Are You There, Chelsea?

I liked that girl on "That 70s Show." But in this show, she acts just like herself. She has Chelsea Handler's flat tone down (because it's her own tone as well) but it's like she's trying to be so cool and hard. She doesn't exhibit any of Handler's happy-go-lucky, chuckling, self-deprecating crassness. I'm watching this week's episode (01x08). She just said, "Wiggling, my friend. Wiggling." The real Chelsea would totally say that, but not the way that girl did. Sorry I don't know her name. This could be a lot better if she had the character down a little better. I dunno, it's just disappointing when we love the real Chelsea so much.

It's unfortunate that the network made the mistake of thinking they needed a young twenty something to make this show marketable.

Chelsea Handler has a rather unique ill-reverent comedy style that is as much about her demeanor as it is about the jokes.

Laura Prepon is absolutely nothing like Chelsea. The timing and delivery of the material is twisted into something completely different. Ms. Prepon has struggled to recapture her success on "That 70s Show"

In this critics opinion Her problem is two fold. She is far more ascetically attractive than she is talented. Perhaps she would do better as a "picture" model. That way we could enjoy her beauty without having to listen to her unflattering...(mannish?) voice.

This show might be saved if instead of having Prepon as the lead, they could write the story from the older sister's point of view. The older sister played by Chelsea Handler. That way Handler could carry the show the way it should have been presented in the first place.

Yawn!! Very disappointing comedy sitcom. There is nothing new written here just a lot of smutty corny jokes. It was flat and unlaughable.

Though I really like Laura Prepon and she was great in 'The 70's Show' she was not good in this. Whoever wrote this has no humour whatsoever!! Its disgusting and shaming to revert to toilet humour to try and get some laughs... they are NOT FUNNY at all. Its cheap, nasty, and badly written and acted.

And so fed up with seeing young women act like mindless bimbo's.

For goodness sake, keep this rubbish off the TV and give us something way better then filthy jokes.

The decor in her apartment was more interesting.

Where do I begin? Laura Prepon couldn't act her way out of a box; the timing and delivery of whatever comedic value there is in the writing is completely lost when it falls limply out of her mouth.

Some of the acting is so bad that I'm in disbelief they wouldn't have done another take; I think they must have filmed the pilot in almost realtime.

The show seems like it was written by a team of 17 year olds. The characters unbelievable, unlikeable, generic cookie cutter stereotypes with about as much attitude as a loaf of bread.

This is probably one of the worst shows on television at the moment.

I guess many of the negative reviewers have never heard of exposition. The first episode is expected to be a little light on jokes because it requires characters, settings, and backgrounds to be explained. The supporting cast is a bunch of circus freaks, which is a plus. The jokes Chelsea bookended on the end of the scenes for obligatory exposition were all very good. While it's too early to make an early good or bad conclusion (in spite of other reviewers' predeterminations), I'm definitely interested.

If anything, Are You There, Chelsea? could end up killing Whitney (a brutally unfunny show that's trying to be Friends...again) because it's actually funny. Hopefully, Whitney won't kill this show by preceding it.