User reviews

Patton Oswalt hosts this quiz show, which has 100 contestants vying for money.

The questions posed to the contestants get progressively more difficult. Missing a question means elimination, as the pot grows larger. The difficulty of the questions is determined by testing them on groups beforehand. But these are not questions of fact or tests of knowledge; they are designed to test one's abilities of perception and logic.

The major problem is that it is very difficult to design the wording of such questions without any ambiguity. For instance, one question asks the contestants to imagine that some letters are turned 45 degrees, but it does not say on what axis. And it uses the terms "left" and "right", but a clockwise orientation might be more accurate. This might not matter as much if contestants had a minute to consider their answers, but they only get about 25 seconds, which doesn't allow for much trial and error or testing of hypotheses.

The banter with the contestants is hit or miss. Sometimes it is interesting, but mostly it is boring, especially when Oswalt asks a contestant why they missed a question and they are embarrassed, so they give senseless excuses for their answers.

Update 7/16/2024: By episode 7, the banter has improved, with Patton showing his humor. The ambiguity has reduced somewhat. I am bumping my rating up by one.

Lee Mack of UK version is way funnier than Oswald (and still without being mean or snarky like host of Australian version). Questions on UK version are much better. More varied, interesting and fun, and more original ideas. American version questions are overloaded with boring wordplay puzzles. Many of the questions are word puzzle types that will be familiar to many people (and will give those people an advantage). Like a lot of game shows other than Jeopardy, there is a fair amount of filler, such as explanation of how the game works, and music that goes on too long before results are revealed.

I agree with some of the reviews here regarding Patton Oswalt. I do find him likeable in stand-up, television and movies, but it almost seems as if this gameshow-speak was written for him and he's not crazy about it. It's not completely horrible, but seems a bit forced and rehearsed.

I'm not sure why he has to say, "Let's take a look" before every single question, but it gets old quickly. Again, I think it was written that way, and not Mr. Oswalt's creative choice.

It's an interesting premise, and the questions ranged from super easy to difficult (depending on how your brain works!) But when they gave a drum-roll effect to "revealing" what's happened to the pot since 4 people are out (simply meaning $4000 has been added to the pot), I found myself saying, "UGH, come onnn".

My husband and I watched it and really enjoyed it. Our college-age son lives with us so the next day we asked him to watch it. THAT was so much more fun. He got every question right and we were so proud. Granted, there were some easy questions that everyone should have gotten right. I thought Patton was a great host. He spent just the right amount of time with the contestants so that you didn't feel isolated from them in that "I don't care who wins." way. I don't understand the reviewer who commented that the host was mean and put people down. I grew up with a narcissist and watched "Match Game" with Alec Baldwin so I know what putting people down sounds like. Patton was funny, friendly, and, yes, joked around but you can tell none of it was mean-spirited. I thought the questions were comparable to Celebrity Week on Jeopardy - where they dumb down the questions a bit, but you can solve them and feel smart. I hope the show makes it. We'd be regular watchers.

First and foremost how can you not love any show with Patton Oswalt? He's provides the perfect amount of humorous content while at the same time not taking away from the game. The game itself is awesome. I love the intensity and pressure of answering the questions in time. Then when you add in the app that allows you to play along on your phone it just adds to the excitement. The interaction Patton has with the contestants is priceless. The episode where Patton wanted a villain was hilarious! Oh my goodness my wife and I were rooting for both young men at the end of the show. The last episode was a little heartbreaking when the young lady got the 1% question wrong. But that's the beauty of the show too, when you go for it you better know the answer. In a nutshell, this is a fun game show and I'm not a huge game show fan.

I would have rated this a 9, but was so upset that the final question was terribly phrased. The question referred to a "password" made up of 6 letters, from 4 letters shown on a keyboard. Obviously, some of the letters were repeated.

An actual password can be made of many different characters, but in this case only letters were used. Actual passwords are better if they don't use an actual "word", rather use random letters.

The answer was based on an actual "word", but the instructions didn't mention anything about the password having to be a "word". The instructions only asked for a certain arrangement of those letters - in which case, there could have been many correct answers.

Hard to believe this question was allowed to be used the way it was worded. Someone should have caught the error. I guess the staff that works on the show are far from being 1% themselves!

I like Patton Oswalt but he can't make a 100 fake smiling laughing people interesting. There is a ridiculous amount of filler asking the contestants "get to know you" questions. They are randos - I don't care to know them. Every question just drags out to the point where I just fast forward in between each question. Patton isn't funny enough to carry this if this is the format they are sticking with.

Password, another recent gameshow in comparison is filled with laughs and good times. This is just people smiling, fake laughs (password too) and bad conversation.

The questions and concept of show seem fine, it's just not entertaining.

I love the game, and that I can participate in it. Patton is funny, energetic, self-depreciating, and charismatic and he engages and interacts well with the participants; perfect choice for this setting. The players all have interesting personalities and biographies and are varied demographically, socially and culturally.

The questions and puzzles, at times, are maddening when the answer is revealed. I really get this, "Oh, duh!" feeling. But it feels so fantastic when I manage to nail the tough questions.

I can't imagine that I'd make it through to the 1%, but I will definitely keep shouting out my answers to the television.

More, please!

I like the concept of this game but was bored with the filler moments. Apparently the producers wanted a show to cover an hour time slot when commercials are added. But 42-45 minutes is too much. If the filler time were reduce this could be 30 minutes per episode. It starts with the chatty talk with contestants. Plus they go back to the same people too much. They have 100 people sitting there and they concentrated on just a few too often. It got old before the end of the first episode. The rolling total for the jackpot is slow, just show the number. Also, the delays to try and add suspense get old too. For later episodes, I just press the 10 second advance to bypass the useless nonsense and stop when I get to the next question. Patton is fine as a game show host but it does seem too scripted. Rating: 10 stars for the game itself, 0 stars for the fillers...so make it 5 stars.

On the show of August 19 in the 25% question take a letter from each of the 4 words to make a new word. The words were, HONEST, LOVE, SALMON and RASPBERRY. They said the answer was HELP Would they still have won if they had said, HOME or SOLE. It said What other Word not Words. Home was the first word I saw. Just curious if any word was written would it have put them through.

I do enjoy the show and think Patton is great. His interactions with the players is very entertaining. Some times I surprise myself how quickly I know the answers. A couple of times I even knew the 1% question, shocked myself.

As someone who is so used to the UK version, I have to say, this version just feels like a bootleg. Like, a lot of the questions on this version aren't anywhere near as interesting. Yes, just like the UK version, this one does have filler too, with conversations with the contestants in between the questions and what not, but at least there was entertaining banter in the UK version, something this version is lacking. The contestants here just feels like NPCs by comparison, if you ask me! Also, admittedly I've never heard of Patton Oswalt before, but he's just not a good host for a show like this, just... no. Surely they could have found someone better?

If this whole show, so far, is anything to go by, I don't expect it to be anywhere near as successful.

I have a new favorite game show. The 1% Club! The questions are hard but logic based, and they are educational and fun. The host makes me laugh out loud. He is clever, slightly sarcastic, & hilarious. It is not so fast paced that I can't play along, but the time given to answer the questions is limited and adds to the difficulty of the game. The banter between the host & the contestants is appropriate, it's funny, and it flows easily. The prize money is enticing enough to keep every one of the contestants interested & involved. The contestants were interesting, engaging, & clever. I didn't want the episode to end, but I also looked forward to seeing who won. I think you'll like it!

I watched the 1% Club series through the AU and EU and the US version follows the same format. In the AU/EU series, the hosts were able to roast (in good taste) some contestants for their bad answers. But not here, it seems like the editors went out of their way to make sure that no one was shamed for getting the answer wrong, or putting in a stupid answer. I think that made it fun for the AU/EU viewers when contestants were asked to explain how they justified their wrong answers. It's not to insult them, but so that everyone else, even the viewers can learn from that mistake, and everyone applauded them for playing anyways.

