Wolf Creek (2005)

Genre: Horror, Thriller

Director: Greg Mclean

Writer: Greg Mclean

Starring: Cassandra Magrath, Kestie Morassi, Nathan Phillips

Rating: ★★

Wolf Creek is a film I wanted to watch before viewing it’s eye-catching and somewhat talked about sequel, Wolf Creek 2. The original however also grabbed some headlines and was the topic of discussion when the horror was released, being labelled “disturbing”, “visually-grotesque” and being the only film that the great Roger Ebert walked out on due to its violence. Although it may have been a new take on the genre nearly a decade ago upon release, I feel Wolf Creek despite some elements of promise, isn’t anything new and for me a very disappointing, dull attempt at horror that we’ve seen far too many times.

Three back-packing friends set out on a journey to the National Park in the Australian Outback to view one of the most scenic craters, Wolf Creek. Kirsty, Liz and Ben (Cassandra Magrath, Kestie Morassi, Nathan Phillips) decide to mix their hiking journey with some partying, drink and fun but as they set out on the real outback they soon realise everyone and everything is a little more hostile. As they arrive at their destination and witness the Wolf Creek Crater they find that whilst they were gone their car has mysteriously broken down by bad luck, leaving them completely stranded as night approaches. The trio think they’ve then been rescued by local Bushman Mick Taylor, but the stereotypical outback man seems suspicious and unnerving soon unleashing some bad luck of his own onto the tourist’s backpackers as their night turns into something they couldn’t have imagined.

It is the archetypal set-up for any horror film, three young tourists, unaware of their surroundings unfortunately meet the local serial killer and sadist. In true generic narrative style we also get to meet our characters however writer and director Greg Mclean chooses to dwell on this for far too long and around half the total screening time. Our characters are fairly average, and for some reason the amount of sympathy and connection created is very low, somewhat failing at making the more horror-like scenes worst to watch. It was however innovative to a degree that the dialogue to the trio’s conversations was very natural and realistic, but I felt this made it dull, despite the memorable lines; “Hey Ben you got something dripping from your mouth, oh wait its bullshit” as the jokes and fun play out. It takes a long time for action and gore to appear or for any real progress into our plot; when the main action does arrive I feel that due to the over-played anticipation there is no surprise or shock but an expectance and a feel of “oh finally”.

There’s nothing too horrifying or thrilling within Wolf Creek for me, with no real scares or jumps but more visual gore being used which is still very tame in comparison to other horror releases. One of the taglines for the film is “The Thrill is the Hunt” but for me there is not much of a hunt or much of a thrill throughout the film. I also found a real annoyance at some of the “plot devices”, which were obviously visible in stopping the film in ending despite being completely unrealistic despite the hyper-real context.

The acting was fairly average, however I must praise how the on-screen relationship and overall friendly-like feel between our trio of main characters was believable and looked more natural than what is seen in other films. As a standout however, I was impressed by our villain and outback bushman Mick Taylor, John Jarratt’s portrayal was very nice, creating a somewhat malicious and chilling atmosphere at moments. Although I have criticised Mclean’s writing, his directing was impressive, the film used a handheld camera which created the classic amateur documentary feel, adding to realism also making it feel like we’re witnessing these events. The film also had a few nice shots; especially the silhouettes of Mick Taylor approaching with his stereotypical hat creating a huge shadow and when our character Liz is witnessing her friend undergo torture.

Wolf Creek is something you’ll see time and time again, however taking on a somewhat new setting off the Australian outback. There were some positives with some good dialogue and a realistic-feel however the lack of progress and a very slow paced and un-shocking story creates a huge downfall.  The horror and thrills were missing and that’s a huge loss considering the genre, I felt despite his great direction, Mclean created some sloppy writing. This isn’t a must-watch and its nor entertaining or enjoyable, I can only hope that for once, a sequel will outperform it’s original with Wolf Creek 2, but the standard hasn’t been set too high.

