Russell Brand’s Ponderland, Channel 4

Did we like it?
We didn’t like Brand even before his stupidity cost a fine lady (the controller of Radio 2) her job by bragging about his sex life (who’d have him? not us – but lots of desperate wannabe girls, it seems). So when we say this programme is puerile, distasteful rubbish, it’s not with a brainless Daily Mail-like chip on our shoulders.

What was good about it?
• The footage from obscure television programmes has been brilliantly uncovered. We would have been happy just seeing the films of an angry lion, a snappy dog, a vicious horse etc. Brand’s interjections just ruined some pieces of TV gold.
• The news item, delivered without a flicker of amusement by a poe-faced anchor, about a woman who stamped on a budgie following an argument over a dog.

What was bad about it?
• There’s nothing at all special about Brand. Harry Hill or Danny Baker or even Jonathan Ross would have been funnier providing links to the array of batty animal lovers uncovered by the research team.
• Brand’s unfathomable popularity.
• Brand’s stupid gestures.
• Brand’s silly voices and sillier shrieks.
• Brand’s tawdry bestiality “gags”.
• Brand’s horrible clothes.
• Brand.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s