Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,506 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
"How about a satire that focuses on how the news has become a parody of itself and how network executives are more worried about ratings than actual journalism? "....said the creators of South Park back in 2004. To call Anchorman 2 unoriginal is stating the obvious. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting anything groundbreaking here. But it's ashame to see a movie that could have been so much better, turn out to be so mediocre. The dialogue is forced, the jokes are old, and the plot is so shallow that the movie comes off as a string of SNL skits tied together as a movie.

PLOT (If you can call it that):

The story of Ron Burgandy as he rises to stardom, falls from grace and redeems himself as he overcomes changes in the world of the newsroom. It's basically a less funny version of the first film.

PROS

The movie does have funny moments. I would be lying if I said I didn't laugh a few times.

The cameos are one of the highlights in this movie.

If I could talk to just the guys for a moment, there are some good looking broads in this flick.

Steve Carell and Kristen Wigg steal the show whenever they share a scene.
CONS

The movie is mostly rehashed jokes from the first movie, only less quotable.

As said before, the story is very unoriginal. Not only does it copy an episode of South Park, but it feels like you're watching the same story from the first movie.

The movie runs about 20 minutes too long and the second half of the movie seems to drag more than the third Lord of the Rings movie.

Kanye West....fuck that guy.

THOUGHTS

When I heard about the sequel, I was excited. The first movie is absolutely hilarious and is still quoted amongst some of my friends. I thought, "well if they waited this long to make a sequel, maybe it won't feel forced and it will be great!" Wrong! The movie looks like Will Farrell and director Adam McKay (who has directed most of Farrels popular movies) ran out of ideas and decided to pull a sequel out of their asses. Hiding behind a grouo of celebrity cameos, Will Farrell is laughing historically while he rakes in everyone's money saying "fuck you, you'll see it."

Maybe if you go in with low expectations, you'll enjoy it. Maybe that was my problem with the movie: standards. Go figure.
 

·
Stay Fearless
Joined
·
7,383 Posts
Not as good as the first but I thought it was good. Not great but good. Steve Carell was hilarious though :clap. Also liked all the cameos in the movie. Was really surprised to see Will Smith.
 

·
Plotting time travel mission.
Joined
·
8,641 Posts
It was OK, this type of movie is more of a redbox movie though and the ending was just a clusterfuck. I gave it a 6/10
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
32,163 Posts
If you're going in expecting it to be as good as the 1st then you deserved to be disappointed. It was what it always going to be. Needed the blind shtick cutting so it was 20 minutes shorter but on the whole I enjoyed it and got what I wanted out of it. Think of it as an encore rather than something trying to better the original.
 

·
Ben Wyatt's Low Cal Calzone Zone
Joined
·
5,893 Posts
If you're going in expecting it to be as good as the 1st then you deserved to be disappointed. It was what it always going to be. Needed the blind shtick cutting so it was 20 minutes shorter but on the whole I enjoyed it and got what I wanted out of it. Think of it as an encore rather than something trying to better the original.
I think this is a pretty spot on summary tbh.

The problem with sequels to films like Anchorman or The Hangover which receive initial critical acclaim (and in the case of Anchorman, become more celebrated years after its initial release), is that once the first installment is completed (whereby everything is new and unexpected), there's no room for subtlety, and instead its par for the course for the best traits which made the first film so loved to be over emphasised, as people have 'expectations' of what they expect from the sequel.

Things like the multi news-station fight was also going to be a hotly anticipated part of any sequel, thus there's no way they can achieve the same initial brilliance of the scene in the first film..because we're expecting and in some cases salivating over 'how it will be bettered'. Thus what you get is something heavily choreographed and planned in a bid to appease the audience and 'live up' to what the initial scene produced. The problem with that, is that there's just no way to do justice to the initial scene, which people didn't anticipate and hence forth becomes so much more appreciated.

The film had its moments and some enjoyable scenes, particularly in the dialogue as well as the cameos in the fight. I didn't particularly enjoy Brick's story arc, if only because like Alan in The Hangover, I find he's the most complex character because if you find the right balance he becomes a treasure, but stray too far and he can become irritating and one-dimensional. I really didn't think his story required as much focus as it got, and given how each scene mirrored the last I really wish it had been trimmed down. As a result, most of his funnier moments to me came in the minor scenes, such as the scene where they meet Meagan Good for the first time and Ron has to explain to him that 'the black man following you is your shadow'.

It did drag towards the end and I could have done without the additional subplots, but I knew what to expect going in and whilst it didn't better the original, it could have turned out far worse and there were some funny moments which would have been worthy of including in the first film.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top