Not sure why Americans needed to remake an Aussie classic. It's an Aussie series with very Aussie humour. The nuance of the jokes don't translate into American humour. This show tries to replicate what it simply cannot. It should not have been made.
Add a Review
-
ventidiusrex6 March 2022
-
Dan-I-am12 October 2008Me being from Australia and loving the series, I wasn't expecting much from the American version of Kath and Kim but I thought I'd watch the first episode to see if it was really that bad.
Well,whats there to say. Its nothing special.Selma Blair is OK as Kim and actually had a few good lines, Molly Shannon is not a good Kath though. The good thing about Jane Turner's Kath is that when she speaks with all her funny accents (such as when she says Yumor or Noice) it sounds like its just the natural way that she speaks, but when Shannon has a go at the accent, its clear that she is acting and trying to be the same as Turner. And the show really misses Sharon or some one else to give us something to laugh about, because the Kal and Craig characters in this version are really not funny.
So far only the first episode has aired and it is clearly not up to the standards of the Aussie version, although if it was a stand alone television show with a different name, not being compared to the Aussie version it would perhaps be viewed as being a little bit better. But if there is nothing else to do on a Sunday night (or Thursday night in America) then you cant do much harm in watching it, or better put on some of the Aussie version if you've got it. -
I am a huge fan of the Aussie version of 'Kath & Kim', so I was a bit worried about how an American copy would turn out. And, true to form,they missed a lot of what made the original , well, original. A little too studied, not as fresh. I imagine that the 'thought police' were out in full force- where is the smoking, for a start? But I gave it a chance and it is not as bad as I expected. Molly Shannon is pretty good as Kath, but Selma Blair is not quite right for Kim. She has the languid behavior down, but not the utter selfishness, nor the weight issues. Teeny Selma missed the point. I got the feeling I was seeing 'acting', rather than real people behaving normally. Perhaps a bit of the old Hollywood-style elitism? That those who live in the suburbs are to be ridiculed rather than appreciated for their own style? We are meant to laugh at them and not with them. Part of the charm of the original, for Americans, are all the Aussie idioms, and I would have liked to see a bit more of that type of dialogue in the American version- we have our own quirks, too! Also, in the original, part of the fun was that the two were almost the same age. Selma Blair was too much the juvenile, age-wise. It took a while but I did warm up to this version on its own merit. The basic idea is still there. When you have to expand the season into so many more shows the writing seems to suffer. A shorter season usually means better shows. But,I would love to have a beer with the Aussie characters, odd though they are- just to see what they would come up with next-the Americans didn't come across as interesting or as compelling. A little too politically correct? Here's a radical idea- how about bringing American audiences the Aussie show?
-
lmidgley0528 April 2021Such a huge disappointment. There's no point in remaking a perfectly good aussie comedy. Us australians can never have our moment smh.
-
pdjmcphail22 October 2008The original Australian Kath & Kim is brilliant. Why do American producers need to remake & ruin yet another classic show? Remember the original version of "The Office" with Ricky Gervais, It was an absolute masterpiece, and there was no need to remake it. The producers said that the British humour from "The Office" and the Australian humour from "Kath & Kim" would not translate to an American audience......... WHAT??? So basically they are saying that Americans are too dumb and stupid to understand the jokes, so they need to remake the shows with over-the-top childish gags, so that the Americans can understand the humour. The original Australian version of Kath & Kim is fantastic and very funny. Avoid the American version like the plague!!
-
joisepeterson13 October 2008I watched the first episode and I found it to be a very wooden performance.
I have watched the original from it's early days on Big Girls Blouse to the last series on Channel seven. Kath and Kim was a great Mocumentary and it's humor is something that most people get.
However in this American version I found it to be dull, Molly Shannon is to fashionable to be Kath Day, Kath's wardrobe is supposed to be stuck in the 80s with her frizzy perm. While Selma Blair's figure hugging clothes isn't as good as what the original Kimmy wore. I also found that Selma seemed to be puffing her belly out a lot, she is obviously a (Australian) size 12 where Kim should be (Australian) a size 16/18.
The exchanges from Molly and Selma is obviously so scripted and there is pauses where there shouldn't be pauses or the pauses are a bit long, as someone suggested there could be a laughter track in there during those pauses. It's like Molly and Shannon are not used to each other, there is no Mother/Daughter chemistry.
