Thank God You're Here

Actually,I must say that this show is,for me,somewhat of a tonic. It's comedy,improv with a twist,played in two parts:one(the more obvious part)as a staged laboratory of unscripted performance,the other part,in taped segments,as a sort of "warm-up exercise" meant to sort of jog the guest actors into the mindset that would best suit them for the show. I've watched the better part of six of the seven episodes so far and I(to chime in with another reviewer)see some promise to this program.

Basically,what to me holds this show together(which,to be brutally honest,despite its promise would bog down immensely if the right people weren't brought in to anchor it)are the host,David Alan Grier and David Foley,who acts as a judge of the performances. Both are comic pros who are able to keep the events moving smoothly and sometimes inject the right needed amounts of observational humor. The invites to the show range from the choice(Jason Alexander,HArland Williams and Bryan Cranston come to mind)and the woefully over-their-heads(George TAkei and,shockingly,Tom Greene,from what I saw)and can sometimes make the promised product of the show sag,and I suspect that the newness of the concept of the show,paired with the unevenness of the players and the skits they're paired with are right now the stumbling blocks this how has for it at this juncture.

While a show like "Whose Line is it Anyway?" may have a more authentic feel to it in terms of improv comedy,I still feel like a show like this is an interesting--and sometimes truly very funny--exercise in seeing how actors can readjust their mindsets to keep an audience affixed and laughing. I'd like to see more of these shows and see if and how they improve.

It's a real shame that the US show seems to not work that well. In Australia we've had 3 seasons with possibly a 4th on the way and it just keeps getting better.

If any of you can, get yourself a copy of the original concept show because it's really amusing and such good value. Granted some of the guest stars fare worse than others, but on the whole it's a blast to watch.

I guess there could be a cultural aspect to its (comparative) failure in the US because Aussies have a pretty unique sense of humour which is sometimes not shared by other "westerners".

Thank God Your Here itself is a cool, inventive idea. Gather a group of C List actors and comedians and force them into situations requiring them to think on their feet while performing an improv skit. The only problem is that the entertainment of the show solely relies on the actor's ability to improv. In some cases the performer has been able to think on their feet and create a really entertaining scene (like Shannon Elizabeth, Chelsea Handler, Bryan Cranston, Fran Drescher) however there have also been the performer's that aren't very good at thinking on their feet and just sort of go with the flow instead of taking control of the scene and guiding it to funnier places (Tom Green, Tom Arnold, Joel McHale). I would definitely recommend you take a look at the show and decide for yourself, it's a show that can be really funny at times.

Network: NBC; Genre: Remake; Reality, Comedy, Game; Content Rating: TV-PG (some suggestive adult content);

Season Reviewed: Series (1 season)

4 performers who walk through a door into a set they have never seen and are forced to bluff their way through a scene they know nothing about, all the while try to avoid being tripped up by the regular cast. With a premise imported from Australia, "Thank God You're Here" promises a free-for-all comedy playground. It could have easily been so much fun.

"Here" is, at best, only as funny as that segment's guest and given that most of them are actors and not comics that is more often than not, not very funny. Some of the players (or victims) are well known sitcom stars (Wayne Knight, Jason Alexander, Wendi Malik), some improv masters (Fred Willard disappoints but Jane Lynch steals the show) and some - like the receptionist in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" or George Takai - you've got to wonder what they're doing here. However, Takai is a real hoot as a doctor who walks through the door and gets a jump on the first line. Bryan Cranston proves he really is more talented than the final seasons of "Malcolm in the Middle" led on. Some, such as Lynch and Eddie Kaye Thomas, are almost able to create a character in the few minutes before Dave Foley hits the buzzer to put them out of their misery.

But then there are those performers that are grating to watch. Mo'Nique, "comedian" Shannon Elizabeth and set-destroying Tom Green do their usual tiresome lowest common denominator acts. "Here" never exactly hits comic brilliance, but with these questionable talents on the set treated just like everybody else the show becomes downright insufferable.

As always, Foley (fresh from celebrity poker commentary) is fun to listen to as judge while David Allen Grier is in look-away, full-blown family-friendly cartoon mode. Is Foley free to poke fun at this show or is he really exorcising frustration over a contractual obligation. I don't know and that's why Foley is so good. The regular players (including "Significant Others" Brian Palermo – God, I feel for him) are often funnier than the guests.

Some of the set pieces are clever in concept, some of them are not. Mostly it is set up like a theatrical Mad-Libs requiring the guest to complete sentences ("The three S's of success are…") or spontaneously make up a song and dance. Throw actors in a situation like this and (without Wayne Brady in sight) you are bound to get results that aren't always pretty, but most here are cringingly unfunny in an "America's Funniest Home Videos" sort of way. As "Videos" made notorious, "Here" uses frequent shots of an audience that is either euphoric to be in a real TV studio or lubed up on a great warm-up act to tell us that it is supposed to be funny. But for me is only mild amusement in seeing a celebrity sweat or stare out at the crowd blankly as they've just been tripped up by a line they didn't expect.

"Here" is one of those shows that exists in a Hollywood bubble; the bubble in which actors are patting each other on the back and assuming if they are enjoying themselves, than you out there in flyover country must be too. It is so amused with itself, so free to wink and nod at it's own camp and frivolousness that it never tries to be anything better. As I watched I just constantly wanted more. I wanted it pushed further. Edgier or funnier or more sophisticated. Just more on every level. It is Drew Carey in "Whose Line is it Anyway?" telling us that "the points don't matter" all over again. By God, why don't the points matter? Why is there nothing at stake? And if not, why should I watch?

½ / 4

Thank you Tracie Oakley for providing us a review with absolutely no substance. But wow...with that Alpo joke, maybe YOU should be on the show! I bet it would go over great.

Seriously, I watched this show once and chuckled quite a few times. Would you rather be watching "Will & Grace"? If so, then you probably would NOT like this show. It is a different type of humor...a BETTER type of humor. Sure, these are NOT masters of improv, but that's what makes it so unique. Watching them mess up is part of the fun. Those that do not see that are missing the point entirely. Kinsey was the only one who actually created a character for her bit, and it went over so-so with me because it seemed she was trying too hard. I also liked the video bits where they took the best parts from each of the guests and spliced them into one montage.

Also, props to the regulars on the show, who did an admirable job. This show definitely deserves to be on the air a little while longer, or at least as long as "Whose Line is it Anyway?"