At the end of their fifth season, The Kids in the Hall buried themselves in a field as Paul Bellini—wearing a towel, as always—visited their gravestone. The boys from Canada apparently thought their comedy troupe was coming to an end.

That was not the case. After their poorly received movie, Brain Candy (made while the rest of the troupe was feuding with Dave Foley), the boys went quiet. They eventually reformed for some tours, and they did the very funny miniseries Death Comes to Town (2010), but their irreverent and sometimes nasty brand of sketch comedy remained in that aforementioned grave.

Until now. Thanks to Amazon Prime, a sixth, eight-episode season is upon us—and this is no standard reboot. I’m happy to report that KITH have lost none of their edge. They remain as funny as they ever were—and, in fact, they’ve gotten a whole lot nastier. They go full frontal in the first episode, and that’s just them getting started.

This is not a case of getting back together for a cash grab and phoning it in. This is atomically (and anatomically) funny stuff, with each member (Foley, Scott Thompson, Bruce McCulloch, Kevin McDonald and Mark McKinney) at the top of their games. These episodes do offer some character returns (“crushing your head” guy, gay icon Buddy Cole), but the big surprise is how much totally new and crisply creative sketches the group conjured up.

There are too many great moments to mention, but a major shout-out goes to Dave Foley’s apocalypse DJ, who sits in a bunker performing a morning show as his generator is running low on fuel. Foley spends much of this skit sitting in sullen silence, and it’s just one of those things you must see to understand. It’s macabre comedy at its best.

I really hope this isn’t a one-shot thing, and the troupe has some more seasons in them. But if they do call it a day after this, they’ve gone out on a supremely high note.

Kids in the Hall’s sixth season is now streaming on Amazon Prime Video.

YouTube video

14 replies on “An Incredible Comeback: The New ‘Kids in the Hall’ Season Is Among the Troupe’s Best Work”

  1. Never heard of this show. Or the actors. Or a troupe. Whatever this is, it isn’t an informative review. Unless you have prior knowledge of whatever he is writing about. Unfortunately, I dont.

    1. Sketch comedy show that ran 5 seasons from early 90’s. All 5 guys are really funny and talented. As far as the writing and just making me laugh, I’d put it up against most of Saturday Night Live easily.

  2. You are correct. I’m boring. I also am part of the large, boring, affluent, retired, well-educated demographic in this valley that you failed miserably to connect with. Your article lacks context and thus assumes that boring people like me are not worth explaining who this group is. And your comment to me reflects a condescending arrogance which doesn’t make us boring folks want to support either you or this local paper. Comparing the group to the Beatles is a stretch, even for the Village Idiot, don’t y’a think?

  3. Colloquial review with all the cute flourishes is great for insiders, but tell us: who are these people or this group or band or whatever, of whom you write? Is it/they Something else? Why waste column inches if you’re not going to spend at least a single, not-so-cool sounding but informative sentence to introduce this “thing” to your public. It’s called good journalism 101. You slept through it, yes?

    1. They probably assume that if you clicked on the story you have probably at least heard of Kids in the Hall. It was a fairly successful sketch comedy that ran on network TV for 5 seasons from early nineties. And since, individually, they’ve starred in many movies, TV series, etc. They’re not exactly new guys that need a major introduction to many. And with the reemergence of the show after 27 years, it’s kind of a big deal. Besides, in less time than you spent complaining about the article, you could’ve googled Kids in the Hall.

      1. Well thanks for the clear and concise explanation. A well written article would not require the reader to google anything. This piece was too “cute” to be a really good review of anything. Bordered on smug. It was neither well written nor informative. But your explanation was both.

  4. Boring, affluent, retired and “well educated” with apparently no open mindedness or sense of humor. Why did you feel the need to even comment on this? I guess being retired and boring you don’t have much else to do… this looks super funny tho; these guys are Canadian icons

  5. Finally, you tell us who these people are. I’m not Canadian. Thanks for informing me. Should’ve been the first sentence of your otherwise confusing article. Sense of humor and open mindedness are irrelevant to this post. Nothing funny in your writing. Nada. I have both. Do you? Try to be more informative next time. You can do it if you try harder and write with fewer flourishes and better syntax. Don’t assume we boring readers are as knowledgeable on foreign entertainers as you apparently are. Thanks for responding.

  6. These guys are a five piece Canadian comedy troupe that are loosely part of the SNL family, are of legend from the mid 90’s, were in constant syndication on Comedy Central, and not knowing them is almost equivalent to not knowing Seinfeld, and you’re just not a comedy fan. This new season has me howling.

  7. I am a comedy fan. Comedy isn’t always the same for everyone. A polished reviewer should comprehend that. Finally you explain, this time with ample context, who these people are. FYI, I never miss a Snl show, and more Often Than not, switch it off long before it ends because it is painful to watch, especially the so called music entertainment, which is mostly costume, smoke, lights lots of and screechy minimal talent.

  8. Strange review with either context nor clarity. And interesting on point comments from some others. You must be thrilled to get this much feedback. What does “…loosely part of….” Snl even mean. Do you howl like a wolf when you watch your group perform? What does that howl even mean? Is that more of your comedy? Is there something wrong with you? Seinfeld is a phenomenal, long term success and you’re comparing your little troupe to a decades long, ultra famous Larry David show? I question your judgment and ability to differentiate between a phenomenal comedy success and a not so great group with limited demographic following. But please keep writing. It gets better with experience and feedback.

Comments are closed.