The Michael Richards Show

Can someone please explain to me why this show was greeted with so much hostility? Everyone in America ostensibly loved the character of Kramer on "Seinfeld," the number one show on TV when it ended in 1998. When "The Michael Richards Show" premiered two seasons later, critics and viewers were waiting with bibs on and knives raised... they called it "horrible," "terrible," and refused to watch it. With that type of public sentiment its no surprise the show only lasted seven episodes.

"The Michael Richards Show" was good... sometimes great. I loved him from his brilliant physicality on Seinfeld but before that as retarded janitor Stanley Spadowski in "UHF" and as the Bow-Tie Killer in "Problem Child." TMRS featured not only Richards and a colorful ensemble cast but- best yet- the writers from "Seinfeld"! (Including Spike Feresten, Gregg Kavet & Andy Robin) Sure, Richards was basically playing Kramer but the premise of him as a private detective allowed him to get into a wide variety of physical and comical jams. The writing was always smart, never cheap sitcom humor, and like Seinfeld every episode featured multiple story lines. In one episode the elderly Bill Cobb is particularly mean to Tim Meadows... when Meadows asks Richards for advice Richards informs him that Cobb has "death grumpiness," an ailment that all old people get just before they die. Meadows goes through the rest of the episode treating Cobb like a fragile baby, telling him how much he loves him and how much he's going to miss him. The old crank, of course, has no idea what's going on. It was hilarious.

Was TMRS television's greatest product? No. Should the show have gone on another 8 seasons? Never. Was it a funny and intelligent series that deserved better treatment from fans and critics? Absolutely. If they release the DVD you'll see what I mean.

GRADE: B+

It was okay. It had lots of potential. I think they should have called it something other than "The Michael Richards Show" and maybe didn't have one main charactar, like Friends (which doesn't have any one main charactar, but focuses on all the cast) It would have been done quite successfully. Because it really was funny, but had too many flaws. Oh well :(

I expected to see a lot more from the series premiere of the Michael Richards show. All of the actors, who are all quite seasoned, did a very shabby job. Especially Mr.Devane. Tim Meadows also didn't give us much in the way of a character, just a lot of meaningless lines. And Mr.Richards himself- I was quite disappointed, he wasn't funny, he tried to be and failed, which is the worst type! To me the writing is one punchline after the other, but the most irritating part of the whole show was the very loud and very untimely laugh tracks. I will continue to watch, praying that it gets better.

Michael Richards is a hugely talented comic actor, who stole almost every scene as Cosmo Kramer on "Seinfeld." He is one of the best physical comics out there, and one day I hope he will hit it big in either TV or the movies (hopefully he'll make more comedies like "UHF" and "Unstrung Heroes" and not ones like the hugely disappointing "Trial and Error"). But this show is as lame as can be! And I guess the creators thought it would add flair to assemble one of the biggest ensemble casts in sitcom history. That way Tim Meadows, William Devane and Bill Cobbs can have equal time at wasting their talents. As Robert DeNiro said in "A Bronx Tale," "There's nothing worse than wasted talent." "The Michael Richards Show" is a prime example.

My score: 2 (out of 10)

My wife and I loved this show. I thought it was absolutely hysterical, and Tim Meadows shined here as well (compared to his mundane SNL stint). I'm saddened to hear that the show was cancelled. It was a terrific sitcom, very funny and very smart.