Anchorman 2....

[Alf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrNA7RjU91I

Announced.

Love it.

[Beefy]

Yeah, the whole of my Facebook has erupted in celebration this morning.

Meh, I thought Anchorman was alright, but I don't get this high regard that it's held in. But I'm very happy for all of you who do.

[Simon]

YES YES YES.

[Simon]

Yeah, the whole of my Facebook has erupted in celebration this morning.

Meh, I thought Anchorman was alright, but I don't get this high regard that it's held in. But I'm very happy for all of you who do.
Just because it's vaguely related and it might stir some debate, I made this post about Anchorman on another forum a couple of weeks ago in a topic about supposedly shit films that you love...

I maintain that Anchorman is essentially a terrible film, albeit one that is hilarious throughout. I absolutely love it, but all logic points to it being a dreadful movie. The plot is pretty much irrelevant and it has relatively few actual 'jokes', almost the entire film is carried by silly turns of phrase that aren't funny in/of themselves, it has ridiculous diversions like the cartoon bit and the Afternoon Delight chorus that have no context and don't go anywhere etc. Don't get me wrong, I love Anchorman - I think it's possibly the funniest film I've ever seen, and remains funny after however many times I've seen it, easily in double figures - but it seems to exist outside of any reasonable expectations of what a film should be.

Similarly there was some film a couple of years ago called Balls Out that again seemed to not really be about anything, and had few notable gags, but was hilarious from start to finish. Both films seem to rely entirely on the tone for the humour, rather than funny plots or loads of definable jokes. For whatever reason, Anchorman definitely WORKS, so there's no real justification for calling it shit...I just think it is great in a way that defies logic or typical expectations for a comic film...even if it is great, it SHOULD be shit, IMO.

[HHHnFoley_Rulez]

Excited...!

Wonder if it'll be the same film, like Hangover..

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m19d6xrqKq1rqfbiro1_400.gif

[Alf]

I love the fact that it is nuanced. There are tiny details that are brilliantly funny. It's like Arrested Development. In itself it's not laugh out loud funny but there are so many little touches that are excellent that it improves the whole.

[Fro]

Sweet Eli Whitney's nose! Good news. Obviously they need to bring back Rudd, Carrell and Koechner.

[Droid]

I loved Anchorman. I hope part 2 is just as funny. Have the same writers who wrote the first one written this one?

[Atty]

Your hair looks stupid.

[The Rogerer]

Just because it's vaguely related and it might stir some debate, I made this post about Anchorman on another forum a couple of weeks ago in a topic about supposedly shit films that you love...

I maintain that Anchorman is essentially a terrible film, albeit one that is hilarious throughout. I absolutely love it, but all logic points to it being a dreadful movie. The plot is pretty much irrelevant and it has relatively few actual 'jokes', almost the entire film is carried by silly turns of phrase that aren't funny in/of themselves, it has ridiculous diversions like the cartoon bit and the Afternoon Delight chorus that have no context and don't go anywhere etc. Don't get me wrong, I love Anchorman - I think it's possibly the funniest film I've ever seen, and remains funny after however many times I've seen it, easily in double figures - but it seems to exist outside of any reasonable expectations of what a film should be.

Similarly there was some film a couple of years ago called Balls Out that again seemed to not really be about anything, and had few notable gags, but was hilarious from start to finish. Both films seem to rely entirely on the tone for the humour, rather than funny plots or loads of definable jokes. For whatever reason, Anchorman definitely WORKS, so there's no real justification for calling it shit...I just think it is great in a way that defies logic or typical expectations for a comic film...even if it is great, it SHOULD be shit, IMO.The thing I liked, not that it was ground breaking or anything, but it made sure that it remained a comedy which is not common for a lot of films of it's ilk. When it does it's "tragedy" moments they were all still funny, while to compare it to Dodgeball which came out around the same time, comedy has to take a back seat because we have to somehow be sad that the gym is going to close down and hope that he gets the girl. Not that Anchorman doesn't have a predictable plot cliche, but it never compromises it to let the plot get in the way.

