Kevin Hill

In response to Sookie55's comment on the casting change for the baby, the reasons have nothing to do with the colour of the baby's skin. First of all, the pilot was shot over 6 months ago. So even though the first two episodes are one week apart, the baby would be 16 months old, instead of 10. There is a big difference between a 10 and 16 month old baby. Second of all, the change may also have had to do with money. Since the pilot was shot to see if the show would be picked up, the cast could re-negotiate their fees when it was. Some changes were made, example: Kevin Hill's 2nd friend in the first episode no longer exists. Since I live in Canada, I'll have to wait for CTV to pick it up, however the first two episodes which a friend taped for me were excellent. I'm looking forward to the rest.

What's the deal with the ever "changing" baby? Last night's episode (5/4/2005) the one with guest star Toni Braxton, must have had 2 or 3 different babies. It was so obvious. In the scene where Taye Diggs takes the baby to get her hair done, he goes in with one baby, turns around and it's a different baby and by the time they show the baby with her new hairdo it's the original Sara. I know they generally have identical twins portraying any baby or toddler character. This was just so odd. In all of the shows that I have watched I have never seen that done before. For those old enough to remember, it was sort of like the "Darrin" switch on Bewitched.

Sorry all you Kevin Hill fans, but this has got to be the lamest ripoff of an old TV-show ("Family Affairs") I have seen. Plastic people in a plastic box just doesn't do it, if you know what I mean. The character Kevin Hill is much too two-dimensional to create any passions one way or the other, and the entire cast seems to be a bit lost through each and every episode. There are lots of admiring ladies (becomes boring when repeated)and Kevins' confused male friends are completely in the woods and clueless. "Kevin Hill" is also a success in the category of "The Most Boring Score Ever Composed for a TV-Show". Why is it that the writers of these quasi-modern TV-shows assume that the public is interested of mediocrity?

Baby boom was bad enough, basically making a series of every straight mans nightmare is worse. Yeah watched a few always made me feel better after a bad day, it reminded me it could be worse. Guy was rich successful, single(smart man), and dating celebs from singers to actresses, then his screw up of a cousin dumps his biggest mistake on him. In reality it would have been straight to foster care I'm sure, this was definitely a chic series. Oh and what's all the wining about the baby change, most the time it's probably a doll besides at that age it's nothing more than a prop anyways.

Any case I'm glad it didn't last more than a year.

At the least some of the sitcoms that churn endlessly out of the US are honestly bad. This junk, however, portrays a "heart warming" parenty side to a clothes horse. Acting laughably "learnt" with glances and phrases delivered in the "I'm SO important and thin and beautiful" fashion. In the episode I just sat agog through, someone's "job" was at risk simply because a colleague had "placed" a phone call, slagging her capabilities off ... !! Really, this is the lowest of the low. What kind of damage does this foist on the watching masses, seeing only glitzy glam-puss people parading around "working". Utterly sick making. When the titles rolled, I thought, oh well, it provided jobs for the boys. You know who you are.