2004 classic comedyRating: 9/20 (Jen: 1/20 although she only half-watched it)
Plot: Step 1--Get Will Ferrell. Step 2--Figure out a profession and time period for Will Ferrell to have. Step 3--Think of some hilarious subplots. Step 4--Think up a bunch of really goofy things for Will Ferrell to say, things that college kids can quote when they're drunk. And boom! You've made a Will Ferrell movie! This time, it's the 1970's, and Will Ferrell is a local news anchorman in San Diego. It's a man's world. San Diegoans trust him with delivering the news and then he hangs out with the other male reporters and parties and talks about girls. But when a gorgeous anchorwoman with a cute butt comes along, it threatens to send his world topsy-turvy. Oh, snap!
This was recommended by a poker buddy who couldn't believe I had never seen it and referred to it as "a classic." It's not.
5 comments:
yeah it sucks.
When I drive to work, most of the time I listen to sports talk radio. The hosts' continuing praise of "Anchorman" just proves that they know less about movies than they know about sports, which is a little scary. This movie seems very popular with a certain group of people(morons), and I just can't explain why. IMDB's 115,000 voters give it a 7.1, Yahoo's 32,000 give it 3.5/5 stars, while I did not laugh ONE TIME at this "comedy". I also can't explain what in the script would draw a who's who of the last decades' "comedy" actors...though that might explain why so much recent popular comedy sucks. Weirdly, even though it was made in 2004, a lot of the actors look a lot younger. Did making this movie unnaturally age them somehow?. With all of the "talent" involved, didn't someone at some point say to the ubiquitous producer Apatow, "Hey Judd, I don't want to be a downer, but have you noticed how the acting in this is across-the-board terrible, and that it's stupid and not funny, at all?". With all of these people, how can this movie be so bad?
Maybe I'm the one with bad taste. This was Apatow's first hit, it propelled Ferrell's career into another dozen crappy movies, and the public likes it. Hmmm? No, the public are idiots, and "Anchorman" is not believable for one second, does not have a single genuinly clever moment, is terribly and offensively acted, and is only worthwhile as a sociological example of something wrong with human beings. A 6.
I don't remember a single thing about this movie other than that there is some kind of fight between news crews.
I reread my write-up here and I believe you're calling my poker friends morons...maybe that's why I usually win a little money when I play.
For comedy fans out there, this movie is one of the few that makes up a very specific comedy genre: the improv movie. Christopher Guest and his crew pretty much are the staple for the improv movie, but that's all focused under the mockumentary sub-genre. Anchorman took that improv idea and went big budget with it.
You're absolutely right that this movie is just one sound byte after another. But, that wasn't intentional. Don't blame the actors and creators of this movie because you're annoyed with its audience. It's my generation's "Animal House." Hey, I'd take this Apatow crew over the Brat Pack any day.
I almost gave this another chance back when the sequel came out because I felt like I was in the minority. Everybody else seems to think it's hilarious. Then, I reread these comments and saw that Larry and Cory both agreed with me, and when both Larry and Cory agree with me, there's no way I can be wrong.
I have no problem with improv comedy. I just didn't think this was very funny.
I will say this, Josh...you're younger than me. Cory is older than I am, and Larry is right around the same age as me. The guy who couldn't believe I'd never seen this "classic" way back before I watched it was about your age. Maybe it's a generational thing. Are we in different generations?
Post a Comment