America's Got Talent (TV Series 2006– ) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
55 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
5/10
Talent has Flaws
cherylrcross22 June 2006
I see this show having great potential. The judges are where my issues fall. Piers Morgan and Brandy need to keep their hands off of all buzzers except their own! If David wants to see an act to the end, that is his right. I do believe that the judges are very fast at the buzzer without giving some acts a chance. There were some ridiculous acts that were passed on to the next round when they have no chance of making it in the circus. When an act that intrigued me came along, I didn't get a chance to see their potential because of the immature and unprofessional judges. The judges also need to realize this is NOT American Idol, the search is for talent, which is exactly what the bird lady was trying to say. I do not care about the big name judges, or Regis, on the show I want to see people who can recognize talent! I found myself, and present company getting frustrated and quite bothered with the judges. I would love to see the panel of judges COMPLETELY change so I can continue to enjoy the show. If there is no change, my whole household will no longer tune in to that show and hope it gets taken off the air!
31 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Real show, fake talent competition
jacobhempel3 September 2015
Americas Got Talent (AGT) has proved to be an influential show for some who seek to show off their talent on live television, what with having genuinely great acts on their show. The talent is impressive and I find myself thoroughly enjoying the acts as they perform.

This is not why the show deserves a 3/10. This is what gives it the tiny amount that it has. This is the 3 star aspect of the show.

What AGT fails to do is to be genuine. It feels like you're watching some beautiful cake get iced over a thousand times than necessary; the show has its cheek turned away from talent and toward view count, and it's obvious. The judges, who aren't real judges, are celebrity people who are well known by many. The acts have their stories unfolded out to you before their act, with more emphasis on stories that are sad. Most of the show revolves around back stories and really dumb stories about the judges; very little revolves around actual talent.

Although AGT is, admittedly, a television show, the reason this is so frustrating is because it's a competition as well. America casts their votes in based on who they think "did best." That means genuine talent gets booted off just because America felt that another contestants story was touching, and they wanted to support it. It's a serious flaw because it biases the votes. It wouldn't be as bad if AGT didn't soak up these kind of stories and, instead, just left them out.

The Hunger Games made fun of such television by having these over- the-top crazy dressed characters dictate the show and color the contestant stories to impress the audience; it's very sad to say that such a thought is not far from the concept of this show, where 1) As long as you have a decent act and 2) A good story, you win the heart of your audience.

There really is no competition in this. It's all the dirty business of getting the highest view count; it's all in the money.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
BZZZT! Thank You For Playing, NBC
DANEMOD22 June 2006
Based on the fact that "American Idol" judge (and media mogul) Simon Cowell was behind this show, I watched its premiere episode. I was absolutely flabbergasted by the unprofessional behaviour of one of its judges, Piers Morgan. He kept pressing other judges' elimination buzzers for them, and was so quick to judge that he instantly misjudged a ventriloquist and had to change his vote to avoid looking foolish; the ventriloquist turned out to be terrific. On "American Idol", you may agree or disagree with the judges, but it's clear that they bring their own professional standards with them to the judging process, and apply them consistently. On "America's Got Talent", David Hasselhoff clearly withholds his vote (he's third in the rotation) for a time when an act is bombing,, so as to prolong whatever unintentional comedy is going on. Piers Morgan has Simon Cowell's flamboyantly sharp tongue without having established any credibility with audiences (I mean, who IS this guy, anyway?), and his reaching for other judges' buzzers is the most shameless exhibition of ego I've ever witnessed on entertainment television. Oddly enough, it's Brandy who reveals the chops, the consistency, and the empathy to make a good judge, though she's the youngest of the three. Regis Philbin emcees, and why NBC is paying that kind of money for a job that a lot of lesser lights could do just as well is beyond me; Philbin's presence adds nothing to the show's entertainment value.

The talent is fine- at least the good acts are- and the idea is fine. But the execution is awful, with Piers Morgan's antics so off-putting I'm not sure if I'll watch again. If NBC wants this show to last, I suggest they get Morgan under control, and impose time standards during auditions, requiring judges to give every contestant some guaranteed minimum of time, to avoid another misfire such as the one that occurred with the ventriloquist. The main thing is to get the judges looking more impartial and professional; once the voting and elimination processes begin, the home audience is not going to take kindly to things that appear to skew a contestant's chances.
35 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Good idea, poor execution
Rainy-318 August 2007
I love the idea of a talent show that focuses on more than just singing, especially the same old adult contemporary music that we hear over and over and over again on the likes of American Idol, Star Search, or any other popular talent competition. The problem is that when it comes down to it it ends up being nothing more than a singing competition with some other performers thrown in for good measure, but without a shot at winning.

