Thank God You're Here

Get the right actors/actresses in there, and it's funny. Harland Williams, Kevin Nealon and Wayne Knight were my favorites. Some of the other stars didn't do improv so well...they might wanna screen some of these people first...

Brian Cranston and Tom Green did okay, although I think those two went over the top. Chelsea Handler and Shannon Elizabeth did a pretty good job, too, but there were moments of "non-funnyness" in their performances.

The other performers I've seen so far just didn't do well in my opinion, but I think the show is definitely worth watching just so you don't miss those classic performances like with Harland Williams.

What is your problem? For one of the first times, Australia has come up with an extremely innovative idea. This show is not terrible whatsoever. This show displays creativity of the scenes provided and those who cannot see that are obviously not true actors. This show was meant for the entertainment industry which is exactly what it does, you yourself implied that the audience enjoyed the show by laughter which even if it is out of pity for the actors embarrassment, the show is still fulfilling its intention of entertainment. Explain why exactly you believe this show does not show improv? It clearly does BECAUSE a) the actor/actress is in an unknown environment which they have to adapt to therefore IMPROVISE into and try to make it seem that they were meant to be there. and b) because the other actors belonging to the show are also a high distraction to the comedians which they also have to 'dodge' past and improvise around.

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

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".