Every now and then you get a real example of just how far apart the critical community is from the average TV viewing audience. One example this season has been the CW's Hart Of Dixie getting terrific ratings despite being panned by every critic in Hollywood. This past weekend we got another one as perennial celebrity trainwreck Lindsay Lohan tried her hand at hosting the TV institution known as Saturday Night Live. Did she do well? Depends on who you ask.
Lindsay most likely awoke on Sunday morning after a long round of partying to news that her performance as host was being lambasted by every TV critic under the seen. Her monologue was lame and safe. Her jokes poorly delivered. Her performance wooden. These are all the types of complaints I've been reading since almost the minute the episode ended. I myself, didn't watch it. I stopped watching SNL reguarly years ago. The show has gotten stale to me. But in this case, my feelings aren't relevant. I'm more interested in the dichotomy involved here.
I can't remember the last time there was such a wide berth between the reviews of the performance of an SNL host and the public's reaction to it. The ratings of the Lohan hosted episode were up 12% from the previous week and made for SNL's second highest rated broadcast of this season. Reaction from everyday folks online is pretty positive in general. Yet the critics couldn't find a kind word in the dictionary to describe Lindsay's hosting stint.
Where do you stand? Was Lindsay good? Is she being unfairly maligned by critics? Or are the reviews right on the money? More importantly, what does Regina George think? Tell us in the comments.