Anchorman is essentially the Will Ferrell comedy. No big expectations, but yeah, I'd see this.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Not a good movie. Funny about 15% of the time. I read that the first cut was 5 hours long, then of course down to 2 1/2 hours, and then studio heads making them cut it down to 2 hours or whatever. I think they should have edited it better and found the best of the best of all that improv in the first cut. If what made it is the best of the best then well WF just aint that funny. You get the feeling that when a star like WF is there its like "anything he says is funny", but guess what? When it comes out its just not that funny, each ticket is 12.00 bucks, i'm not the director getting paid mega bucks and loving life so anything and everything is great and fucking brilliant. SORRY ITS NOT. Paul Rudd seems to be the only cast member with real talent. The movie would have been much better with him as the star, just much funnier. I read in Rolling Stone that they tested this movie extensively, well they really shot for the general American zombie that would laugh at anything. Why does he go blind? Why does he raise a shark? Steve Carell just screaming through the whole thing is not funny either. HYPE!
Meh. It wasn't a waste of time but it wasn't the best ten dollars I've ever spent. I wouldn't watch it again. Mostly the same plot as the first one. The cameos were a nice, if expected, touch.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.