I don't know if it's time constraints.... but the important part was to put emphasis on, not just the answer, but why it's the answer.

I'm one of those people who loves brainiac type shows. So of course I thought this was going to be a really great show. The first thing that disappointed me was that they start out way up at a question 90% of the people surveyed got correct and very slowly dwindle down to 1%. I do have a high IQ but I thought these were relatively easy questions. But the majority aren't really questions about intelligence, rather about perception or ability to perceive the twist; riddles. For example one of the questions is: These two states South Dakota and North Carolina can form two completely new state names, what are they? I thought it was very obvious but yet several people got that wrong.

In E2, two questions had more than one way to reach the answer. IE, they say to look at the round numbers to find an equation; they were speaking of the digits that have circles, which is so anti-intelligent you really have to hope for the best in answering because there no rhyme or reason - most people would think they meant the numbers ending in 0. But ironically, if that's the route you chose, you would still get the correct answer.

It should have been more fun than it was. I thought the host was okay but I'm not a fan - I don't really care for hosts who think that teasing is funny or entertaining (and I prefer nice voices). E2 inproves a bit but in E1 it almost becomes an interview of the lady with one kidney. With 100 contestants, we see only a handful and hear from even fewer with the host picking favorites to - well - pick on. I'll also just mention that in episode 3, I felt the guy who was sponsored by The Gates Foundation was a marketing spot. Bill Gates has really become a hated figure after forcing his vaccine on the world and is obviously a paid attempt to soften people's opinions of him. Since his name is on the 2015 covid patent along with Clinton's, we can be pretty sure he's known for a while that there would need to be a vaccine for what we now know to be a relatively benign common cold cousin.

Part of the difficulty is the short amount of time given to reach an answer. But E2 was even easier than E1 almost by leaps and bounds.

But for those saying the 1% question on E1 was unfairly presented, I'm afraid that is just showing that you didn't qualify. The directions that it was a word is literally in the term "password"; while popular to call every digital key that unlocks something a password, a key that uses numbers, acronyms, or symbols is technically a passCODE. But thank you for solving my question of why that was so difficult for our finalists. You would probably hate the film Exam (2009).

I'll continue to watch this as it becomes available, I know the British version is very popular. However I do hope there are more challenging questions to come - but that aspect does make it fun for the whole family. Another example is, basically, in the English alphabet which picture represents the 23rd letter. Several people got that wrong. Of course, initially you do have to figure out that it's discussing the English alphabet. Some reviews mention it's designed to make everyone feel smart. Maybe that's all there is to it but I think a lot of people would disagree.

But the fact is, anyone can get stumped by age old verbal tricks or riddles like "A plane crashed in the desert; where did they bury the survivors", or "If y e s spells yes, what does e y e s spell". Trust me, these do stump many people. This show may be just a series of this type of riddle.

In many of the questions, solving is more easily done by eliminating the wrong answer such as turning the + sign 45 degrees. Only 2 answers had the plus in the 45 degree angle and of those, only one had the 2nd symbol turned almost 90° to the left.

I was one of the people who was initially stumped by the 1% question in episode 3, and yet looking back it was quite obvious.

As I said I'm not fond of the host (never heard of him before) but I don't hate him either. Hopefully they're just on a learning curve right now. If he's a comedian, then I agree he should be allowed to adlib. Might make it more interesting.

Patton Oswald is such a delight! His humor and personality are so enjoyable, you can't help laughing out loud throughout every episodes! Such a great casting job. Plus, the game itself is a blast. It's a fun concept of pitting yourself against the odds that invites the entire audience in to participate and see how they stack up against the competition.

So far only a few episodes are out but we will definitely be looking forward to more as they are released. Thanks for a great viewing experience with a stand-up guy for a host who does a really great job. (We were able to view these episodes on Amazon Prime as of now)

This is the first new game show in a while that I've found to be interesting, but then, I've always liked quiz shows. Patton is a great host. I like that he banters with a few of the contestants so that they aren't all just anonymous players. The game questions start out easy, as would be expected, and then become harder as the game goes on. (Though I have to admit question two on episode one nearly stumped me as I wasn't quite sure where they were going with it.) The best part to me is that there is an app where I can actually play alongside the contestants. It gave me a stake in the game. Well done! I hope this one hangs around for a while.

