Reviews

The Opposition has its flaws, but I hope audiences give it a chance. The main flaw is the lack of originality. As others have mentioned, this feels like Colbert Report light. Klepper is making an effort to parody the right wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, but the parody itself is a work in progress and the concept is not very innovative, to say the least. But I would propose that an unoriginal show done well is better than an original idea poorly executed.

The other flaw is that the show is recent and relatively obscure. It doesn't have the juice to attract famous guests, but that doesn't mean that the guests it does have are not interesting. I hope the show is able to make the interviews informative and make it less about who the guests are and more about the ideas they espouse and the insight they can provide. For example, I thought the recent interview with Rob Riggle was very well done. The ability to do so consistently rests largely with Klepper and his skill to make the segment into a conversation that gives guests an opportunity to open up, rather than just a rushed clowning act with an extra.

In addition, this show has a challenge of competing with many other like shows that have a go at discussing political news in a satirical and humorous manner.

All this being said, I do feel like this show has potential. It makes up somewhat for its flaws by having a talented cast and good writers, who are able to induce subtlety into their jokes. The show needs to focus on execution, as well as finding new dimensions that will separate it from the rest.

I already find it more enjoyable than the Daily Show with Trevor Noah and Full Frontal with Samantha Bee. It doesn't have that self-righteous, pompous, preachy feel to it. It typically makes fun of ideas and not people. It is not vicious in a futile attempt to be edgy. I hope it stays away from becoming propagandist and remains in the comedy realm, a realm when all parties are equally liable to be ridiculed for their foolishness, incompetence, and intolerance.

I think this show has something. I will continue watching and hope others give it a chance as well.

I thought this was supposed to be a family movie. And I know that I am not the only one because the theater was packed with kids when we went to see this shallow spectacle. So why is drinking featured so prominently in this film that it could have easily been a platform for a Johnny Walker or a Budweiser commercial?

First, there is a scene, where Hugh Jackman's character (P.T. Barnum) finds Zac Efron's character (Phillip) at the bar. Barnum is trying to convince Phillip to join his show and a musical number ensues, which features Jackman and Efron singing, dancing and... pounding shots like there's no tomorrow.

Later in the movie, there is a scene, where Barnum is at the bar by himself sulking or reflecting and the circus performers find him there. Another musical number ensues, where Barnum realizes what's important to him and becomes inspired to be a good guy again. This leads to a celebration. Suddenly, beer is flowing from the tap like a river. Barnum runs out, but the performers proceed to get shitfaced and pass out.

Both scenes go for quite some time. As I watched them incredulously, I kept thinking to myself what was the message and why. Why was it necessary to portray careless consumption of alcohol as fun and gratifying? The answer I came up with is that it's just another example of how shallow and thoughtless this movie really is. It is a celebration of style over substance, of perception over reality, of deceit over integrity. It is a soulless festival of plastic morals, papier-mache values, one-dimensional characters, and a cliche story line, which at time crumbles the limits of suspended reality (e.g. Phillip has connections that get him and Barnum an audience with the Queen of England?). It's sugar water that is peddled as healthy and good. It confuses people into thinking that imagination is synonymous with graft.

Certainly, plenty of folks will love it and allow themselves to be willfully deluded into thinking that Barnum was an equal rights crusader and an all-around good guy, and not a huckster and profiteer, who succeeded at exploiting people's insecurities and ignorance. But this is not a movie I would ever want my children to see. I would never want them to think that fraud is ingenuity, as this movie portrays when Barnum puts up sunken vessels that don't belong to him as collateral for his first bank loan.

I would never want them to think that being greedy, cunning and unfair is good business, as this movie portrays when Barnum offers Phillip just 8% of the show, even though he badly needs Phillip to join the circus, to give it some badly needed critical acclaim and acceptance as more than just a sideshow.

It's easy to get caught up in all the glitz and glamour of this bright and loud film, and miss the simple fact that its message is often repugnant and it has the cinematic value of a Super Bowl half-time show.

