The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore

:

Season 1
Season #: 2, 1
User Score
2.7

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 200 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 43 out of 200
  2. Mixed: 16 out of 200
  3. Negative: 141 out of 200

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. revreq
    Mar 26, 2015
    4
    I like Larry Wilmore - he seems like a great guy, is witty and likeable but the show is getting to me. Every episode seems to be about race which is getting old. I realize it is a huge problem but when he spends half the show lambasting Starbucks for even trying to start a conversation it wasn't funny (c'mon at least give them some credit for trying - damned if you do, damned if youI like Larry Wilmore - he seems like a great guy, is witty and likeable but the show is getting to me. Every episode seems to be about race which is getting old. I realize it is a huge problem but when he spends half the show lambasting Starbucks for even trying to start a conversation it wasn't funny (c'mon at least give them some credit for trying - damned if you do, damned if you don't). The panel format isn't working and mostly isn't funny, too many talking at once and not terribly funny. While we will keep DVR'ing the show and my husband will keep watching, I find myself wandering out of the room more and more to find other things to do. Sorry but this show is a miss to me, more than a hit.… Expand
  2. davidparke
    Feb 23, 2015
    6
    I think this show will improve. I think where it lacks is a balance between form and function. I think the format is well done and I get what they're doing, but I'll bet they're under a huge microscope from the network and the things they've set up aren't playing out as well as they could. Perhaps the network is trying to keep the show playing nicely and safely.

    I think the "Keep it    I think this show will improve. I think where it lacks is a balance between form and function. I think the format is well done and I get what they're doing, but I'll bet they're under a huge microscope from the network and the things they've set up aren't playing out as well as they could. Perhaps the network is trying to keep the show playing nicely and safely.

    I think the "Keep it 100 segment has HUGE potential for really getting great bites from the panelists, but the questions are often a little too soft or indirect. Many times, I'll turn to my wife with an alternate way of saying the same thing but in a way that wouldn't have a panelist trying to negotiate their answers. Alternatively, the panelists should be prepped ahead of time - maybe not with the "Keep it 100" questions, but with HOW the segment works - because it often starts off awkwardly and the show loses time by having to explain how the segment works to the panelists.

    And that's the other glaring issue: the show always seems like it's trying to stay to time. This is something Larry can work on, but perhaps having one less panelist would aid in the flow a bit. 5 people trying to fill a 4.5 minute break with intelligent discussion is a tall drink of water. There's been a show or two where a panelist says little to nothing. Larry does a good job trying to pose questions to each panelist but sometimes another panelist wants to finish a thought from earlier or wants to talk about how that question relates to them and it falls apart. Larry does an okay job trying to mitigate this but again, the panelists could be coached by their publicists or even the producers of the show.

    All in all, I love seeing Larry on TV and I think he keeps it 100 more than any panelist has on the show. I would just love to see the "Keep it 100" segment be more about people ACTUALLY keeping it 100, and less of a popular-answer competition. A lot of that segment seems to be majority rules. I wouldn't hate for Larry to be the deciding vote on whether or not someone kept it 100 rather than the audience.    … Expand
  3. ahnehnois
    Mar 10, 2015
    4
    I'm really ambivalent about it. It certainly doesn't have the snappy in your face entertainment value of Colbert, but the new format is interesting. The topics they take on are usually worthwhile, and Wilmore's perspective is fresh. But there are some serious issues.

    For one, while panel discussions are cool, trying to do them in ten minutes of screen time often descends into precisely    I'm really ambivalent about it. It certainly doesn't have the snappy in your face entertainment value of Colbert, but the new format is interesting. The topics they take on are usually worthwhile, and Wilmore's perspective is fresh. But there are some serious issues.

    For one, while panel discussions are cool, trying to do them in ten minutes of screen time often descends into precisely the sort of madness The Daily Show likes to parody. And their selection of guests varies from on-point to terrible. The comedians rarely bring much of anything; it's often a few genuine experts throwing out one intelligent talking point before being drowned out by weak attempts at parody. The show still hasn't decided what its tone is and what the purpose of the panel is and how to transition between news and comedy. They're clearly trying to do what Bill Maher has done quite successfully: take genuine political commentary and make it entertaining. But they've not even close to his level, not on their best day. The "keep it 100" questions exemplify this failure; it's a fun idea, but often the questions are so out there and slanted that nothing genuinely interesting or genuinely funny is being asked. The better shows have been when they spend the whole running time on the panel, make the panel full of smart people, and Larry breaks up the news debate with a comedic barb now and then.

    The other, perhaps more fixable issue, is that the supporting cast around Wilmore is terrible. Ricky Velez comes off less as a parodic representative of slacker culture and more as a genuine slacker. Shenaz Treasury was downright embarrassing the few times she was featured; trying way too hard to be funny and not remotely succeeding. The only one who has been even remotely successful is Mike Yard, who occasionally says something good but is still kind of lethargic. None of them would ever pass muster as correspondents on The Daily Show. Even Wilmore's monologues are mixed. It's a shame in that this late night/comedy news forum so desperately needs diverse voices, but they haven't been that successful thusfar. Most of the best quotes have been from guests.

    And it's great that someone's talking about racism, but their take on it is so unsubtle as to be disingenuous and slanted, and they've failed in their attempts to take on other forms of prejudice and inequality. It's easy, for example, to comedically rip holes in radical feminist bigotry, or in business sector overreach, educational dogma, religious zealotry, or to respectfully and responsibly make fun of the military. But they've utterly failed when presented with opportunities to do all above. Despite their supposedly anti-establishment perspective, they're remarkably concerned with political correctness and limited in their viewpoints. The promise was that it wasn't just a show about race, but so far, that's the only thing they've been very successful at leveraging.

