It was pretty good, not terrible. It didn't make me roll in the aisles guffawing, but then again neither did Anchorman I. Both movies had some good lines and some funny performances. I thought the second movie contained a pointed satirical edge (in its indictment of the Fox News culture) that the first movie didn't have. It's not like Anchorman I was Citizen Kane.
shareSpot-on!
"The dead do not suffer the living to pass"
"You will suffer me"
Yeah, thought it was decent enough. I've only seen Anchorman once, but I remember enjoying it about the same as this movie. Can't really figure out why people who liked the first would hate this one so much.
shareI call it "Star Wars fan" syndrome. No matter what the filmmakers do, no matter how good the sequel actually ends up being- people find delight in pointing out the short comings so much that they look for them more then laughs. They dissect a movie like a frog in science class in high school. Movies, are meant to entertain, and depending on the genre provoke thought. While this flick is a comedy, it did have a satirical edge the original didnt, and I appreciated the return of Ron Burgandy as well as the rest of the news team and the satire of the media.
shareExactly.
In my opinion, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013) is vastly superior to Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004). Granted, there are a few parts that I did not like about this film.
For example, the whole Brick and Chani love interest. They could have cut that part of the story arc and it would have been a thousand times more enjoyable.
Moreover, they kinda dumbed-down the Brick character as well. I don't remember him being this imbecilic in the original.
They hit the nail on the head when producing this movie. You can hardly say the same for a majority of sequels to other films.
It was a great satire pertaining to today's "news" outlets.