Phil was okay he had the eccentric air around him like Kel. However Craig was to handsome and not the sweet plain humble Brett from the Aussie version.
I found watching this was like watching a very bad stage play. The acting was pretty much wooden and the exaggeration of Selma's expressions wore the funny off after ten minutes. Especially her sulking scenes.
To sum up, I find this show to be a waste of time, the script obviously has been dumbed down for Americans which most on the board say they prefer the original. If NBC wanted to show Kath and Kim why not pay the producers the money to screen the original.
All I can add is Magda you are one smart cookie for not letting the producers use your character of Sharon. -
being a die hard fan of the original Kath and Kim series I was curious, but shortly after literally disgusted at this attempt at a successful remake.
apparently the American producers wanted to remake it so that the audience of the USA could understand the 'Australian humour'. Not only does this make 'humour' sound like a cryptic code unless it's one liners thrown at canned laughter, it's not even difficult to understand the gags and humour of the original. I'm a British viewer, and enjoyed the original all the same. The only references made to the country really are Australian actors, actresses, athletes etc.
All of the original jokes, gags, recurring quotes from the original are either scarce or retold so badly through disgraceful delivery it didn't make a difference. The characters played off of one another in the original. The contrast between Kath and Kim was what made it so believable; they seemed like a true mother and daughter. Their petty bickering never got old. This isn't even evident here, as the actress who plays Kim's delivery is so poor and as dull as dishwater she sucks all the life out of the original, selfish Kim.
I'm not sure if this was an attempt at the USA version putting it's own twist on Kim, either way it was a diabolical choice. The acting from Kim was just dull and uninviting. Kath was slightly improved on this, but it doesn't work if the woman reacting from her insults and lines has the personality of a bit of dry wall.
I got through the first two episodes without seeing Sharon, checked the IMDb cast list and saw there was no Sharon. No. Sharon. Really? Her constant loyalty to Kim and Kim's brutishness to her was a key point of humour in the original.
The USA version is too polished - it's not the semi-shaky mockumetary style camera used in the original to present a seemingly funnily real family. It's over done, too false and glamorous.
I could honestly go on for hours, but I'll limit myself. The USA version is just a diluted, lifeless and just poor attempt at a remake. Original gags are scarce. Anything that even slightly resembled the humour of the first one is gone.
Just watch the original - Words can't explain how better it is. Me, my sister and mum all bond over the shows humour, it's funny, real, and just enjoyable. All of which doesn't exist in the new version. It's impossible not to compare them, but apparently American audiences want nothing more than lifeless one liners and be told when to laugh.
k&k USA: 1/10 - awful.
reasons: poor delivery and acting, humour diluted to an extent it's boring, lifeless jokes, lacks the character of the original. basically everything is wrong with it. -
darce8014 November 2008I really like this show. I have never seen the Australian version, so maybe that is why I enjoy it, since people seem to be saying it was better. But I think it is hilarious and I even like to watch each episode more the once. The four main characters are great, and I find myself laughing out loud several times. It is just very entertaining, pure and simple. Several of my friends who don't watch it say "it just looks stupid" but they are so wrong. It is very smart, and maybe the characters are supposed to be portrayed as sort of stupid, but the humor is certainly not stupid. Molly Shannon and Selma Blair have great chemistry together, and Shannon and John Michael Higgins are perfect together. Do yourself a favor and give this show a chance, it is great!
-
toddmondok120 November 2008Why do people always have to compare ...remakes to the original. Personally, I have never seen the Austrailian version of Kath and Kim...nor did i see the British version of Sanford and Son, and it was a 70's hit. I like the American version of the Office better, ...i'm not saying the British version is bad,...in fact is quite funny. None the less,..The Show was a bit slow, but there are their odd...uncomfortable moments that make for funny television. The fact that they don't realize how nuts/off base they are makes it better, I say give it time. Selma Blair is hot and Molly Shannon is as quirky as she was on Saturday Night Live. Remember Seinfeld got poor reviews in the beginning, and the acting was horrible and awkward,...but look what became of it.
-
Asteri-Atypical9 October 2008Hard to believe - but it is! I shouldn't be surprised. Commercials try to show how unique and "funny" a show can be. Yet not only didn't the commercials announcing this new show have the slightest iota of humor to me, I've not spoken with anyone who found the commercials amusing, either.
