I don't always agree with critics, but this has a 42% positive among "top professional reviewers" at rotten tomatoes, meaning most reviewers paned this. And I agree it is in the 4/10 star neighborhood. PR flacks can organize shilling of "sexists man" votes, but the can't make a mediocre series better.
Rodger Ebert site panned it, as did Slant Mag, Hollywood reporter, Rolling Stone, Variety, NYTimes etc. The LA Times simply called it "Dull."
My experience with this watching three episode's was that it was utterly predictable and steadily cringeworthy. Ferrell is a talent but seemed to be sleepwalking or simply not wanting to be in the series. Rudd has always played the same moderate anxiety nebbish, and does here. That is fresh for about one minute.
Folks we are in the post-golden age of TV. Audiences are now used to sophisticated, quality entertainment, yet junk like this also manages to get made as well.
4/10 at best.
Rodger Ebert site panned it, as did Slant Mag, Hollywood reporter, Rolling Stone, Variety, NYTimes etc. The LA Times simply called it "Dull."
My experience with this watching three episode's was that it was utterly predictable and steadily cringeworthy. Ferrell is a talent but seemed to be sleepwalking or simply not wanting to be in the series. Rudd has always played the same moderate anxiety nebbish, and does here. That is fresh for about one minute.
Folks we are in the post-golden age of TV. Audiences are now used to sophisticated, quality entertainment, yet junk like this also manages to get made as well.
4/10 at best.