 

 

21 Jump Street (2012)

Genre: Action, Comedy, Crime

Directors: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller

Writers: Jonah Hill, Michael Bacall, Patrick Hasburgh, Stephen J. Cannell

Starring: Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Ice Cube

Rating:★★★★

In the light of the fast approaching release of its sequel 22 Jump Street, I revisited a film which I will never tire from; the brilliant, funny and refreshing comedy 21 Jump Street. Originally a TV series, Jonah Hill and Michael Bacall adapt the 80’s hit show, which starred a young Jonny Depp, into a new and refreshing comedy which brings laughs and action together as well as touching on something a little deeper.

Schmidt and Jenko (Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum) are both newly graduated police officers and bicycle riding partners; however the two actually went to school with each other but were far from partners back in the day. Schmidt was a typical unpopular dork and had an uncanny resemblance to Slim Shady; Jenko was the polar opposite, a popular jock who everyone chased after. Since they are young, and look like high school students along with their inability to be police officers they are both assigned to an undercover unit where they have to infiltrate a drug ring that seems to be at the heart of a high school, supplying the student’s synthetic and dangerous drugs. As Jenko and Schmidt go back to high school as undercover officers it brings comedy, but from a lot of angles and perspectives. The obvious comedy comes from Jenko and Schmidt attempting to fit in within high school, despite them both appearing older with even the science teacher fancying Jenko, the pair go on the throw a party, attend prom and take part in the school play of Peter Pan however the real humour is achieved elsewhere for me. School has changed greatly since Jenko and Schmidt   have become officers, however this is of course a real life portrayal of school too, as the pair attempt to fit in on their first day they realise everything is the opposite. There are more than the typical jocks, nerds and goths; the “cool-guy” Eric (Dave Franco) is an eco-warrior and cares for Mother Nature, fast cars aren’t popular and either is not trying and acting “cool”, this for me was hilarious, due to me being a student I could make these comparisons and laugh with our protagonists as they realised the changes. The film portrays this idea well, and uses it cleverly; Jenko who was the popular guy is now a dork whilst Schmidt is enjoying life being the popular and fun kid and of course this will set up a conflict. The acting was great, Jonah Hill for me is an underrated actor and is a really talented guy, and he can take on serious roles but is also brilliant when it comes to delivering comedy. Hill as Schmidt was great; his high school tantrums were a highlight along with the flashbacks of slim shady and his attempt of fighting. Tatum as Jenko was good, even the fact that Tatum was casted as Jenko brings humour as we wold expect him to be popular and seeing him take on a somewhat dork role was great. A real highlight was his attempt to “fuck-up” science, and in particular potassium nitrate. As well as the portrayals were of our main characters, the writers deserve a huge amount of credit for creating such humour and fun with them alongside some brilliant side characters and constant hilarious scenes.

When watching a comedy you always want big moments and big laughs, 21 Jump Street gives you just that. The most memorable from the whole film for me is when Jenko and Schmidt take the drugs which they are trying to infiltrate, the side-effect and resulting hallucinations are hilarious as their sports teacher turns into a talking ice-cream and the pair try to “finger fuck” each other’s throat to throw it up. It’s hard to fault 21 Jump Street; however I do feel at times the story goes a bit dry whilst the ending try to combine “silly” humour and it didn’t compliment the film at all. However for me 21 Jump Street is still a film I won’t get bored or watching and it will never fail to bring laughs.

21 Jump Street is a refreshing comedy, with a nice idea and a well written story which displays a range of humour which is suitable for all types of audiences. Each and every character is brilliant alongside the performances from the well-known and talented cast. I can only hope that the soon to be released sequel, 22 Jump Street, which sees Jenko and Schmidt go onto an undercover college mission, follows and reflects it’s original. Lots of laughs and easy to watch 21 Jump Street is definitely a memorable and great comedy.