I don't recall ever seeing a pilot so devoid of cleverness, cuteness or humor. The characters were insufferable for the most part. Especially Selma Blair's (which is astonishing she would agree to be in a fecal sample of a show like this). The few moments where the characters were slightly redeemable were considerably hackneyed and trite.
Rare is the show with no redeemable qualities at all. And this is not one of them. Kath and Kim has exactly ONE redeeming quality - and that's Selma Blair. Despite wearing repugnant outfits and acting like a pitiful, whiny stupid excuse for a young woman who seems like a cross between Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, Selma is still nice to look at.
But if you want to look at Selma, go rent Hellboy. You'll at least maintain a modicum of respect for her instead of searing this abominable character into your brain to associate with her.
All in all, Kath and Kim is a waste and truly epitomizes the worst that TV is or ever has been. It sets a new low. -
I liked Kath and Kim, the Australian version, and I have two DVD sets which I can't watch in America because of the regional difference in my DVD player. The show is about mother, Kathleen Day, played by Molly Shannon, and her daughter Kimberly, played by Selma Blair. Both are somewhat self-centered, vain, and totally into themselves. The pilot opens up where after 6 weeks of marriage, Kim and Craig have split up because she won't do anything like cook for him. Kim thinks of herself as the trophy wife who doesn't have to do anything but things are done for her. It's part of how her mother Kath have spoiled her. In the Australian version, there was Sharon, an overweight enthusiastic athletic woman, who is Kim's best friend and ally. The show tries to maintain the quality but it's more Americanized for audiences. Kath falls for the guy who runs the sandwich shop and Kim and Craig try to repair their marriage. Now there is a lot of silliness and quirkiness but I say give it time to let them grow on you. You might like this show.
-
KUAlum2615 January 2009...but I came away pretty cool on this.
I have not seen any of the Australian sitcom that this show is based off of so I have no real way of comparing. I've checked the message boards and the comments and read enough remarks doing such and it seems in the majority that the original series is held in better esteem than this production.
What I can do is rate THIS show,and I must say that it seems to hold a fair swath of talent but seems to be uninterested in making itself particularly clever or very likable. Instead,it's just Molly Shannon(for whom I was very stoked to see back on television)and Selma Blair(maybe not quite as much)basically trading one-liners between two very vapid and dense characters and laboring VERY hard to be funny(all while modeling sexy,slinky Florida-inspired casual-wear). John Michael Higgins(as KAth,Shannon's character's earnest,sandwich store manager boyfriend)seems to shine the best,as his lines seem authentic and there's something likable,albeit in a nebbishy way. Mikey Day feels one-dimensional as Kim(Blair's character)'s ex-husband,though he can play stupid quite effectively. Maybe TOO much so.
NBC publicized the heck out of this,rolling the dice and as such,it seems to have crapped out at least for now. Maybe some writing re-tooling and character changes might infuse some inspiration here. Not really sure,and from what I've seen so far,not real certain I want to find out. -
windtar2 November 2008They tried but failed with this sitcom. I give it one season.
The show lacks comedy, lacks laughs, lacks chemistry between love interests and actually is quite irritating how they act. Stop the movie star references and gossiping, it don't work.
I haven't seen the Australian original series others say this was modeled after, so my opinion is based on what i've seen.
I have seen every episode so far, 5 i think, and have to say i feel it will be cancelled.
Molly Shannon seems like a lousy a mom, and Selma Blair is a absolutely rotten daughter that is so annoying, no one would put up with her.
I have to say i enjoy molly shannons boyfriend character, i like his style.
Selma blairs husband is OK, but no way would he put up with a wife like her. Selmas characer is way way way to stuck up and witchy for the show.
It needs HUMOR !! simple I'm curious who watches this show faithfully, because i can't see too many gujys watching it, and i'd think woman over 50 crowd wouldn't enjoy.
it's worth a watch if there's nothing else on, but if there's a different comedy sitcom on opposite this show, choose the other. -
nikki_fun_die27 October 2008Need I say more? The reason the GOOD Australian version of Kath and Kim was, as mentioned, good, was because of it's hilariously funny originality. The reason this new American-ised version is so terrible is because a lot of it is taken straight from the original. Not to mention the unfaithfulness to the characters. Kath is meant to be a dag. Kim is meant to be fat. Kel (or Phil as they have dubbed him) is meant to be pathetic. Brett (or Craig) is meant to be a loser, not a person who acts like he's on heroin and finishes every sentence with 'dude'. Thank God Szubanski didn't sell her rights to Sharon, she'd probably end up being a tall thin blonde who Kim likes.
Kath and Kim are MOTHER AND DAUGHTER. They are not meant to look 2 years apart. And they are not meant to giggle like school girls. This show is a disgrace to even share the same title as the Australian version. America: get your own television shows. -
kathrinchow31 January 2021Dreadful attempt, once again, from American producers to remake brilliant comedies.. this time from Australia. They try to remake UK comedy as well. These remakes always flop! Always.
-
billfitch730 April 2009The best thing I can say about the American version is that Jane Turner and Gina Reilly must be raking in the royalties for this crap. Yes, the American rip-off was shown for about two episodes in Australia but it didn't rate. It was probably only seen by curious viewers who were wondering how bad it would be. Answer: it's DEPLORABLE, a complete waste of time. The actors are relatively unknown and they don't take readily to the nuances of the Australian-written script. Bad luck for them as they are doomed to plummet with this turkey. My advice to USA viewers is DON'T. I feel very sorry for the reviewer in Denmark, above. Anybody else giving the American version a favorable report: I can only assume that you're shagging the producer's mother.
Americans should be best advised to find DVD's of the ORIGINAL VERSION on eBay, but be aware that some DVDs are in a different 'zone format' to those issued in the USA. Otherwise, some DVD players will operate discs from both/all zones. -
rsre4-15 December 2008I've tried watching it twice, though I haven't been able to make through either episode. For me, it's basically just not funny. I can tell where I'm suppose to laugh, but I can't. I've never seen the original, so I'm not comparing. I also love comedies, including off-the-wall comedies like Married...With Children and Family Guy, but this show just doesn't' do it for me. The jokes are lame and flat, and the acting is mostly annoying. The commercials made it look interesting, but it isn't. They're trying too hard to be different, and tying to force the humor. That style usually doesn't work too well. I don't think this show finishes the season. Of course, I could be wrong.
-
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews1 November 2009I have not watched the Australian original, but I'm thinking it's a safe bet to say that it was superior to this. As a matter of fact, I don't think it's hyperbole to nominate this for the worst comedy show on TV. The 18 moronic episodes(of the bunch, there is maybe one brief moment that started to redeem the rest, that's it) are all so bland that once you've seen one, you've seen them all. Almost every character is intolerable, one-note(they came up with just a couple of types, then repeated them ad nauseum), shallow and stupid to the point where it causes physical pain for the viewer and those in the immediate vicinity. Many of them mispronounce words and sayings, and care first and foremost about fashion and celebrities. Oh, and they're trashy. Did you get all that? That's all of the material. I'm not kidding, nearly every joke is about that. By far the worst is Blair, who's the most developed, meaning, she has more negative qualities than the others. She's an irresponsible brat who causes problems for others. Isn't that hilarious? The acting is good. So's editing and cinematography. Meanwhile, the content is still terrible and repetitive. The one positive about this series would have to be that you can usually count on the two female leads(Selma in particular) parading around in skimpy outfits, looking hot. Finally, can someone tell me how John Michael Higgins keeps finding work? OK, he was great in Best in Show, I'll grant that. But that's the only time he's gotten even a chuckle out of me. Is it just that this humor is not for me? I recommend this to anyone who finds what I've described appealing. For anyone else, don't say I didn't warn you. 5/10
-
oliviadrab-111 October 2008The writers of this series, which is an American remake of an Australian sitcom, have middle suburbia pegged. As a person who ran away from a middle class suburban environment, I was overjoyed to see it made fun of so brilliantly. Selma Blair was awesome as the spoiled, bratty daughter and it was great to see Molly Shannon in a role that she made all hers. I think it may make some people uncomfortable because it is highly reflective. If you have ever lived in a world where malls were king, portraits are made (without irony) at Glamour Shots, exercise equipment is frequently purchased from television commercials, the nicest restaurant in town is Applebees, and you really hated it, Kath and Kim will be funny. If you've never lived in that environment, but wanted to know what it was like, consider Kath and Kim as a brilliant social study. I am so excited to see a truly funny sitcom on television, considering so many have lost their good writers.
-
Togmonity18 October 2008I am willing to give it a chance because it's different and doesn't have a ridiculous laugh track. However, I do think it could be improved if they could make me care about the characters a little bit more. They're pretty 'flat' at this point. Not that this show is meant to be deep or meaningful, but I do wish the characters would develop a little (or show the potential to develop). Right now it's pretty forgetful and not witty. I will give it two more episodes and if it doesn't improve too much, that will probably be it. Someone else mentioned the word wooden and I think that's a pretty good description. Although, I do like Selma Blair and think she plays the pouty daughter really well.
-
edfmc30 October 2008There is something about this show that keeps me watching and hoping for the future of it. In the writing, the jokes are few and far between, and the story lines are a bore, so I figure it must be the physical comedy and the visuals.
I do enjoy the camera movement, set dressing, and wardrobe. It's amusingly highly contrasted against the dullness that reigns. And I'm pretty sure every time I have laughed it was because of John or Molly's physical comedy. The two of them make a sickeningly cute couple that make me laugh and want to puke at the same time.
So here I go ready to sit down to Kath & Kim one more time tonight to see what path this production will go down (or up as the case may be, looking forward positively). -
bob-rutzel-111 October 2008Finally, a comedy that is actually funny. The interplay between mother and daughter is right on with a new wrinkle added.... a lot: as they argue one will stop and verbally admire something about the other's wardrobe or some such, and then they go back to the argument. Very clever. No malice intended and I like that.
There is a basic honesty in the writing and this produces funny lines. And, Kim's facial expressions are very good too and say a lot.
As for Kath, she has the Barbara Stanwick sort of style and even resembles Stanwick somewhat. Or Tea Leone, take your pick. Let's go with Stanwick.
Just hope the good stuff doesn't bogg itself down like many sitcoms that seem to need the weepy stuff once in a while. We are hoping to have a comedy and we don't need the weepy stuff. -
SnoopyStyle30 August 2013Kath (Molly Shannon) and Kim Day (Selma Blair) are a wacky mother and daughter pairing. Phil Knight (John Michael Higgins) and Craig Baker (Mikey Day) are their romantic love interests.
This is a Australian transplant of a wacky mother-daughter TV comedy. And with that, there was a lot of whining from fans of the original. Inevitably, the US has prettier people and loses some of its edgier elements. Shannon and Blair work well together, and have enough comedic skills to pull it off. Higgins is hilarious and off beat. Day pales in comparison. There is a wacky show here but it's somewhat uneven. It lasted 17 episodes. If only people forget about the Australian original, this might have had a chance. -
rhyscooper828 December 2008It isn't TOO bad, but ultimately it lacks the quality that the Australian series has.
The jokes are few and far between, the actors are attractive (they shouldn't be), the film makers think far too much about the cinematography (it's supposed to look like a home video) and it's just like a serious version of Kath and Kim... it's stupid.
It's too normal to be Kath and Kim. Kath and Kim are supposed to be two curvy, middle-aged women who think they are hot and wear ridiculous clothes. There are no "Look at me Kimmy!" jokes. The fat friend of Kim is not fat at all and she's not even slightly stupid. She's a stereotypical black/Latino chick.
It's just not as stupid or funny as the Australian series. It doesn't compare. Nothing is the same. I admit, this show is pretty funny at times, but it is NOT anything like the Aussie series. I was looking forward to an American take on a bogan family. They failed. It's supposed to be REALLY stupid and hilarious, but the actors don't act stupid! To me, this is just a typical American TV show. It's a let down if you want it to be anything like the Aussie show.
2 Stars because it is an OKAY show, just nothing like what it should be. -
aisha_mail201125 June 2013On one of the episodes the man ask the daughter when she got married what she does. Her respond was "I'm a trophy wife". What in the world is she talking about? And who in real life call themselves that? Who writes these movies. I'm sorry but she sure isn't a "trophy". Why can't someone who's the real "trophy wife" call themselves that. She never seems happy, and it isn't like she's overly attractive or anything. She's just normal. They all say she's hot. People consider all 20 years old hot. And why does people want to be a trophy? Do you know what a trophy is? It when someone's see you as an sex object. Why would you want to be a sex object? This is the lamest movie I ever seen.