This was pretty poor, basically just Brand glorigying his Sachs gate incident and talking about Michael Jackson as if he was found guilty of his child abuse charges (which he wasn't).

Its pretty rich for Brand to automatically assume guilt of Jackson based no newspaper scandal, but in the same show criticise the Daily Mail for making up lies and spreading hatred.

The show's title was "Scandalous." The clue is in the title. I've been a fan of this geezer for a number of years and watched him go from strength to strength since conquering his demons. I guess he wasn't your bag. Roll on Bobby Davro night.

I've liked previous stand-ups that he has done and also Ponderland which was the best thing he did. However this one was pure self-indulgence and not in the least bit funny.

I think JK recently remarked on the demise of 'true camp'. Brand is just that...a brand, and his camp 'outrageous' act has become very tiresome. I am not looking forward to the release of his remake of Arthur. I hated the Dudley Moore version, so I'm sure I'll hate his. Very cowardly indeed to pick on someone once they are gone regarding the Jacko slurs btw. But Brand has a shelf life of about 9 years, then he'll be forgotten. Michael Jackson will be remembered forever ...true stars versus plastic tabloid fodder...no contest.

The Fat Controller wrote:
I think JK recently remarked on the demise of 'true camp'. Brand is just that...a brand, and his camp 'outrageous' act has become very tiresome. I am not looking forward to the release of his remake of Arthur. I hated the Dudley Moore version, so I'm sure I'll hate his. Very cowardly indeed to pick on someone once they are gone regarding the Jacko slurs btw. But Brand has a shelf life of about 9 years, then he'll be forgotten. Michael Jackson will be remembered forever ...true stars versus plastic tabloid fodder...no contest.

I think your mistaken. He's not at all camp in fact he's quite obviously the opposite. A self proclaimed "dandy" is I believe the correct description. Re-Michael Jackson, lighten up its comedy and no subject should be off limits. If you don't appreciate or like, don't waste your time watching. Wasn't Michael Jackson "plastic tabloid fodder?"

The Fat Controller wrote:
Very cowardly indeed to pick on someone once they are gone regarding the Jacko slurs btw. But Brand has a shelf life of about 9 years, then he'll be forgotten. Michael Jackson will be remembered forever ...true stars versus plastic tabloid fodder...no contest.

FC this was recorded before MJ died last year. However I still don't think it is fair to ridicule someone for a crime that there were acquitted for. Also so much of Brand's recent stand-ups were about all the lies in the press about himself. However he chooses to believe all the tabloid rumours about Jacko. Also I don't think describing a sex act on the queen is funny or clever, just shocking and done for effect.

I'm sure that the remake of Arthur will be crap. All of Brand's other films have been crap, so no reason to assume otherwise. The only good thing about "Arthur" was the theme by Christopher Cross.

Thanks for correcting me Robbie.

robbiex wrote:
The Fat Controller wrote:
Very cowardly indeed to pick on someone once they are gone regarding the Jacko slurs btw. But Brand has a shelf life of about 9 years, then he'll be forgotten. Michael Jackson will be remembered forever ...true stars versus plastic tabloid fodder...no contest.

FC this was recorded before MJ died last year. However I still don't think it is fair to ridicule someone for a crime that there were acquitted for. Also so much of Brand's recent stand-ups were about all the lies in the press about himself. However he chooses to believe all the tabloid rumours about Jacko. Also I don't think describing a sex act on the queen is funny or clever, just shocking and done for effect.

I'm sure that the remake of Arthur will be crap. All of Brand's other films have been crap, so no reason to assume otherwise. The only good thing about "Arthur" was the theme by Christopher Cross.

Based on what? Your opinion? All of his 2 films have been very successful, including the current release. Thought you'd appreciate the correction. You do come across as a bit bitter by the way.

Angel wrote:

Based on what? Your opinion? All of his 2 films have been very successful, including the current release. Thought you'd appreciate the correction. You do come across as a bit bitter by the way.

Just because they were successfull doesn't mean they were actually any good, I'm sure all of the Police Academy films were successfull, otherwise they wouldn't keep making them.

St Trinians was crap, Forgetting Sarah Marshall was crap, and now take him to the Greek was about as funny as a frontal labotomy. These films have been universally panned. He can't act, by his own omission he is just playing himself in all of the films he's been in.

Please tell me the point of making a remake of Arthur, other than to cash in on fans of the original.

So why is Russell Brand so popular? What's he done apart from exemplify our country's suicidal hatred and disgust of older people (the Sachs affair)?

And other than that Level 1 child porn film (St Trinians)?

Like millions of others, I've liked his films so far. His last effort was so "crap" that "Get him to the Greek" was a vehicle written especially for him. No one is disputing his acting talents. You may think his films have been crap but i think otherwise and the fact that they were successful means more to come. I believe the remake of Arthur is a personal project for Brand and its the success of previous projects has given him the freedom to pursue. You seem to be an expert on all his films. Given your opinion of them I'm more than slightly confused. Why do you bother?