Libramedi Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Suman Roberson It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

John Doe This is a true reality show for geeks to watch, unlike that "Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette" garbage. The omen on this show are gorgeous, and the dudes are true geeks and it gives hope to the geeks that there is hope. This is a great show!I give 'Beauty and the Geek' a 9/10

liquidcelluloid-1 Network: WB/CW; Genre: Reality Comedy; Content Rating: TV-PG; Perspective: Contemporary (star range: 1 - 4);Seasons Reviewed: Season 3 & 4If you know the concept, you've pretty much seen the show. 7 geeks and 7 beauties pair up , live in a house together and try to stay in that house long enough because the last pair standing gets $250,000. But we aren't here for the money are we? Of course not, we're here to learn a valuable lesson about life and how to treat those around us. Exactly what TV is good at… right? "Beauty and the Geek" is yet another variation on the "Wife Swap"/"30 Days" model in which TV steps in like a humanitarian to "mend the divide" between everybody in America – this time for those whose minds are still in high school. Understanding that that supposed "division" in America is a media concocted myth will help to understand why these shows are doomed to failure from the start. Yet I like "Beauty and the Geek". I like this stupid, phony show just as I took sadistic pleasure in "Average Joe". Before I get into what delicious brain-candy it is, first a checklist of all the social myths that "Ashton Kutcher's social experiment" is guilty of perpetuating: 1. Women, by nature, can't be geeks. 2. Geeks are defined by simple stereotypes as liking computers, Star Trek, Star Wars, having beards, wearing glasses and being virgins. 3. Beauties are defined by simple stereotypes as being blonde, tan, thin, ditsy and wearing only skimpy tight clothing. 4. People are one or the other. If someone is beautiful they must be dumb, if they are socially awkward they must be smart. The show doesn't reconcile any of these. We don't learn that the women are really smart or men are really cool, we just see them learn to accept the differences in each other. Another annoying quality to the show is that while all the tasks of the beauties (at the risk of sounding catty, I'm using the word very loosely in many cases) teach them to become more well rounded contributors to society, learning about everything from aeronautics to carpentry, the tasks of them men are oriented entirely toward teaching them "what women like". Because, apparently, there is no higher achievement for a man then to get a girl. So, if you're taking the show as a serious social experiment you will be sorely disappointed and probably highly offended. It is hard to deny how phony and clearly scripted "Beauty" is. Edited with heroes and villains, twist endings and heart-warming moments. Not to mention, an improbable romance, both in season 3 and prior between two people who will probably never see each other again. Bt every once in a while a reality show comes along that knows what it's doing and it is hard to deny that despite itself, "Beauty" is crafted in a way that delivers some real laugh-out-loud moments. There are even a few authentically heart-warming moments in here too. Although, it isn't what you'd expect. I was more moved by the friendship that blooms between Mario and his beauty (using the word appropriately now), Nadia, than I was in the opportunistic please-love-us "romance" between Nate and Jennylee. Mario and Nadia were adorable. The nature of the game doesn't make a lot of sense from the beginning and it ends up cramping the fun as the season moves forward. People aren't eliminated because they fail the tasks, they are eliminated for simply not winning, at the arbitrary choice of the winners. As a result the most interesting teams are thrown out early. Take 3rd season Uber-Geek Piao, "alternatively, you can call him Pi". Once your resident crazy SOB who delivered an obscenity laced rant for a comedy routine and drew a single boob when asked to sketch a nude woman has been kicked off the show… really, what's the point in watching? As a show, "Beauty and the Geek" suffers from "American Idol" syndrome: it gets less interesting, less funny, less entertaining as it goes. Early on we see a lot of bonding in the house. The funniest stuff shows us the beauties and geeks in their natural habitat. For example, the geeks trying to figure out that "booty" could mean anything other than pirate treasure. But soon the socializing is replaced with wall-to-wall tasks. "Beauty" races toward the finish line way too quickly, collapsing potentially funny and sweet moments of bonding between the groups into quickly edited montages that leaves us wanting to see more. Worse, the premise has barely gotten a foothold into us when the show cheats on itself and gives the geeks makeovers. Yep, those beards and glasses come off and faster than you can say "She's All That", they're studs. What's "Beauty and the Geek" without the geeks? Filling "Beauty and the Geek" out into a few more episodes would have helped it greatly. Even so as guilty pleasure, socially inept reality shows go nothing has quite made me laugh as loud or as hard this one. And that counts for a lot. * * * / 4

bob the moo Seven male geeks pair up with seven female beauties in a luxury mansion in Los Angeles. The objective? The geeks must teach their partners geeky things whilst the models must teach the geeks how to be a bit cooler and socially aware. Will the geeks act typically shy and socially inadequate around their heavily bosomed partners? How will the models react to differential equations? In each episode, the partners are put to the test to see how much they've taken on board, with the worst performing couple booted off, and the ultimate winners splitting $250,000.Having first watched the UK version of this show I decided to give the US version a try. I enjoyed the UK version despite myself because everyone seemed to be into it, the presentation was relaxed and the humour was gentle and tongue-in-cheek. My first impression watching the original US version was how similar the UK one was to it – the music, the graphics, even how the people stand on the stairs all looked the same. However the one main way that the US version is different is how seriously it takes itself – it is a "proper" game show with a host while also presenting it straight down the line. So yes there is humour to watching the geeks be geeks and the beauties be a bit dippy but there is nothing on the same level as Peep Show's David Mitchell's gently sarcastic narration. Certainly Brian Mcfayden (no, thankfully not that one) is no comparison and he is a very bland host – taking it all too seriously and having nothing about him that is interesting or original.The geeks are a solid mix of normal people who are a bit smart, dorky people as well as at least one who is basically Woody Allen exposed to radiation to the point where he has become an Uber-geek. The beauties are a fairly bland collection of white women with just one ethnic minority thrown in. In fairness this was the same with the UK show but the British ones had different personalities and backgrounds making most of them actually quite interesting. Sadly in the US they are pretty much all the same and it does take something away from proceedings. The show allows them to be themselves and draws comedy from that but any potential for poking fun at them is lost under the overwhelming gushing about how we're all the same underneath, not judging others etc etc. True the UK one had similar bits but it was not as heavy handed and emotional as it was here.The tasks are still entertaining enough but the people not being as interesting meant that I didn't really care who was evicted or not. Overall then this is a so-so game show that pales in comparison to the much better UK version. Maybe if I'd seen the US one first I would have liked it more but as it is I just couldn't help but find the UK version funnier, lighter, less serious, not taking itself too seriously and all in all more entertaining. The idea is still solid enough in theory to produce an OK show but if you want to see it in a different light then check out the UK version – it does the same things well but dodges a lot of the "American" weaknesses.

Nicodemus I love this show. Though it might sound kind of stereotype. I think Ashton Kutcher has done a VERY nice job making this show. I can't wait until I can watch season two too.And about the candidates, well, some of the girls are pretty dumb, but certainly not all of them. I thought Mindi and Caitilin were certainly NOT dumb, kind of smart even. Caitilin (season 1) looks so pretty, so what do you want more to look at on TV? Also I found it very amusing to look at the show and be amazed about Richard and how a guy could EVER be so weird.If I didn't watch the show for its very interesting psychological turns, it would be because of the very pretty ladies.