Al diablo con las noticias 2

That was the first thing I said as I left the cinema. Was that the best they could come up with after all these years? I'm a huge Anchorman fan, but whereas the first one felt fresh and to the point, this one is flabby and overlong. It's not terrible and it did make me laugh a few times, but I expected so much more. The 24 hour news channel is a good hook on which to hang the gags and setpieces but unfortunately Ferrell and McKay don't seem to know what to do with it, so they settle for recycling material from the original. By way of example, the mahoosive news reader fight scene from Anchorman is repeated here; the first time around it was funny and surprising, this time it's lazy and stuffed full of tedious cameos by Will Ferrell's showbiz mates. So much wrong with this film: sidelining Veronica Corningstone; not enough Baxter; a subplot in which Brick gets a girlfriend, no laughs there, it's just odd and creepy; pointless roles for Harrison Ford and Greg Kinnear; a recurring thread of racial humour that is cringeworthy at best and at worst offensive. All of which leaves you asking: why, Ron Burgundy, why?!?

First thing's first - no, this is not as good as the original. But what sequel is? There was certainly plenty of laughs throughout the film, from the whole cinema. Sure, not all the jokes were amazing, but there was plenty of good slapstick and lots of great little quips.

The premise is simple - it's now the 80s and Ron and the gang are in New York to start the first 24-hour-news network (CNN, or 'GNN' in the film - this provides some decent satire), and since it's the 80s, they have to progress with the times, including having a female boss (who's also black). The eight guest-star cameo's - don't worry, I won't ruin the surprise - for the news team battle are pretty funny and will have you going "is that really ___?!"

That's my one issue with the film - it's a little long. Some scenes - such as the shark and the above-mentioned "battle" - go for longer than necessary and probably make it about 15min too long, clocking in at almost two hours. Also, was Josh Lawson the best choice as an Aussie to play a Rupert Murdoch-like character? But it's made up for by some truly laugh-out-loud moments, from finding out what they've all been up to since the first film and then some great sight gags and truly absurd moments.

I was so disappointed after the 1st viewing and didn't watch it again until today, its actually pretty good, the Harrison Ford scene alone was brilliant, the film just suffered massively from the sheer brilliance of the 1st film, the anticipation was too high but now it has all calmed down watch it again.

Sick to death of reading reviews starting with 'I was a massive fan of the first movie', well this isn't the first movie, its a different movie, stop comparing them!

Anchorman received a big cult following for a reason, it was hilarious, awkward, weird and completely random in places. It has to to be said its one of my favorite ever comedies.

But seriously!? What did you expect, something completely different? No! I didn't! I didn't want something completely different. I wanted more Ron burgundy, and plenty more brick tamland, which is what we got. Personally loved the film and cant understand why anybody didn't enjoy the original wouldn't like it too (unless you seem to think a movie called Anchorman 2, yes thats 2, needed to be something completely new and off the wall).

Sometimes think people need to get there head out there arse and just watch a film for the pure entertainment purposes it was made for.

Rant over. 8/10.

I enjoyed the first Anchorman. It was goofy, yet you had a sense of where it was going. The one liners were flawless, which made it the cult classic it is today. I realized I could only see a movie like this once every two years. When its sequel came around, I expected the same. It was exactly what I expected... In the first half. The first half contained some classic one liners, and fantastic situations these characters are in. The story wasn't that strong, but that was the first Anchorman's problem. The second half was a collapse. A collapse in storytelling, writing, and Will Farrell got a little old. The first half could have gotten at most an eight if it stood alone. The second half was also too overlong, they crammed too many fanfare elements that they felt they needed to keep from the first half. It made it feel like a rehash, not a sequel (trust me, you will know exactly when this happens). In the end, there are things that this first half cannot make up for in the second half. This review, to some may not be a glowing recommendation. However, if you are a fan of the first film, you have probably already have seen this.