[InsertItHere]

I missed this announcement because I was too busy reading my many leather bound books in my apartment that smells of rich mahogany.

[Chris]

This is great news. More Ron Burgundy is welcomed. Anchorman is one of my favourite comedies. I'm just slightly concerned that it was lightning in a bottle last time, and they won't be able to live up to the original.

[Droid]

I'm just slightly concerned that it was lightning in a bottle last time, and they won't be able to live up to the original.

i'm concerned about that too.

[MikeHunt]

More bollocks lines from this abortion of a film for people to quote. Nothing bothers me more than consistent quoting of a film, it makes you sound like a twat!

[InsertItHere]

More bollocks lines from this abortion of a film for people to quote. Nothing bothers me more than consistent quoting of a film, it makes you sound like a twat!

You smell like Bigfoot's dick.

[mth]

I thought Anchorman sucked. Talladega Nights was miles better.

[Bert]

Talladega Nights sucks, never seen Anchorman.

[Guy]

Anchorman will most likely come across as completely awful on initial viewing.

Then you'll catch it again and think every line is just the most quotable thing ever said.

[The Rogerer]

I really didn't like Anchorman when I saw it at the cinema. Then I was baffled when people started quoting it, watched it again and it's now a staple.

[MikeHunt]

Anchorman will most likely come across as completely awful on initial viewing.

Then you'll catch it again and think every line is just the most quotable thing ever said.

Wrong! Partridge is the most quote able thing ever, I bet you quote films you annoying cunt. Horrific characher trait.

[Guy]

You'd be wrong. But that's nothing new.

[InsertItHere]

I love lamp?

[Droid]

Wrong! Partridge is the most quote able thing ever

Maybe in Britain. Most people in the U.S. Don't know who Partridge is.

[Droid]

Double post.

[MikeHunt]

You'd be wrong. But that's nothing new.

So why say its so quotable, if you don't quote stuff.

"it's very quotable, but I don't do, have never done it and would never do it" - guy

[Guy]

Because it..IS quotable?

It is possible to understand why people enjoy something and love quoting it without having to constantly do it yourself you know.

I hate people who constantly quote Peter Kay whenever their biscuit breaks off in their cup of tea...but I understand it.

Stop being daft.

[virms]

I think Mike is totally in the right on all his opinions thus far. For being a bad ass mofo I would like to extend to you an invitation to the pants party.

[McBain]

Anchorman is genius. Anyone that doesn't get it is what some people call...mentally retarded.

[wardy]

Quoting films is illegal in 9 countries.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Anchorman is a great film, easily watchable over and over again because of how good the lines are, but I don't see the need for a sequel. Hopefully I'm wrong, but the whole magnificent concept of that film was neatly used and wrapped up first time round.

[McBain]

They made a 2nd film out of the outtakes from the first one which was also hilarious. Wake up, Ron Burgundy! it's called.

[Chris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbxg9kPrnB0&feature=related

"Someone punted him?!?!?" always gets me.

[wardy]

I thought Wake Up Ron Burgundy was pish. I'll need to watch it again.

[McBain]

We were always high as a kite watching it, but there's definitely some great lines.

[virms]

I thought Wake Up was good. Obviously cant touch the original but on another.positivd note it reminds me of Spinal Tap and thinking of Spinal Tap is always a good thing.

[VanillaJello]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRC80uIV0oE

The convict line had me laughing.

[Dream-Evil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VdGI5-z_hg

New trailer up..

[Simon]

Ahahaha BLAAAAAAAAACK

[McBain]

The hooded guest...

[Bill Casey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzNUkWFDuKQ

[Mik]

Saw it on Thursday. Enjoyed it and had a good laugh, particularly creased up at some points, but generally found it to be WAY below the quality of the first film. Too much Brick and too much self-referencing to the previous film. I will watch it again and laugh again, but in honesty I kind of wish that it hadnt gotten made. The first film was too perfect to need a sequel.

