I called it from the start. Still going to see it and enjoy it for what it is, but as soon as I heard about it, I knew it was going to be like this. I like the time skip to the eighties though, that's actually a pretty inventive direction to go considering the previous movie. Although it sounds like the plot is basically the same thing. Veronica gets special attention, and Ron gets jealous.
I think you're overthinking the plot of the movie Bob, specifically in asserting that there are several different plots when really everything works as part of the larger story of Ron's fall and rise and fall (and yeah, it is cribbed from the first Anchorman and yeah, the injury storyline is taken from Talladega Nights). Getting the team back together was its own sequence not for plot necessity but because as a comedy the movie wants to be a collection of set pieces instead of a singular narrative. They got a number of jokes from reintroducing the other members of the team and then the story moved on to the next bit.
And I think you're overstating the idea of the entire world being insane. The world of news anchors is presented as crazy, but that's it.
I think the real problem is that trying to review a comedy always comes down to a simplistic "Is it funny or not?" discussion. I don't think the analysis of the plot was needed, at least not to the extent you took it.
...Although it sounds like the plot is basically the same thing. Veronica gets special attention, and Ron gets jealous.
Kind of yes, kind of no. Veronica being offered the promotion is the first scene, and it's more to set up act two's "Ron and the team invent facile, spectacle-driven cable news" and act three's "Ron falls and has to redeem himself." His relationship with Veronica is given attention off and on through the middle part, but his objectives are somewhere else (sort of).
I liked some of the jokes in the first one but...
I know it was supposed to be exaggerated/satirical but all the sexism made me extremely uncomfortable and couldn't fully enjoy it.
If there's more of that I might not bother.
Saw it on the weekend, and I found it to be a flanderised repeat of the first film. The sequel just didn't recapture the fresh, manic originality of it's predecessor.
I'm beginning to suspect that I was merely shocked into finding the original film funny. :P
Purely by chance I saw the first one on Tv last Friday after hearing people at College constantly talk it up and I wasn't really all that impressed. There are some funny moments and as others have said, some good quotes ("Boy, that escalated quickly!" kills me every time) but I wouldn't really have said it needs a sequel, especially since it ended in a way that doesn't really invite sequels without feeling like they're just being tacked on.
So I think I probably won't go and see number 2, although Bob's review didn't really tell me whether or not I should.
I very rarely watch movies because I typically don't enjoy them, but I found Anchorman 2 to be excellent. Not quite as good as the original, but definitely good enough to stand up in its own right. Also, strongly disagree with the sentiment that it went too long, there was no point where I wasn't engaged in the movie.
I just hope that Paul Rudd doesn't tread on Watchmen territory, cuz with his hair down he does look an awful lot like Patrick Wilson's Nightowl, and Pym does kinda fit that niche on the Avengers - the reclusive scientist/hero that's smarter than his friends/teammates give him credit for.
Exactly. I liked how Ant-Man was characterized on Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, as no matter what physical size he had at any moment, he's always a giant nerd. And he made it awesome! Given who we know is directing the Ant-Man movie, that's a distinct possibility that will stay.