Genre Grandeur – Fight Club (1999)

My contribution to Rob’s Genre Grandeur! If you haven’t contributed yet, or you don’t follow his blog I highly recommend the two!

Thanks for Liam from Liam Does Film  for his contribution to this months Genre Grandeur – Crime.  If you don’t already know Liam and his site, I strongly urge you to take a look at it.  His site is filled with tons of movie reviews, his own personal movie reviewing challenges and 5 Star Films.

It still isn’t too late to participate in this month’s genre.  Just shoot me your review to crime@movierob.net before the 25th and I’ll post it.

Here’s Liam’s review of Fight Club (1999)

fight_club_ver3

Fight Club (1999)

Genre: Drama

Director: David Fincher

Writers: Chuck Palahniuk, Jim Uhls

Starring: Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Helena Bonham Carter

Rating:★★★★★

Fight Club is something special, a film which is like no others in terms of story, action, characters and the ridiculous detail that has been sweated over to make everything just that extra bit phenomenal. It is a film which…

View original post 797 more words

(3D) Pompeii (2014)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Drama

Director: Paul W.S. Anderson

Writers: Janet Scott Batchler, Lee Batchler, Michael Robert Johnson

Starring: Kit Harington, Emily Browning, Kiefer Sutherland

Rating:★★½

Pompeii, the ancient and historic city destroyed by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 A.D, and now a blockbuster disaster film adaption which cost more than more than $100million, a huge sum of money most definitely wasted. Pompeii looked be a very good action release focusing on the historic events; however what was achieved was a mixture between very bad marketing, execution and disappointment, despite some promising potential.

Milo (Kit Harington) as a young boy was left to witness his fellow people, friends, and family killed and beheaded by the invading and domineering Romans. Now he is a slave turned invincible gladiator, used for entertainment by those very romans he witnessed as a kid. Milo now fighting within Pompeii, as the romans visit the small coastal town, finds himself in a love affair with Cassia (Emily Browning), the daughter of the wealthy leader of Pompeii and the man getting involved with the corrupt Roman Senator who looks to marry his daughter. As Milo battles within the arena and the ever falling Cassia looking on with fear, Mount Vesuvius erupts, causing a huge rumble and shooting lava crashing onto the city of Pompeii. Milo must fight his way out of the arena, save his true love and try and survive Mount Vesuvius eruption as Pompeii crumbles around him.

There is flaw after flaw with Pompeii’s accuracy along with the writing itself, however my main issue is how we seem to have seen this film a thousand times before and it becomes very cliché. Pompeii reminds me very much of Gladiator, however twisted to make Gladiator a romantic drama, as Milo rides horse-back through flames galloping after his new found “true-love” like an old-Victorian love tale. The film is essentially split into two halves, with the first being my preferable favourite as it focuses on Milo being turned from slave to gladiator and defeating competitor after competitor. However after Milo has fought people, he then has to fight Vesuvius as the second half focuses on its destruction of Pompeii.  I must admit, that despite the obvious flaws, Pompeii is filled with action which can be entertaining but I feel there is such poor execution.

The writing of characters was fairly poor with them being very cliché; Milo is somewhat undefeatable, arrogant and energetic however as an audience we seem to like him. Kit Harrington’s portrayal was fairly average, making most of some very cheesy dialogue and scenes, but it was somewhat downgraded by an adopted husky voice which was very Russell Crowe-like, forcing his role a little too much along with being completely inconsistent. Browning’s Cassia was just above annoying, with clumsy and again cheesy scenes, I didn’t think her character was well matched and realistic of the time period either, with it all seeming very modern. Kiefer Sutherland as Senator Corvus and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as fellow gladiator Atticus were for me my standout performers and characters, despite the somewhat dramatic endings they brought powerful displays which produced a positive reaction.