The "judges" constantly berate people for not being diverse or "mixing it up" enough, which flies in the face of what the show is supposed to be about. Take, for instance, the martial arts exhibition group Sideswipe. They were told by all of the judges that they wanted to see more than just punching and kicking, and that they had to do more dancing and add more production to their numbers if they were going to have a shot at winning. WHAT!?!?!? They are a martial arts group. . . . . PUNCHING AND KICKING IS WHAT THEY DO!!! Why not tell the singers that they need to add more flips and jumps and tumbling to their acts? When it comes down to it the judges, and America, do not consider anything other than singing to be real talent, and that is a shame, because the variety is what could be the shows strongest feature.

In defense of the show, there is much more variety than you will see on American Idol. At the end of the second season there is a blues/reggae singer, a young American Idolish singer (though not of the same caliber), a ventriloquist/impressionist whose act is 99% singing, and a beat boxing singer. There is more variety than many other talent competitions, but it would be really nice to see more of the true variety acts and far fewer singing acts.

Another negative is that the show would be totally unwatchable without TIVO. Less than half of every show actually involves performing, and they spend way too much time on background info and letting you know what is coming up "after the break."
21 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
awful
zrinka187 December 2013
Dear Sir/Madam,

Im writing you from far Croatia (europe). We also here can watch your show America got talent, and it is a great show no matter of bad rating. I have just watched the show about youtube auctions, and i was horrified about the comments what the judges were saying. I don't know who elected the judges - Sharon, Howard and Bald guy. They are commercialized, unimaginative, uneducated and i don't know what type of talent do they seek for? Come on Sharon is ex drug queen, what of success example is her? She only sleeps with ex drug and slow-motion rocker. What does she knows about talent, look what she did with her children, they are both freaks. Howard-omg, he put on air Jenna Jameson getting off! Hes got talent? Of what kind? Bald guy- i don't even know who he is, I'm too bored of him that even i do t want to google him. They were so disgusting with the guy who played the bells, that i was really horrified. I don't want to watch any other American talent or similar ever again. That guy has a talent, he did so something different, something unexpected, something great. Change the judges urgently because you will lose all the audience. They are disgraceful for whole America, because for the biggest force in the world they represent only stupidness.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worthless Garbage, zero talent showcased, -5 Stars (Thats MINUS)
jmj02196324 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I give this load of crap the first ever MINUS stars. On a scale of one to ten, this show definitely rates a minus. First, with a million dollar prize and National audience, you would think we would at least be seeing the next Stevie Ray Vaughn, the next comedic genius ala Jim Carrey, the next huge rock band. ANYTHING but the garbage they gave us. What we got was lousy jugglers, a guy in a rubber cow suit, singers who wouldn't have made it past the first round of Idol, stupid dog tricks (take em to Letterman already) and a "Rappin Granny". As Dave Ramsey noted on his show today "She couldn't rap, she wasn't funny, the audience tried to make her seem like she was cute, she wasn't cute, it was just STOOOOOPID!". There was a Ventriloquist, a sort of Waylon and Madame type. Not too bad, BUT NOT A MILLION DOLLAR ACT!. I've seen better at kids birthday parties. THe little 6 year old (or 9 or however old she was) comedian was totally "JUST WRONG". Adult humor that apparently she picked up watching late night television and that she really knew nothing about. I think you get the point on the (NO) talent. Now on to the judges.

When they first introduced the judges I could see Hasselhof, before they even introduced him and just said his name I thought "Well, TV, Movies, Music, he knows what hes talking about". He lived up to the mediocrity he is known for. When he wanted to be funny, he wasn't. It was so bad I felt embarrassed for him. BUT, Germans still like Hasselhof! Next is the singer Brandi. Well, just because a producer puts together a girl act, overproduces a couple of albums and a zillion teenagers buy them because they saw you on Nickelodean doesn't make you qualified to be a judge UNLESS ITS ON THIS SHOW! In this case 3 spider monkeys could have judged. She's no Paula Abdul. Thats for darn sure. Finally there is the token Brit. Pierce Morgan is a total idiot. This Simon Cowell wannabe has no experience in show business. His experience lye's in the Scandal Rag (Newspaper and Magazine) business as a reporter reporting on things like the Queens birthday or Schwarzennegers next movie or something. As his background they went through a list of famous people he is/was acquainted with. BIG DEAL... THis guy took a show that was already terrible and made it twice as bad, as hard as that would seem to be, he successfully accomplished it. He did this by buzzing acts within the first ten seconds, before they had a chance to get started (Actually this was a good thing). He did it by jumping across Brandi to get to Hasselhofs buzzer and hitting it when Hasselhof wanted an act to continue..OVER AND OVER. I've seen this before. Does J.P. Morgan or Jayme Farr ring a bell? (Pun intended). I didn't know that Chuck Barris was back on the TV Producing scene.

