IMDb > "Thank God You're Here" (2007) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
"Thank God You're Here" More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 16 reviews in total 

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Shows Promise

Author: bologna4 from Safety Harbor, FL
3 May 2007

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?"

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A Cool Concept With Engaging Moments

Author: kyle-loves-brooke from Canada
18 February 2008

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Hit or Miss show needs improvisational genius competitors

Author: SnoopyStyle
11 September 2013

A weekly improvised sketch game show that features four celebrities as they walk into a live sketch without a script. The only thing they can count on is the greeting from a fellow actor in the skit, who proclaims upon their arrival, "Thank God You're Here!" Based on an Australian show.

This is truly a hit or miss show. The biggest factor is the performer. They need someone with a quick mind, experience doing standup, manic energy, and a willingness to be inappropriate. There aren't that many great ones around. When it's funny, it could be hilarious. But there're just too many unfunny sketches.

Was the above review useful to you?

Thank god it didn't last long...

Author: briegner from Ithaca, NY
28 July 2011

As a big fan of both Whose Line series (UK and US), I decided to give Thank God You're Here a try. I watched 3 episodes before I finally gave up on it completely. I give credit to the comedians and actors who volunteered to be on this show, and David Allen Grier didn't do too badly as host; but overall, I really couldn't stand it. I think I was put off most by the unknown supporting actors because they would repeatedly violate the first rule of improv: ALWAYS SAY YES. They would contradict the contestants over and over, forcing the scene to play out according to the script. That is not improvisation; it's just frustrating for the contestant and off-putting for the audience. Dave Foley never had anything interesting to say to them at the end of the scenes; he might as well not have been there at all. I have no idea what the Australian or UK versions of this show were like, but the US edition was pretty bad.

Was the above review useful to you?

The Original is the Best?

Author: maerrie1 from Australia
3 January 2008

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".

Was the above review useful to you?

I don't know about the US show.....

Author: djandymarc from Australia
19 October 2007

Before you take judgment, do yourself a favor and try and get a copy of on the Aussie shows as the show has gone to its 3rd season here, and was that successful that you guys bought the concept from us. The Aussie version is absolutely brilliant. Yes granted there have been a few episodes that were a little ordinary but usually its hilarious!!! I am really keen to see a version of the US show on comparison. I'd seriously doubt that they will use the same skits etc.. and maybe thats why you guys there don't seem go enjoy it as much as us!! You cant compare it to Who's line is it anyway either. Yes, The shows are both based on improv but honestly its a lot easier improvising a line as opposed to a whole scene.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Great premise, executed with a self-indulgent screech that is embarrassing to watch in an "America's Funniest Home Videos" sort of way

Author: liquidcelluloid-1 from
24 June 2007

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

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Has some good funny moments

Author: silvy696 from United States
25 April 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Fine Show But I Was Left A Bit Disappointed (SPOILERS)

Author: I_Am_The_Taylrus from Minnesota
13 April 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


Even though this is not as good as I thought it would be I still had a blast watching it. The premise is very original, well, if you do not count Whose Line Is It Anyway? Anyway, I was hearing very good reviews. TV Guide and other magazines like that gave it a very good review and said it was great. I watched it, and it was good, but I do not think it lived up to the hype. That does not mean you should not watch this, it is very fun and enjoyable.

Here is the basis of this show. A couple of celebrities and comedians go on this show to perform a skit. Easy, huh? Wrong! They have to ad-lib, or improv, every single line that they have. They also have no idea what the skit is about. After the skit is over a judges says if the skit and the acting was good. There are a couple of skits in each episode. At the end of the episode the judge says who was his favorite performer. That performer will receive a Thank God You're Here plaque.

Overall, this is a pretty good and fun show. I like the fact that people you would not think perform on a show like this actually perform, like Monique, who won the second show. Still, not every skit is good. Some are cheesy and weird, but most are good. In fact, more than one-half of the skits are decent. Still, there is at least one bad skit in each episode. Anyway, this is an enjoyable show to watch but I still feel a little empty.


Recommended Shows: SNL, Mad TV.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

what are you talking about?

Author: rachaelasullivan from Australia
3 June 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history