I gave it four stars because it still has some good actors, who give good performances under the circumstances. Why they took these roles I am not sure.

Sadly, The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore has not taken off the ground and, at this point, appears not to have enough thrust to ever do so. It is plagued by a multitude of problems.

I don't think anyone expected Wilmore to be Colbert, but Wilmore needed to find his own voice, his own delivery style, much the way Colbert and Stewart did. Even John Oliver found his own style, which, although somewhat awkward, works well for him. Wilmore has failed horribly in this department. He may be a good comedy writer, but he simply lacks the personality and charisma to carry a comedy show.

When Colbert left it seems he didn't just sell off everything, including his entire set, and take his wit and personality with him. The writers went as well. The jokes being written for Wilmore are flat and stale most of the time. I found myself spitting my drink on more than one occasion watching Colbert and Stewart. Not so with Larry Wilmore. The satire is just not there, which turns the show into a bland and humorless marathon of complaints and grievances. Complaints and grievances could be comedy gold. George Carlin mined it well, until very late in his career. Alas, Wilmore is no Carlin.

Stewart's show, over the years, has had a remarkable supporting cast of correspondents, many of whom went on to great careers (i.e. Carell, Colbert, Oliver, Riggle, Jones, Gad, Helms). Their humor complemented Stewart's and allowed them to play off of each other, presenting loads of opportunity for improvisation. Wilmore has several contributors, but their contributions don't add a whole lot to the show. The recent report by Ricky Velez from the Puerto Rican Day parade should have never seen the light of day. A high school student could've gotten more out of the festivities and done a better job tying it all together.

It is also unfortunate that Wilmore (or perhaps his producers and writers) focus the show so much on a very narrow scope of social issues. On the opposite end of this spectrum seats John Oliver, who in his short time at HBO has tackled topics from tobacco use in developing nations, to ticketing debt, to FIFA, to capital punishment. This is only a guess, but I would say that 80% of Wilmore's episodes deal with racism,including petty non-stories, like the school principal, who called out some folks from leaving the school's auditorium early and was devoured by Wilmore, and a steady diet of Bill Cosby. The former is an important issue and the latter more of a distraction. More importantly, constantly keeping to these topics shortchanges Wilmore and turns him into the Chief Black Correspondent again and again, rather than take him beyond his legacy, expanding his reach and strengthening his resume.

Admittedly, there are a lot of comparisons being drawn here to Stewart, Colbert, Oliver, and even Carlin. But this is because Wilmore had not been able to find, understand, showcase, and market his own brand of political/social news show comedy. That's another damning criticism. The show is unoriginal. Even the title is lazy and unoriginal. And it should have behooved Wilmore to ask his audience not to chant his name at the start of the show. Colbert did it as a gag, to poke fun at the self-aggrandizing personalities of cable news shows. Why does Wilmore do it? However, the biggest and most egregious failure is the show's sanctimonious, bloodthirsty, and hateful rhetoric supplanting the humorous, witty, and satirical narrative of its predecessors. This is where, in my humble opinion, the show loses its audience. At the very least, it lost me and, as I understand, it lost a good number of friends and acquaintances for the same reason. The latest victim to be lambasted by Wilmore was the hapless dentist, who shot Cecil the Lion. The aforementioned school principal also got skewered and, of course, Wilmore's most favorite victim, Bill Cosby.

This is not to excuse these or any other of Wilmore's targets for their conduct or alleged conduct. It is to help demonstrate how in an attempt to comment on important social issues of our day (i.e. racism, illegal trophy hunting, date rape) Wilmore infected a true liberal narrative with hate for these people, missing the larger opportunity to discuss each issue in general, to dig a little deeper. The conversation is two-dimensional, even for cable TV (i.e. hunting is bad and taking down the confederate flag is good). It ignores due process, in case of Cosby and the MN dentist, dehumanizes, and is remarkably authoritarian. All the thinking is done for the audience and social justice turns into mob justice, humorless and quick to judge. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't identify with that.