    It's kind of a frustrating show because the topics are so good and the promise of an off-beat take or "minority report" (as the show was originally titled) is appealing. And, of course, many of Larry Wilmore's Daily Show appearances were hilarious and even without his foil and on his own, he still can be. But so far, they've had a few good shows that were genuinely funny and interesting and a lot that were neither.    … Expand
  4. RoboMike3000
    May 14, 2015
    4
    I really wanted to like this show. I did. It started off great, too, but Larry just ran out of steam by the end of week 2.

    I really liked the panel discussions at first for a diverse set of opinions, but too often became flooded with his own contributors and mediocre comedians that look for cheap punchlines instead of dissecting the substance of anything. That's what Larry lacks-- The    I really wanted to like this show. I did. It started off great, too, but Larry just ran out of steam by the end of week 2.

    I really liked the panel discussions at first for a diverse set of opinions, but too often became flooded with his own contributors and mediocre comedians that look for cheap punchlines instead of dissecting the substance of anything. That's what Larry lacks-- The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight give you a spoonful of sugar with the medicine, and the Nightly Show is just sugar-- strike that, it's actually just a hollow-tasting artificial sweetener. It's chuckle-worthy at times, now, but more often than not, I found myself asking, "why the hell am I still watching this?" while waiting for something interesting to happen.

    Fun drinking game: Drink every time Larry falls back on, "I'm just sayin'..." as a follow-up quip.    … Expand
  5. jamaker
    Feb 14, 2015
    5
    I think he is a good comedian, but unfortunately his topics so far have mostly been trivial. I don't know whether his format will support meatier stuff, but he needs to try or people will lose interest
  6. podaddy
    Feb 19, 2015
    6
    The show is not great, the show is not awful. After a few weeks in I've come to the conclusion that this is the way it will always be. Wilmore was a much better guest on The Daily Show than a host of this. There are probably more misses than hits and Wilmore seems a tad awkward at times. The first 10-15 minutes of Daily Show like presentation is far better than the panel discussions,The show is not great, the show is not awful. After a few weeks in I've come to the conclusion that this is the way it will always be. Wilmore was a much better guest on The Daily Show than a host of this. There are probably more misses than hits and Wilmore seems a tad awkward at times. The first 10-15 minutes of Daily Show like presentation is far better than the panel discussions, which are usually neither intriguing or funny. The 10 ratings are a bit puzzling, the show is simply not even close to being THAT good, but the zero ratings are even more puzzling and always seem to be followed by some commentary lamenting the loss of Steven Colbert. That is a ridiculous standard to hold The Nightly Show to, especially after only one to two weeks in. The show is destined to be mediocre if it doesn't ditch the panels and the lame "Keep it 100" schtick.… Expand
  7. mediaman812
    May 8, 2016
    4
    Wilmore is a balanced and funny comedian with great timing and feeling for his audience, but his show doesn't seem to highlight his strengths. I have read other reviews where his monologues have been identified as the strongest component of the show, but it seems to me that is the weakest and most superfluous segment.

    His monologues tend to cover expected subjects, and, while they may    Wilmore is a balanced and funny comedian with great timing and feeling for his audience, but his show doesn't seem to highlight his strengths. I have read other reviews where his monologues have been identified as the strongest component of the show, but it seems to me that is the weakest and most superfluous segment.

    His monologues tend to cover expected subjects, and, while they may push the envelope when stacked up against Jimmy Fallon, they certainly aren't like his Comedy Central predecessors.

    The most subversive portion of the show (and therefore the most interesting), is the panel portion, which is subversive in its LACK of in-your-face aggression. It's also something that we haven't seen in this format. Most comedic panel shows still try to play up the drama by pitting blow-hards against one another to get them to say outrageous or ridiculous things that the host can knock down with wit or base acid. Wilmore manages to pull insights from his guests without being all Bill Maher-y about it.

    He's good at this, and he deftly can pull awkwardness onto himself in a way that turns it comedic. What weaknesses there are will, I'm sure, be mitigated by more experience.

    To be truly honest, I wish they would jettison the tepid, unremarkable monologues in lieu of dedicating the show to more interesting debate--something we don't regularly see, and haven't seen since Jon Stewart left the network.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

96
#96 Best TV Season of 2015
7
#7 Most Discussed TV Season of 2015
75
#75 Most Shared TV Season of 2015

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
69

Generally favorable reviews - based on 18 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 18
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 18
  3. Negative: 0 out of 18
  1. Las Vegas Weekly
    Reviewed by: Josh Bell
    Feb 2, 2015
    60
    Like Stewart, Wilmore is good at using jokes to cut down overblown public figures, and he isn’t afraid to be self-deprecating. His opening monologue is typically the best part of the show.... The shakiest part of the show during its first week has been the middle panel-discussion segment, which features a mix of comedians and political commentators talking about the episode’s topic.
    Read full review
  2. Vox.com
    Reviewed by: Emily VanDerWerff
    Jan 23, 2015
    70
    It's still a little clunky, particularly in terms of editing, and it feels as if all involved are figuring out the right ratio of jokes to information. Yet there's a lot to recommend here.
    Read full review
  3. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Jeff Jensen
    Jan 20, 2015
    60
    Wilmore had a few bugs in his performance on opening night: He was a little too giggly, and a few times he spokesofast it turned his lines into what-did-he-say? mush. That said, his clear excitement for this opportunity was endearing.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »