Présentateur vedette 2 : la légende se poursuit

This will be hard to admit, but from time to time, a film occasionally surprises me- and I'm proved wrong. My first experience with the original "Anchorman" ended up being one of those times. I didn't see it theatrically, and waited until a friend forced it upon me. What a revelation it was- a straight-up comedy, incredibly well-made and structured, with nearly every joke hitting the mark. Sure, it's a complete farce, but one that worked extremely well. Audiences didn't initially warm up to the theatrical release, but like a cult film, it found an immense audience on DVD- including myself.

It comes as no surprise that there has been clamor for a sequel- the only issue is that Paramount had strong misgivings about making one. The box office wasn't strong for the first film, and farce comedies don't generally perform well. It's wonderful that this did get made, however. Not only does it satisfy fans of the first film, but it contains enough fresh material and biting sarcasm to go around. It may not be as crisp as the first, and it contains a few awkward moments, but overall, it deserves kudos for continuing to take risks, and I laughed out loud multiple times.

Summarizing the plot should be rather straightforward. The blustering Ron Burgundy (Farrell) has now married the daring anchorwoman from the first film, Veronica Corningstone (Applegate), with whom he has fathered young Walter. Life is beautiful for them until Mack Tannen (Harrison Ford) decides to retire at the network and makes Veronica, not Ron, the lead nightly anchor. Ron can't handle it, leaves the network, leaves Veronica & Walter, and ends up back in San Diego, drunk in front of Sea World crowds. Luckily for him, he meets a recruiter looking to start a 24 hour news network in New York City. The idea sounds ludicrous to Ron, but perfectly normal and sane to us.

Aside from the jokes and scenarios you can imagine after seeing the first film, the sequel offers a biting satire of today's version of the "news". With news networks on all the time, it's necessary to fill that space with CONTENT. How do these networks acquire this content? Is it possible that the content isn't always 'newsworthy'? Is it possible the boundaries of acceptable news stories have stretched a tad over the years? Answers to all questions are a resounding yes. The fact that news and news anchors are now trusted less by the public are part of the reason that these two films exist, and that the farce is so resonant. It's an unfortunate but true part of our society.

Thankfully, "Anchorman 2″ understands the folly that is a good portion of news today. By showcasing Ron Burgundy on a screen surrounded by multiple talking heads, with headlines running across the top and bottom of the screen, we can clearly see how crowded news delivery is today. Creating a scene with Brick Tamland (Carell) going postal in front of a green screen points out the hilarity that is broadcast meteorology. After all, do we need high- tech graphics to tell us what weather is coming our way? The whole thing is silly, really, which is most likely the reason why these films work so well.

If there are downsides to having this much fun at the theater, it's the occasional overkill. Farce is susceptible to such things, and at nearly two hours, the film occasionally runs into that. The subplot involving Ron going blind and living in exile could have been skipped. Also unnecessary are the oddly repetitive and off- putting actions of Champ Kind (Koechner), illustrating the need for a more well-rounded character (or perhaps actor? This film illustrates why Koechner hasn't been nearly as successful as his comrades). Poor Christina Applegate doesn't have much to do this time around except react to what Will Ferrell's character does to her, and the attempt to give Meagan Good's producer a meaty role falls a bit short.

For its' minor drawbacks, "Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" is still the year's funniest film. It's also an obvious achievement, not only to get these actors together again, but to give us a film that is worthy of our attention, all while inventing a few new laughs and trying its' hand at social commentary. If there is another sequel, I'm not sure there is anything left to comment on. We know the 'news' is no longer news, and so we, the audience, have to choose what we consume. It's a laborious task- perhaps one of the reasons why so many flock to The Onion, 'The Daily Show', and for all intents and purposes, 'Anchorman' films.

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.

I still remember the feeling; that aura of anticipation that i felt when the announcement was made. Anchorman 2 was in production. Finally, big Ron was on his way back!!! The magical news team where going to be gracing the big screen and i couldn't have been any more excited.

The first film was very close to comedic perfection; it had everything that was needed and much like any film that you thoroughly enjoy you want to see more, but in the back of your mind you don't want the film to become tainted.

And although this film has its droves of fans, for me it was incredibly disappointing. They took it too far. The stupidity in the first film was perfectly balanced. It was funny. This however was over the top. There are certain scenes that are very uncomfortable to watch as they try so hard to make you laugh. And as the ridiculousness accelerated, my gut began to churn and any smile that wanted to force it's way out to stay loyal to the first film was obliterated and all that was left was me,- insert summary here -.

Disappointment is too feeble of an explanation to how gutted i was at the way this film played out. So much of the first film was regurgitated. First couple of carbon copy moments i tried to ignore and enjoy but it eventually became so obvious and so desperate. The continual "by the beard of...", like quotations from Ron was tedious. And the shark....well i'll let you see that farcical moment for yourselves.

I tried, i really tried to enjoy this film, and yes, it had it's fair share of moments that made me laugh, but it is nothing more than a moneymaker. And it will do its job. But that doesn't stop it from being a massive let down. Sequels tend to work when they are planned, not when they are demanded.

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.