[kangus]

Yeah you're bang on correct Mik Nelson. Waaaaaay too much Brick. In fact I didn't enjoy about 85 percent of the news team interaction although I do understand why they needed to be included in the movie. I did love the bits with Ron and his son and I always enjoy dialogue that dissects and makes fun of the occurring conversation and Will Ferrell is great at that.

[The Rick]

I enjoyed it greatly. But like most Ferrel movies, I don't feel like I need to see it again. I did enjoy the cameos at the end.

[Mik]

There were a couple of REALLY funny moments that had me laughing for ages. One great cut after uproarious laughter that just immediately cut to as though nothing funny had been said was great. There was too little random hilarious shit like this and too much 'try very hard to replicate the feeling of Anchorman' moments.

[Chris]

Saw it yesterday. Lots of great scenes which had the whole audience laughing. It's quite different from the first film - everything and everyone are far crazier. I would liken it to how the so-called golden years of The Simpsons had a good balance between story and humour, and then the show became more focused on packing in as many zingers and wacky stuff as possible. I think 2 hours was too long, and they did walk a fine line with some of the Brick scenes. But Ferrell was great once again. Maybe Anchorman didn't need a sequel, but I could still watch more Ron Burgundy.

[Bill Casey]

But Ferrell was great once again.

I bet his poop smells like sandalwood...

[Clive Plasma]

Thought it was average. 2 of my mates fell asleep through it.

That scene with the Doby the shark though... that was just brilliant.

[Beer-Belly]

Saw it on Thursday. Enjoyed it and had a good laugh, particularly creased up at some points, but generally found it to be WAY below the quality of the first film. Too much Brick and too much self-referencing to the previous film. I will watch it again and laugh again, but in honesty I kind of wish that it hadnt gotten made. The first film was too perfect to need a sequel.

I agree with all of this. Brick is the kind of character that wears out his welcome if you focus too much on him. The love story with Kristen Wiig went nowhere and didn't add anything to the movie. It was still an enjoyable time at the movies, but Ferrell and McKay have definitely made better films.

[The_Mike]

Saw this today, thought it was all right. Plenty of decent laughs in the first half but eventually the film goes from off-beat humour to overbearing zaniness, and that's not my cup of tea at all.

[1_Pablo_Angel]

God awful. Classic sequel syndrome - stretch all the most extreme (ridiculous) bits out past the point of them being funny. Rubbish.

[LOCONUT]

I won't believe this is going to be good and no one can make me. I'm tempted to skip the digital release but certainly won't be a theater film for me.

[The_Mike]

It's not what I could call terrible, but it's not good. Worth watching on a plane or something, but the laughs in the first half of the film aren't worth the time sunk into the whole thing, never mind the cost of seeing it in a theatre.

[Atty]

Saw it on Thursday. Enjoyed it and had a good laugh, particularly creased up at some points, but generally found it to be WAY below the quality of the first film. Too much Brick and too much self-referencing to the previous film. I will watch it again and laugh again, but in honesty I kind of wish that it hadnt gotten made. The first film was too perfect to need a sequel.

I agree with most all of this.

I suspect this will be much better on dvd. The first film had so many outtakes that they made an entirely different version of it. The improv nature of these films likely means there's a lot more out there. I wouldn't be shocked to see the inevitable director's cut being a marked improvement. The entire blind sequence fell flat to me. There were laughs in that stretch, but it was just wasted time.

[Simmo Fortyone]

I thought it was great. Lots of funny little throwaway lines. The cameos in the fight scene were brilliant.

[Donald]

Watched half of this so far, not that funny to me...Just feels a bit forced. Brick is too annoying.

[Beefy]

Sounds like the first one.

[wardy]

The first one is amazing. The second one is good but if you didn't like the first one you'll hate the second even more. I agree that Brick was overused though.

[McBain]

Watched half of this so far, not that funny to me...Just feels a bit forced. Brick is too annoying.

Definitely incredibly forced. I agree with 1PA's assessment.

Disappointing but not all that surprising. Maybe I'll get high before watching it again.

[Simmo Fortyone]

It's best watched with mates over beers rather than on a laptop by yourself.