The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore

After watching the second Monday show (26 January) wherein the movie "American Sniper" was discussed, I doubt that this show will or should survive. On his panel of commenters was a man who claimed to have served an aggregate five tours of duty to Afghanistan and Iraq, acting as a sniper. He claimed to have killed nine people in one day, and too many during his tours to count, and felt nothing about the people he had killed. The response from the audience was applause. It was as chilling a moment as I have felt in my life--celebrating a person who demonstrates sociopathy after being sent to participate in the invasion of a country whose people had done nothing to us.

Tasteless and vile.

And very not funny.

Larry Wilmore is mildly funny but as far as hosting a show, he is absolutely horrible and painful to watch. Also his jokes are very old and played out, mostly revolving around black issues. His guests do not represent an accurate representation of the population. I was a huge Colbert fan and knew that no one else will come close to comparing, but Comedy Central can do much better. I guarantee Comedy Central loses TONS of viewers during this time slot. I would rather watch Tosh.0 which sadly says a lot. "Keep it 100 n Twitter"... are you kidding me?!? And what about the last segment where he answers a question from a viewer- there's nothing at all mildly comedic about his answers.

I've been a loyal viewer of The Daily Show for many years and have really enjoyed all of Jon's correspondents, Larry Wilmore included. But he has big shoes to fill in replacing Colbert.

Colbert always complimented Jon well in that he could make light of many ridiculous topics, especially enjoyable after Daily Show episodes which tend to highlight injustice, partisan politics and other frustrating aspects of our nation. Important topics to discuss, but not necessarily to go to sleep on. Colbert would often lighten the mood by entertaining many topics creatively.

Larry, on the other hand, seems to only focus on the black struggle from his perspective as well as those of his black panel guests (and a couple of token white guests who appear as outsiders with little to contribute). The topic of racial divide is a heated one and not one I'm excited to go to sleep on every night.

For me to continue watching the show I'll need to see some topic diversity.

Random thoughts:

• More monologue, less panel - What's with the inverted map??

UPDATE: After watching the show for awhile now I can say that topic diversity didn't help. The show is boring, plain & simple. I've officially stopped watching it. Wilmore is not great on his own, he has little in his comedy toolbox.

I loved Larry Wilmore on the Daily Show, so I gave him a full week's chance on his own ... but it's not working. The problem, I think, is that Larry isn't a great solo act. On the Daily Show, as the "Senior Black Corespondent," he was bouncing off of Stewart. Maybe that's why they decided to do these panel discussions for a good majority of the show, but I've never found it interesting to watch a group of strangers (or near strangers) chat about a subject.

I don't mind that the show is focused on black issues and concerns, and in fact I was ready to find that spin refreshing. His panels are somewhat racially diverse, so I don't feel left out as a white woman ... I'm afraid I just don't think the format is working, and I'm not convinced that Larry has the right force of personality to make this show work.

It had a rocky rollout, but I think The Nightly Show has pretty much figured out what works and what doesn't.

They largely ditched the "Keeping It 100" shtick; and when they do occasionally allude to it during panel discussion, it's done much more subtly/sensibly/intelligently.

And the produced pieces are very high quality; informative, smart, funny, eminently watchable. The only reason I give the show an '8' is because... well, that's high for a political presentation/talk show, in my book.

I continued watching it because Wilmore is obviously a theater nerd, and I dig that, and I had a hunch we'd see the show evolve; and it has.

Good work!

(& btw, this is an amended review. Below is the original review I posted two or three episodes into the original launch of the show:)

-----------------------

Original title: "'Keeping It 100'" doesn't keep it 100"

Loved it when it first came on, had high hopes. I'm just starting to get the impression that it's turning out to be (hard to believe) no better than Realtime with Bill Maher. I've sort of gotten objective on the Maher show, and realize that he's a bit of a blowhard and too often tends not to do his job (as moderator) so as to truly maximize his assets.

Well, I'm starting to get the impression that Larry, bless his heart, isn't going to score much higher than Bill on these counts. He's a very funny guy, his opening monologue material rocks, and he delivers it with aplomb... fairly reminiscent of the late departed Mr. Colbert, IMHO. But 50%+ of the show is taken up with the panel. He picks great people, often sitting on opposite ends of sundry sociopolitical spectra... and then he well nigh squanders them. At least with Bill you sometimes get genuine fireworks of repartee. Here, that gets blunted/shortshrifted by Larry, with the icing on the cake being his "Keep it 100" capper that dumps rather insulting loaded questions/scenarios onto his hapless guests. Frankly, I'm more than a little surprised; after Colbert's writers set such a high bar, it's hard to believe this stuff squeaks through.

I give the show a six due to the fine production values, and Larry's wonderful, informative presentations. His guest panel robs away the rest.