There is no saving grace for this show, but if there were one it would be Regis Philbin. Unfortunately we are left to feel sorry for ole Reg. Regis is a decent character actor, a great talk show host and the most filmed personality of all time. If he don't get out of this quick, hes going to be remembered for hosting the worst show to ever hit television. He doesn't spend a whole lot of time on camera, just enough to introduce the acts and then a few after interviews. Its not gonna ruin his career but why take a chance? Everything about this show reeks. And I mean everything. The producing (HEY, lets follow the stupid dog act and afterwords pan over to the dog "trainers" boyfriend in the wings taking pictures!) Genius if I ever saw it. The acts were terrible, the judges were just plain stupid, even the audience was stupid.

Someone should call the Network and congratulate the Network heads...for still having a job after letting this crapola on the air.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
The Best
bfader65624 July 2012
The best and most diverse talent competition show on network TV. Period. Great judging. The best host on TV...Nick Cannon. From singers to dancers to magicians to comedians to acrobats, all you are missing were thrilling danger acts...wait, they have those too. This show is a lot of fun. Howie Mandel is a very funny man and the addition of Howard Stern ( however emasculated he may seem) is actually quite entertaining. And isn't that what it's all about? I do believe that there is no other show on television that offers all of that. Singing, yes. Dancing, yes. Sit back and enjoy. Should win every Emmy in it's category every year. Great fun for all
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
America's got talent, the show has not
Rebel Philos21 June 2006
Simon Cowell manages to try another spin-off of "American Idol", despite of the failure with his previous attempt "American Inventor".

It follows the same guidelines than "American Idol", you know, a host the three stereotypical judges, an obedient crowd for audience, and some entertaining contestants plus many more that are shown only for their humiliation on national TV, that is actually what most of the public seems to dig anyway. Even more, giving it is an open talent contest, half of them are singers what gives Cowell a chance for a shot closer to the "Idol" success.

Regis Philbin does his job, he always manages to look as a nice guy, I don't think he contributes rising the show interest but is not responsible for the poor overcome either.

Moving on. I may concede that the Idol's judge model settled what seems to be the Holly Grail of reality-show contests, but that's not magic. The chosen court must have some charisma. In the Idol, it was this Cowell's quality that brought attention to the show. But did he manage to put together an attractive set of judges prescinding of himself? Let's see.

Let me start by David Hasselhoff just because he is the only I know. At least when watching Hasselhoff a couple of generations will feel some kind of comfort reminding "Knight rider" and "Baywatch". And it guarantees the show will be sold in Germany too.

Piers Morgan, who I don't have any clue who he is, takes the role of the wise and balanced judge completing his stereotype with a British accent that in America seems -wrongfully- to be synonymous of a higher intellect.

Finally Brandy. No, they are not drinking any alcoholic liquor, but may be you'll need it to digest why this completely unknown -or at least very well forgotten- singer (that is how they introduced her) is the judge that completes the trilogy. When Hasselhoff and Morgan are somehow appealing, Brandy is some kind of hyper-kinetic and overexcited Tasmanian Devil sat in the middle. At some point I felt bad for Morgan whose face seems Brandy preferred target for the uncontrollable spin of her arms and her annoying affection demonstrations.

In his modesty Cowell doesn't realize that the success of his shows is linked to him being in front the cameras rather than behind them. If Simon were in this show not even the contestants would be necessary to nail its success. But this is not the case. Clearly.
25 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Good Concept, Poor Execution
hotbmwdrivr11 August 2006
America's Got Talent is NBC's new baby for summer '06.. Created by Simon Cowell of American Idol fame, AGT is a talent search show which is similar in format to American Idol and the Gong Show.

I don't normally ever watch network TV, and i'm not really big on reality shows at all, but i have been watching this because i thought it would be somewhat interesting.. turns out to be a poorly executed show that'll probably never recover from it's first season without some major changes (although it has already been renewed for a second season in '07).

