Retired at 35 (TV Series 2011–2012) Poster

(2011–2012)

User Reviews

Review this title
16 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Retire this Show...If It Doesn't Improve-Retired At 35 **
edwagreen20 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The premise is silly. A guy from N.Y. visits his parents in Florida and winds up quitting his job to stay there. What is he doing, becoming part of the Medicare jet-set?

All of a sudden, Jessica Walter, the mother, is separated from her husband, George Segal. Then, we get to setting up Segal with a date from Bingo. When he balks at this, the son comes in and then the father is interested in the woman. What's even crazier is who the daughter of the woman turns out to be.

Too much criss-crossing here. At 35, our guy is not ready for retirement and it will be hard to dig up material to keep this premise going. Of course, he can always find work down in Florida. What's the unemployment rate there? If the show continues like this, expect the cast to join the unemployment line as well.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A fist full of... crap
fortress11131 January 2011
The premise is a young executive son moving back in with his parents. The cast is wonderful... with the exception of one actor... the lead (Johnathan McClain) who is just God awful in comedy... it just does not work. And what a wonderful backing cast... all with talent, all who CAN act. McClain lacks the interpretation, the timing, the physical comedy cues that make a great lead actor in a great sitcom.

McClain appears about 20 years too young for the lead role of "Dave." George Segal, playing his father, looks about 40 years older than the son... too bad they did not cast Clark Gregg from "New Adventures Of Old Christine" for example in the role... a Bob Newhart kind of character actor who could carry this role off. Matthew Perry would of course be the perfect ideal lead actor in this series, but I imagine his asking price is about a million an episode as of this writing. Average sitcom writing, great acting by all except for the atrocious McClain.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Do you wonder why it scored less than 5 out 10?
rikkybell-890469 November 2022
The show has some promise in a "not to root for" kind of way but I was desperate. But when the main character sleeps with his love interest's mom/his father's soon to be girlfriend, that was when I knew it wasn't going to score higher than a 3. But I was still hopeful thinking it'll be a 3. It went ahead to prove that no matter how bored you, there are shows that are just not worth watching.

They put a bunch of great actors together to star in a useless shows. And yes I turned off my tv and headed straight to IMDB

It went ahead to prove that no matter how bored you, there are shows that are just not worth watching.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This show is just awful
JMC471121 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The latest new sitcom from TV Land, Retired at 35 revolves around David, a harried executive whose company manufactures "food-related wood products" (toothpicks, Popsicle sticks, etc.). On a visit to his parents in Florida, the constant interruptions of his mother's birthday party by David's boss lead him to quit. On the heels of this life-changing announcement, David's mother announces a life-changer of her own; she's moving to Europe so she can paint naked men.

"Retired at 35" doesn't miss very many sitcom clichés in its first episode. Fans of "Three's Company" will recognize David's parents Alan and Elaine as a retread of the Ropers, right down to the dumb and inappropriate sex talk in front of their children. David's sister is yet another in a long line of "Mom and Dad always liked you best" younger sisters. Alan's friend Richard perfectly captures the show's level of humor when he describes Cialis and marijuana as "a toke and a poke". And then there's Paul, the sister's "is he gay or not" boyfriend. Really? In 2011 we're still getting a Bearnaise sauce-cooking, do I look fat in these jeans Monroe Ficus character?

Don't waste your time. There's nothing in this show that you haven't seen done, and done better, a hundred times before.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
First 2 Episodes Not Representative
jobbyjoe200011 February 2011
I'm writing this review for one reason. This thing turned itself around hard. I have no idea if they got new writers or what, but after the first two episodes I was like everybody else and ready to bail on the show. But I gave it one more shot and it totally swayed me. They've aired 4 episodes as I write this and the last two are hugely better than the first two, which were kind of all over the place and not very funny.

The show seems to have settled down and figured out what it wants to be, which looks like a throwback comedy with some basic conflict and a cute resolution at the end. And I'd say it does that slightly better than average.

One thing I will say though, in reading some of the early stuff on here, the guy who plays David, Johnathan McClain, seems to have caught some heat, which is crazy to me. I think dude's the best thing about the show. I read a review of this series in The Daily News which called his work solid, and I totally agree, and in the last two episodes he's far and away the funniest part of the show. He seems natural and comfortable on screen, and frankly looks like he's putting way more effort into making the thing work than George Segal and Jessica Walters. Somebody I read said they should have gotten Matthew Perry, which is weird because to me dude seems to be playing a cross between Perry and Schwimmer, which is kind of how the part's written, so I think the guy's doing great.

I mean all in all, it's not like amazing and it's not gonna change TV, but I don't think that's probably the point. My girlfriend watches Hot In Cleveland, which I kind of sit through, but then this comes on and I've got no problem watching it before we go to bed.

If it keeps going in the direction it's headed, I think it could go from being pretty good to just plain good. We'll see.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Kept at it because of George Segal
foundsomefun26 August 2012
Being a fan of George Segal's old movies I wanted to like this but can't beat a dead horse anymore. It is now in its second season and I tried to watch it again thinking that maybe it got better. Sadly, I could not have been more wrong.

There is no timing or flow to their dialog or interactions. If you just sit and watch you can almost see each of them running their lines and stage directions in their heads. When one person finishes speaking there is an unnatural pause and then it is like the other person "wakes up" to the fact that they must respond either with verse or action.

To each their own little bubble and they never connect. No chemistry, no comedic talent and poor direction. Bury it already it is really starting to stink to high heaven.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Feel good and fresh...just what the Dr ordered
hunterl326 June 2012
I enjoy the set, setting and premise of this show. I don't care if it's unrealistic as some critics say. Please, how much TV is realistic??? For me it has an all around positive, upbeat feel, which I look for. I am not at all interested in the dark, brooding dramas. Life has plenty of that. Plus this is the kind of show that helps me escape reality every now and then. I find it soothing and cute and have literally laughed out loud on occasion. So happy and relieved to see it back on TV as I was missing it. George Segal and Jessica Walter have great chemistry and I love the entire cast. I particularly enjoy the friend's goofy simplemindedness and the cheesy and fun-loving character that Christine Ebersole plays. It's an 'escape' kind of show, and who doesn't need a little escape every now and then. Hope to see them around for a while.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Cute, funny show
sarah3379 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Full disclosure: a friend of my daughter's lives in Los Angeles and played an extra on this show. She wasn't in the first episode but I watched it on-demand since I'm a huge fan of Hot In Cleveland anyway. I really enjoyed it. There's a lot happening in the first episode I saw and it takes a minute to all fall into place, but I thought the characters were charming and played very well. I've loved George Segal since Who's Afraid Of Virginia Wolf and The Owl And The Pussycat and he'll always be a movie star to me, but I'm glad to see him back on television too. I also love Jessica Walter and think she's wonderful. She leaves to go to Spain in the pilot, but according to the ads (and my daughter's friend who said she was there on the set) she comes back, which is good because I think she and George Segal together will be fun to watch. I also really enjoyed the actor who played the lead. I don't know his other work but he's adorable in the pilot and his relationship with George Segal is fun to watch. You really believe him and he makes you want to root for things to work out for his character. (And his reaction to when he ends up in bed with the older lady is one of the funniest thing in the show, it made me laugh out loud.)

I can see how someone might not like it as much if they don't enjoy this type of comedy, but I miss these kind of family shows. I've tried shows like The Office and even Arrested Development but I just can't get into them. They can seem mean sometimes. (I do enjoy 30 Rock from time to time because I think Tina Fey is adorable.) But if you like this kind of old fashioned sitcom, I think you'll enjoy this. (My son is too young to remember all the old shows, but he watched it with me and liked it too.) And I think with the Jessica Walter character returning, it can only get better and I plan to watch it (or record it ;) ) when it comes on. I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Embarrassing!
screenidol5 March 2014
Full disclosure: I only watched one episode (I couldn't take more than that). What's embarrassing is to have a cast of long-time respected actors (George Segal, Jessica Walter and George Wyner) in such a series. There were certainly some funny lines, but someone decided that EVERY line was not only funny, but hysterical, so the entire episode is filled with distractingly uproarious laughter start to finish. An example: guy at the bar on the phone wants to impress nearby woman with his name-dropping and refers to Warren Buffet as "Buff-hay." Hysterical laughter. He goes on to explain that man is the inventor of the buffet (again, "buff-hay"). Hysterical laughter. Then his friend comes over and "explains the joke," saying, "It's Warren Buffet" (correct pronunciation). Hysterical laughter! I'm sure Buffet didn't invest in this one.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Retired at 35. A new show to watch.
mailbu219 January 2011
People - Please give this new show a chance!

I'm fed up with Critics! All too often critics over-extend themselves in "writing" clever and often negative reviews. We need to stop depending on critics for what we like or dislike. How about a review that addresses the qualities of writing, acting for all of us real people out there in TV land? Being a critic is not a license to destroy a career or TV/Film project. Not that,"Retired at 35" needs any critical guidance. It's simply fun. Let go of your stress, open a bag of whatever, enjoy your favorite beverage and open yourself to laughter.

David Chase has created a funny new show. Can you imagine moving back home with your aging Dad & Mom? What if they are cooler and better off then you? As an actor I spent 5 days working on the first episode. The set was filled with laughs, inspired creation and a bunch of really nice people who just happened to be top notch professionals. There are so many hilarious scenes that often you don't have enough time to catch your breath after laughing. "Retired at 35" re-introduces the original concept of sitcom shows such as "All in the Family". Younger crowds will just need to trust, lay back and enjoy a NEW concept in TV today. May this fantastic show be the end to "Reality Shows." Long Live the new sitcom.

Very well done Ladies & Gentleman.

Abe Rogland
12 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Decent enough
SanteeFats21 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I watched all twenty episodes and was bummed when TVLand canceled it. I enjoyed the show. I thought the plot was okay, the acting is decent, and I have always liked George Segal. The premise that a 35 year old would retire (quit), move to Florida where his parents are living separated,then mooches off of them is actually not that far fetched in the current and recently past economy. Many adult children have in fact had to move back in with their parent(s). This short lived series just takes it to a comedic level. Then there is the lumpy adolescently gifted side kick who is always getting the son in to schemes that don't pan out. All in all I think this is a good show and I hope TVLand is showing reruns now to see if there is enough of an audience to start airing new episodes.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Retired at 35
larissapola23 January 2011
Like its predecessor, "Hot in Cleavland" this show lacks chemistry between the actors and both sitcoms have terrible writing. Neither sitcom elicits a smile let alone a laugh. Very boring, contrived (mostly sexual connotations) jokes and stupid story lines. What happened to sitcoms like TV Land shows like "Sanford and Son", "Roseanne", "All in the Family", granted the writer's of some of these older shows may not even be alive today, but these new writers need to do something else with their time. The producers of both shows should invest some valuable money in getting better writers and perhaps these shows might have a chance. Just because they both have good casts, does not mean that either sitcom is not a dud.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Witless Timewaster.
lnoft9727 January 2011
IF: - You are new to the world of sitcoms - You are easily amused - You are about 15 years old in mind or body - You are too tired to change the channel - You are curious what this thing is like after the non-stop flogging/hookup with Hot In Cleveland commercials - You are alone in the house and want some kind of noise so it doesn't feel so echo-y and empty - Yearn for something that isn't vampires/lawyers/reality shows

THEN, my friends, this show is for YOU!

35 year old wearies of working,'retires', moves in with comical (separated) mom and/or dad, blahblahblah. Of course mom and dad are still zesty, active (though the mom looks about 40 and the dad looks about 70), full of vim and vigor, enjoying life far more than their son, and diving head first into dating, potty talk, innuendo, and blabbing about S-E-X. Without a scrap of wit, originality, or humor. Just kind of embarrassing and dull. If you think this is the "family show" you have been yearning for, you are wrong. A carbon copy of a carbon copy of a carbon copy of ... well, any dumb 'racy' sitcom from the past 30 years... In real life, Dad would be a bitter old crank after a heart attack and Mom would be a bitter old crank with the beginnings of dementia, and sonny boy would be run ragged trying to get home health aides in so he can catch a break. No, this is some senior citizen's fantasy of what life should be. Derp!
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
All over the Place
Greatornot3 February 2011
I saw the first 2 episodes and I truly thought this show overplayed its cards. There was so much happening in these ep's that I thought I was watching a soap opera. It was like the writers were trying too hard to get peoples attention. The show itself, was not well acted , well scripted or even well directed. This was an unorganized mess that was not only silly but not believable at all. George Segal was fine as was Jessica Walters. I would only hope these fine tenured actors would not have this show being their legacy. The premise of the show was actually a good one; Middle age son moving to his parents Floridian nest to get out of the big city rat race. It was just not articulated in the proper way or with the best actors.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bland along the lines of 50's and 60's sitcoms
BigWhiskers1 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The premise of this show was good , it had a lot of potential but ended up falling flat on it's face. It works every cliché that comedies in the 50's and 60's used to do . Whether a line or gag is funny doesn't matter as the laugh track is used for just about every other spoken line. And most of the lines aren't funny. I've caught the first few episodes and the writers seem to think that George Segal and Jessica Walters hamming it up is funny which it is not. The son also comes across as nothing more than a pouty teenager who wants his own room etc. The supporting characters do nothing to help and are simply there to fill the room.

I cannot see this show lasting more than a season or two when even shows that have been off the air for years are getting higher ratings in reruns.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Retired at 35 Is An Unfunny Unoriginal Sitcom
the_blackrider3 July 2012
The show focuses on David Robbins (Johnathon McClain), a young man who abruptly quits his job and moves in with his parents (portrayed by George Segal and Jessica Walter) at their retirement community.

The writing for the show is awful. The show lacks creativity. Most of the jokes are unoriginal or mediocre 1-liners. George Segal and Jessica Walter are talented, but the lines they are given are not funny. McClain's acting is okay, but nothing great.

Since the pilot, the show has only made minor improvements. The later episodes of the first season are not quite as terrible as the pilot, but the show has not improved enough to become worth watching.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed