Top Ten Ways In Which James Acaster Is the Worst Comedian of All Time
I hate these kind of lists, but I really had to get off my chest why I can't stand this idiotic, gormless, dull, pathetic excuse for an entertainer. The only real joke that he's introduced to comedy is that he is the joke. He appears in the media out of nowhere, and he tears down the element of satire itself. It boggles my mind how he can just say anything, and people will laugh because they're told it's funny; his stand-up is filled with his depressing rants about inanimate objects, and his one-liners are bland and redundant, and neither hardly ever relate to the subject matter, or even with its linking elements. To watch him for five minutes is as agonising and mentally depleting an experience as a chainsaw lobotomy, and you feel that pain to the same degree every time; just as opening and closing a door never feels any different, nor does this. He lacks not only humour, he lacks attention, he lacks character, and he lacks all of the qualities which a human being would associate with entertainment. You'd think even a dreadful, albeit comic pun wouldn't go amiss, but it would. And yet, he's becoming famous, and being praised by other comedians as if he were the start of the next generation of comedy. If comedy like Acaster's was as prominent as Atkinson's or Boyle's, then sex with foxes and caring for your head lice would be considered normal behaviour, because humankind's ways of thinking and interpreting would be butchered. There are often few viable items on these types of hate lists, but I have come up with ten very good reasons to hate James Acaster, and these are the reasons which I stick to in argument.Comedian (noun): A Humorous Entertainer. If James Acaster has been told to look up "comedian" in the dictionary, he might as well have looked up "humorous" and "entertainer" as well before he justified his profession, as he is neither humorous nor entertaining.
The jokes themselves are lower than low-key, and might as well just pass as random sentences. There's no quip, and no emphasis of sarcastic wit or deadpan vibe. It's not even outside the box or comically nonsensical, it's just a really boring line about things people do everyday, only sparing no agonizing, unnecessary and cringe-worthy detail. It can't be called deadpan humor, because there's no punchline, and even with a bad deadpan joke, there's some element of neutrality, but there's no element of anything where the soulless and bleak personality of Acaster is concerned. These random tangents of his, even if they're where his technique lies, fails to change anything about his lack of ...more
British comedy has long been unique: satirical sarcasm mixed with slapstick practicality at one extreme and puns and dark one-liners at the other. It's diverse, but it's all got one fantastic culture to it. A culture which has only recently beared the scar of James Acaster.
It's been said that Acaster uses elements from every legendary comedian before him. That's bull. He couldn't be any more dissimilar from them, even from the performers in his wake. His performances have ripped the classics off, ripped the wit from them entirely, and mutated the ideas into his own tedious ramblings, and the result is always the same thing. Yet with his emotionless, superficial personality, he is said to have a deadpan atmosphere, which, as I explained above, is further bull. This allows him to blend in with the real people, and it weighs down not only everything he's in, but the motivation for everyone, even the highest ranking comedians alive, to stay in sync. His influence is already ruining ...more
I found this because I Googled "Who told James Acaster he was funny? " He is painful to watch. I would be embarrassed for him not realising all the laughs are the uncomfortable kind one may make when your 90 year old aunt with dementia says some awful at the wrong time, but I now hate everything about him so much I have no empathy for him.
In all seriousness, is he autistic? If you manage to watch him watch he eyes. He never makes eye contact with anyone. This is the only reason I think he's on everything. It's some kind of patronising diversity program.
In conclusion, he is terrible.
He completely ruined Have I Got News For You on Friday 27 April 2018. Had seen him on that before when he was also dreadful but did put it down to nerves. I can only conclude that the hysterical laughter every time he opened his mouth was dubbed because he did not even raise a titter in this house, just embarrassed rolling of the eyes. Please may he never been on T.V. again (fingers crossed). Dreadful, dreadful comic and I actually baulk at using that word for him. MPW
Nothing takes zero effort, but a James Acaster stand-up comes close. First off, he leaches off other performers by saying something they just said. Whenever he's on a panel show, he only puts a verbal emphasis on what someone else already said, and that somehow makes it funnier, according to audience logic. He never expands on a topic which chance has put in hand, it's only the same punchline regurgitated and brought down to his level of unintuitive ignorance. Why is he said to do comedy for everything where this clearly shows he can't bring anything to certain discussions?
Second, when he tries to be original, it gets much worse. He has very little authentic material, and concentrating on that tiny part that is genuine, the "joke" is slowly unraveled to consume time, and leaves before any punchline can manifest. Not to mention how each one just describes its topic basis, and doesn't expand. There's little to no variety in the things he talks about given a point, and ...more
Everyone I see: my friends, my family, and various celebrities in the media, are all automatically biased towards James Acaster. I just don't understand it; whenever there's mention of him, the crowd goes wild, and as any show continues, he's the centre of attention. And with the extremely boring and irritating things which he brings to them, and little appreciation for what it takes to shine, what has he done to stand out like this? It's like saying Jar Jar has the most important role in Star Wars. The media should focus more on the more intuitive comedy performers to give it a good image, which they won't do with this kind of prejudice.
