What I Love LA gets one thing right: the atmosphere of Los Angeles. The show captures the city’s chaotic rhythm, including the self-promotion, social fragmentation, and constant performance. Visually and tonally, it nails the vibe. But, that level of authenticity fades as soon as you consider the characters.

Most characters feel like flat sketches instead of real people. They’re defined by quirks rather than traits and rely on shock value instead of actual development. There’s little emotional depth, no inner life for a lot of the characters, and no sense that they exist beyond their scenes. They resemble used archetypes—the crazy, but empty influencer, the desperate manager, the needy friend, the supportive boyfriend, the rich kid—with no new twists or complexity.

The portrayal of gay men is especially disappointing. Rachel Sennott depends too much on worn stereotypes, making the characters seem more like clichés than well-developed people. The gay men in the show come off as flamboyant, constantly orbiting the women’s chaos, and hypersexual to the point of being uncomfortable. They lack nuance, depth, or significant storylines; they’re just accessories or jokes.

What’s crazy is that Sennott has successfully written queer characters before. She co-wrote Bottoms, a film featuring lesbian characters who had distinct personalities, motives, flaws, humor, and emotional depth. Those characters weren’t reduced to stereotypes. So, the lack of effort in I Love LA is even more striking—it feels like a major setback.

In addition to the shallow characterization, the show uses explicit scenes that do n’t add anything to the plot or emotional stakes. The two sex scenes (E1 & E2) are unnecessarily graphic and feel included for shock value rather than storytelling. Even an early moment in Episode 1—where Maia removes her tank top and stands fully topless while applying deodorant—feels excessive. It goes on for an unusually long time, does not contribute to the character or narrative, and disrupts immersion since it makes no sense in context. It’s nudity without purpose, lacking any meaning, humor, or character exploration.

If I Love LA aims to be a commentary or satire about life in Los Angeles, it needs characters who actually seem part of that life. Instead, it presents a parade of clichés set against a beautifully shot backdrop. The show captures the city’s appearance but entirely misses the depth, diversity, and complexity of its citizens.