Basically it's a talent show where people from all across the u.s. audition with a unique talent.. everything from 9 year old singers to electric violinists, magic acts to rock bands, comedians to jugglers and ventriloquists, they're all here. a panel of 3 judges (david hasselhoff, brandy, and piers morgan) vote on the acts as they perform, and a negative vote from all the judges eliminates the contestant. this was changed after the first few episodes into an "approve or disapprove" system where the judges vote afterwards on a winner, and a majority vote from the American public decides a second winner for the round.

first of all, the judges suck. i know they are set up like "token" judges from Idol, the nice one, the straightforward one, and the in-between one, but regardless of who they are, and not to belittle their specialty (acting, music etc) they don't seem unbiased when judging competitors.. it seems 3 real, normal people could do a better job. they are constantly voting for each other and pressing each other's buttons (literally), arguing over stupid things, and essentially mucking up the entire show. hasselhoff dosen't know if he's coming or going, and will approve just about anyone, brandy usually does a halfway decent job, and piers, while being the "token" sharp tongued, tell it like it is brit, is totally unappreciated in his time.. he might be a little abrasive, but that's his character, and he seems to be the only one that makes sense. the audience dosen't help either, every time someone comes on stage only to be told that they suck, they cry, and then get pushed into the finals anyway, so whats the point? the producers obviously included acts that are extremely un-talented, for shock value and ratings, and while some of them may very well be genuinely talented, there are acts that are better than them, and they can't seem to take someone telling them how it is.. if thats the case they should have stayed at home.

also, people who get voted out are often brought back, and sometimes displace people who really are talented. i'm sure no one wants to see a little girl cry because she came in front of America and got told that she sucked, but does that mean she automatically gets pushed into the finals? and with so many different types of acts, the judges act somewhat obligated to mix up the finals but not including too many of one type of act.. and that's pretty biased. how exactly is this show supposed to work? maybe categories would help.

the acts themselves are almost worth watching the show. there are some people on there who could legitimately become stars, and some who are neat to watch.. but some (that got passed into the later stages of the show) are just horrendous.. rappin granny? n'versity? how did these people even get on the show in the first place? the other thing is that a lot of the people who have been in the finals are actually professionals in the field of their "talent".. believe it or not, rappin' granny has appeared in several movies, and most of the acts do their "talent" for a living. i thought this was going to be normal, everyday people who got a shot at stardom, but apparently not so. also, a few of the bigger acts coordinate their performances with the producers, using props and gags that they otherwise wouldn't have access to, and that somewhat helps them "outshine" the other performers.

bottom line, the show isn't what it wants to be.. and it's its own fault. maybe some format changes will help, but hell, i can get up onstage and cry.. maybe it will win me a million dollars. if these people can't run with the big dogs, they need to accept it and move on.. and the judges and producers need to take an UNBIASED approach, instead of one thats tailor-made for primetime ratings, yet still dosen't deliver.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
America's got talent, but no taste if this drek is back
crankyerma5 June 2007
Are we finally about done with this reality show BS? I know they are incredibly cheap to produce and don't require much in talent salaries or any writer salaries to speak of, but at what cost? Have we really become what the movie "Idiocracy" predicts for American culture? This show is the absolute bottom of the barrel. It is television at its lowest point ever. Remember when NBC aired shows like "Hill Street Blues," "Cheers," "St. Elsewhere," "Night Court," "The Cosby Show," "Seinfeld," etc? Many of those shows would appear on the same night! What the Hell happened to network programming since then? We did.

Well, tastes change but the people who complain about TV content don't. It's hard to put a real drama or comedy that suits modern sensibilities on TV anymore. If you do something real, adult and intelligent it either turns off short attention-spanned teens or offends the Christian Right who literally comprise 99 percent of all complaints about content on network TV (true, look that up).

Cable, Tivo and the internet are making it increasingly less lucrative to advertise on TV. That means ad rates have gone down. That means TV shows have to be made for less money. And that means networks will put on the cheapest poop they can get away with and still sell soap in the mid-west. And of course, that means "America's Got Talent" season two.

So, if you're tired of this worthless "reality TV" crap and you want a truly funny sitcom or an intelligent, engrossing drama that addresses relevant issues of today, either get HBO or complain to the Parents Television Council and tell them to stop complaining every time something interesting happens on TV. Next, contact your local affiliates and ask them to pass on the word to the network that you're willing to sit through commercials if they'll just start paying actors and writers to make real TV again.

There, I'm done. Just thought it needed to be said.
16 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews