Légendes vivantes

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.

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.

The further adventures of Ron Burgundy and his fellow news teammates yields quite a few laugh-out-laud gags and more than a few head scratches. I guess this is one of those films that depends heavily on knowing what you're in for. The first one was a big indicator and I had a hell of a good time with this.

I liked many of the jabs at modern news reporting and ratings and others that range from synergies to the chicken industry. Many quite good and to the point. Then there are those moments you're embarrassed to laugh at (the one with Paul Rudd's "Ladykiller" friends, for example) and will definitely offend more than a few. And this is, naturally, all done in the most over the top manner possible.

For some reason the bits with Steve Carell and Kirsten Wiig fell a bit flat for me but overall I completely enjoyed the film's excessiveness. Will Ferrell owns this role and everyone else gives it a fun go.

Get yourself in the right frame of mind and most likely you'll enjoy it.

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.

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.