countless teens to this multi-colored mess. It's too bad this TV-mockery of the Clueless movie wasn't laid to rest once and for all.