"I'm not a very adventurous person, I've only ever used one side of a cheese grater." The matter was adventure, and he spent five IQ-depleting minutes blabbering on about cheese graters, such as how one end was "unemotional". This is an example of how futile he is at making comedy. My interpretations are that he diverges from the subject because he thinks he knows enough about it to make it stand, and enough about what people may find funny, or that he will go onto something irrelevant to get the audience to laugh at him and not with him. Either way, it's a foolhardy and petty method of avoiding having to brainstorm new ideas, and weaseling out of something that he doesn't know squat about. It's ironic that he did this recently after a colleague did a stand-up about politicians escaping conversations, only nobody but me saw the cheat that they had in common.
That cheese grater joke is by far and away his best.
How exactly did he get famous? If you look him up, all you'll see about his life outside of comedy is that he went to high school in Kettering before he attended a few comedy festivals, and he's gone straight from that to appearing on every panel show in the country, becoming immensely popular in Australia and New Zealand, and performing at every comedy festival in sight, ALL IN TWO YEARS. On a smaller scale, albeit huge because of his rep, he's appeared once on the episode of Mock the Week that was rated the worst, single-handedly made it the pinnacle of appalling, and now he's on the verge of becoming a full-time panellist. How exactly does that compare with everyone else, who had to break a sweat over and over to make a positive impression, and develop intuitive ideas at an intense pace to even appear on the stages he exploits?
He's often dubbed with the phrase "original comedy". Not "dark comedy" or "practical comedy", but "original comedy". Ladies and gentlemen, I give you false advertising on a whole new level.
To build on what I've already said on this list, he echoes what's been said before, and he rips the laughs from it. But it's much more than that. There's close to nothing that he likely thought of himself, at least not as a punchline. With superfluous, soulless stand-ups which drone on about boring inanimate objects, it's likely that all his thoughts simply went into his long-winded rampages about what a cheese grater is. He doesn't think for a moment about lines that would make sparkling new comedy, as he's got pretty used to old jokes, but not to the concept of them aging, or being copyrighted.
Brainstorming is clearly too mainstream for this generation of comedy.
His personality can be summarised by the several dictionary definitions of dull: stupid, slow to understand, boring, gloomy, blunt, not vivid, indistinct and prolonged. Even if he was doing anything to disprove me on this case, he'd hardly be doing anything to directly attract and communicate with the audience, so even if it was mildly funny, I just wouldn't be feeling it.
Why am I watching him? Why do I keep watching him? Well, partly because he happens to be on a show I watch anyway, and partly out of morbid curiosity. Why is he funny. People are laughing, so he's funny right? I'll keep watching, maybe I'll laugh in a minute. Umm...I'll keep watching...I'm feeling guilty now, I'm feeling tainted. I'm watching something I cannot possibly enjoy. Why am I doing this to myself? Could it really be morbid curiosity? Yes, but now it's changing...I've been waiting so long for something funny to come out of his mouth, I'm starting to feel sympathy. I'm actually sitting there wanting him to say something funny. It's tearing me up inside. I want him to be funny. Please be funny. End my torture. It's like scaping my knuckles on a cheese grater. BEHOLD I HAVE BECOME HIM.
It's very simple: Acaster is anything but the Third Ronnie. As I said above, he gets wholly undeserved attention, and he uses that to abuse his reputation. He imagines himself as on the same level as legendary comedians because he's got the opportunity to perform alongside them by a series of flukes, and imagines himself as world famous in a short time. If Meghan Trainor was to join The Rolling Stones all of a sudden, would that make her a smooth classic rock star who's been constantly grinding to become world famous for half a century? I don't think so. James Acaster is making equally ridiculous claims.
Boring dull unfunny and these are his good points
Believe me, you have to see this prat to believe him. If you haven't yet, lucky you. You sit and wait for him to say something interesting, but he just piles upon the same stale and lifeless message, having your IQ drop rapidly, and then you consider rethinking, if not taking your life. Two minutes in, and you'll be begging for everything to stop. It never gets any better or worse, as it's never any different.
I hate him more than you
Slurring his way through deadpan panderings and pledgiarism with a whiny nasal tone. It's like Frank Skinner with a head cold.
He looks unassuming, bookish and eccentric, so one expects to laugh loudly. Why? Really because these kind of people are funny - then look beta, bullied, but they end up being the studs of the party, like Woody Allen and several others.
However, I am listening for his timing. I am waiting for the bathos, the hilarious anti-climax that encapsulates the absurd.I find it much worse than someone telling a joke in a caf. I am waiting for cleverly upturned concepts and one-liners that both express his type and something we feel sometimes. I cannot empathise with any of his subjects - he is naturally interesting looking and weird as well as weirdly confidant - but the weirdness is he is remarkably unfunny. Disgustingly so. He has a lot of potential, good looks. I'm amazed at how unfunnily bad he is. Bad comics can be bad on purpose to be funny. He is something really lack-lustre which again can be funny but not here