Patton tries hard, but the questions are not engaging. Here are a few issues with the show:

1. The pace of the show is too slow. For the early/easy questions they provide the same response time as for the hard ones, so the viewer is just waiting for an obvious question to be answered.

2. Since there are 100 contestants the viewer does not get to know any of them so we don't care if they get kicked off the show. I see the contestants' numbers turn dark when they are booted, but there is no "walk of shame" off the stage or even an understanding of who the contestants are (other than some awkward Q&As with a small sample).

3. The questions are not interesting. Who cares if the contestant and tell one image is red while the other is checkered (actual "test" on the show)? Some of the questions should include facts so the viewer can occasionally learn something interesting.

4. Patton? He is a great comic, but he does not bond with people in the way a game-show announcer should with the contestants (e.g., Pat Sajak or Bob Barker). And his "jokes" during the show seem forced, like writers came up some on-liners that Patton could use at will.

Is there anything GOOD about the show? YES! The good part of the show was to figure out the reasons it was so horrible to watch.

We recorded this every week and would watch it the next night and see if we could make it to the 1%. It was fun for the whole family. The questions/ twisters could be very challenging and then when you see the answer it was like, duh, of course that's it. Lol We would be surprised at how many people went out early on what we thought were easy questions. Hopefully they bring our season 2 and so on and so on. They have our vote for a confined series. Can't wait until the next season. Not sure what else to say about the show but I'm sorry on characters to leave this review. Lol we do love the show though.

This show is ridiculously slow paced and has nothing to do with intelligence at all . It has more to do with trick questions and changing words around and things like that so to call it the 1% club is idiotic at best . The host , Patten Oswald is as usual his same moronic self and comes off as a pathetic loser like in most everything he does . If the show actually had any questions pertaining to intelligence instead of trick questions making plays on words or sequences of the alphabet and patterns and other ignorant things it might be actually entertaining . The host is just unbearable to watch and the only thing he was ever remotely good in is the King Of Queens with Kevin James .

Patton does a great job as host. And the questions are fun. But they're far too easy. I've seen a dozen episodes, and have yet to answer a question incorrectly.

But far more importantly, watching this show absolutely crushes any hope you might have had for the future of our species. The show claims that the questions they present were answered incorrectly by between 10 and 99 percent of Americans. THESE AREN'T DIFFICULT QUESTIONS! The fact that so many people, both on the show and in their pre-show research, get SO MANY of these questions wrong, only proves that we are, unfortunately, a doomed species of morons. Don't get me wrong-this state of stupidity is also made obvious by watching the news, viewing the internet, or observing people going about their everyday lives. Human beings are morons. But one of the nice things about much of the world of entertainment is that it often provides a distraction from this inescapable assessment of homo "sapiens". This show, however, does the opposite. It continuously pounds into your skull just how depressing our combined existence is.

Enjoyed some of the questions, some were intentionally confusing. But all the same, it was ok.

Could really do without the blatantly obvious showcasing of diversity. Went out of their way to highlight so called marginalized groups. BUT this is America...lol. Where the entertainment industry feels it's responsible for maintaining our differences rather than treating us all the same. If only our country would step up and say enough! Instead of buying into the victim mentality and all the perks that accompany it for sacrificing one's self respect

Oswald is an ok host, some of the material written for him is stupid.

Watched this on prime video, was more enjoyable because I could skip over all the filler.

In the show, after each question, Patton generally talks to one person who got it wrong and another who got it right. The one who got it wrong is almost always a person of color, while the one who got it right is almost always a white person. The subtle racism is utterly disturbing. Can also say same treatment goes to drag people or visibly queer people. Its like the show is trying to make a super discriminatory point about the intelligence of people according to race or sexual orientation. It sucks to see this going through on a massive streaming platform after all the struggle POC and queer people gave.