I saw Pompeii in 3D, a rare thing I do as I still think very few films adapt and produce quality 3D effects, taking full advantage of the technology. The effects were definitely no Gravity reflection; there were promising moments of 3D especially within the first scenes, it seemed to surprise me with its selection of moments, with 3D being used on low keys action scenes and not the big finales where I would have expected it to be seen. Pompeii however did show off a high budget with some good visual effects, with explosions and great believable make-up, with one scene being a highlight as the eruption caused a tsunami and the city of Pompeii is flooded completely. Paul W.S Anderson despite not creating a completely phenomenal release should be pleased with certain moments and aspects of his directing.

Pompeii for me seemed to be let down hugely by marketing, I was expecting a big blockbuster focusing on the eruption of Vesuvius however that moment didn’t arise within the film until after the half-way mark, something the film highlighted completely within advertisement.  Even when the moment came it was short-lived and neglected something the writers must really be kicking themselves about. Instead I was witnessing a love-story, which was very badly combined with action and fighting resulting in a really cheesy end-product. If I were the writers of this film I would be very annoyed, as for me this had huge potential but only brought disappointment.

It would be fair to say that Pompeii is one of the worst films I’ve seen released this year, but it would be definite to say it is one of the cheesiest. Despite a strong potential story and great visual and action quality, Pompeii offers no more than a generic gladiator story with a combination of romance. Although it may look good, Pompeii really isn’t and it even fails at being a remotely guilty pleasure, I’m sure this is something that won’t go down in the history books.

 

 

 

Godzilla/Gojira (1954)

Genre: Drama, Horror, Sci-Fi

Director: Ishirô Honda

Writers: Ishirô Honda, Shigeru Kayama, Takeo Murata

Starring: Takashi Shimura, Akihiko Hirata, Akira Takarada

Rating:★★★½

Gojira as its original Japanese name would be is more commonly and famously known as Godzilla, a creature which has created one of the largest film franchises in history. It was in 1954 which this King Kong inspired giant monster was first seen on screen, and since then a further thirty-two productions have been made, the most recent of course is Gareth Edward’s $160million 2014 blockbuster.  Godzilla is very much a product of its time, however it is actually a lot different compared to its franchise and is more about a deeper meaning, something learnt when studying Honda’s classic within Film Studies. Its main focus is on narrative, whilst the outdated suitmation, although the contemporary usual, doesn’t transfer well to modern times, but there should be a real appreciation for this influential Japanese cinema classic.

Japan is rocked by a disturbance off their coast when a group of ships are reported missing; search parties disappear and local coastal villages are soon destroyed. The Japanese government soon learn that nuclear testing within the ocean has awoken a monster reptile from hibernation, which is now looking for revenge and mass-destruction. Godzilla, a huge, fifty metre tall beast, soon learnt to be covered in radioactive matter, terrorises central Tokyo, killing and destroying many. Meanwhile a group of scientists are debating whether they should use their scientific deadly weapon to defeat the beast, as they believe and fear it will provoke further nuclear war.

Within most “monster films” we would expect a huge focus on mass destruction and of course the majority of the film to show our monster roaming around killing, providing huge action. However Gojira is the complete opposite, with our beast getting very little screen time. The main focus is on our scientists and the emotional trauma on our victims, something highlighted by our trio of writers to convey an important message.

Gojira is a film which shows the dangers of nuclear warfare and more so science as it develops, this message coming from a country such as Japan is very important, definitely regarding their history. Godzilla, a beast of destruction, being woken by nuclear testing is of course very symbolic, as our monster itself represents a nuclear bomb, which is referenced clearly to be linked with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It conveys how the testing with nuclear weaponry will only lead to more destruction, whilst science’s involvement within the film, also being equally important. It is science which eventually destroys the beast, which also sees a sacrifice, which symbolically presents how science now needs to destroy itself and is more so outdated, as deadlier weapons are being created and bringing harsher consequences.  It is learning this deeper meaning, although clearly obvious, which creates an appreciation towards Gojira.

As previously mentioned this is a film which is very much outdated and is a product of its time, being very hard to transfer into modern day. The acting is very poor, despite the appearance of Seven Samurai star Takashi Shimura who does produce a solid display of one of our older scientists. Momoko Kôchi and Akira Takarada play Emiko and Ogata a young couple and our main protagonists, who are planning to help destroy the beast. Their roles are very well-written however Kochi’s portrayal of Emiko is very poor, somewhat becoming laughable, whilst Takarada is fairly average.

The effects as expected are not the high-budget breath-taking display you’d expect from the latest Godzilla remake; however it is mainly suit-mation within the original. Our beast is nothing more than a man in a suit tramping about in a tiny Tokyo model-city, however again this criticism is something which occurs only due to the transition of time periods and technology. Explosions however were a little more impressive, whilst Honda’s directing was refreshing and inspiring given such the early year of release.

Gojira is a very good film, in terms of story it is somewhat a classic for sure with the under the surface meaning adding to appreciation. However the action unfortunately doesn’t match, and despite its focus on a deeper story, I would have expected more action and of course more Godzilla. If you are going to watch this original and influential film, then take into consideration the low key effects and acting may make it less enjoyable watch. However this is a piece of history within cinema, and an interesting comparison to make when looking ahead to the soon to be released big budget remake.

 

 

Bad Neighbours (2014)

Genre: Comedy

Director: Nicholas Stoller

Writers: Andrew J. Cohen, Brendan O’Brien

Starring: Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Rose Byrne, Dave Franco

Rating:★★★★½

Bad Neighbours is a film that I had been eagerly awaiting to watch for some time, a cast filled with comedy-gold and genius, matched by a fun concept shown off brilliantly in a hilarious trailer, had me hook line and sinker for this year’s big comedy release.  I can firmly say that I wasn’t disappointed, huge laughs, unforgettable scenes and Seth Rogen being Seth Rogen, easily made this one of the best comedies I have seen in recent years.  However what also makes Bad Neighbours so great is its refreshing take and twist on a popular and typical genre story, whilst also achieving a sense of familiarity.

Mac (Seth Rogen) and Kelly (Rose Byrne) are new parents, adapting to a somewhat unknown and feared stable lifestyle; managing marriage, having a child, professional jobs and owning a house. However the couple are struggling, missing their youth and the excitement of what seems to be their previous life, despite not even being old. Mac now works at an office where the only joy comes from occasionally smoking weed with his friend Jimmy, whilst Kelly is finding the stay-at-home mum life equally boring and dull. However the pair’s life is soon going to become a reflection of their past and youth as a fraternity moves into the house next door, making the two neighbours. The fraternity, D-Side, is run by president Teddy (Zac Efron) and his vice president Pete (Dave Franco), the two together want to become legendary and make it onto to the wall of fame. Party after party, night after night, Kelly and Mac eventually call the police, however things don’t go to plan and the two neighbours start a war, involving air bag pranks, condoms, fireworks and dildo selling.

The comedy elements to Bad Neighbours are great and the laughs are both huge and consistent, however as previously mentioned there seems to be a deeper and refreshing aspect to its story which is down to some great and well-thought about writing. Mac and Kelly are struggling to adapt with maturing, and despite their hatred for their new neighbours it brings the much missed past youth experience which they seem to soak-up. It was a refreshing take on the adaption and cross-over in life, where usually we see middle-aged couples or teenage dramas it was interesting to see it achieved with those who are still young. Teddy and Pete are likewise fearful of their future and the next step, the thought of what happens next seems to be frightening and they hide behind their Robert De Niro parties. However the bringing together of these two “couples” in a sense help them accept change and embrace their lifestyle.

Bad Neighbours as a comedy however is hilarious. I have not seen a comedy for a long while which has had so many big moments which literally produce gut-busting laughs and a few tears. Despite the trailer somewhat ruining some surprising moments the comedy was genius, whilst also being refreshing and non-cliché. Teddy and Pete steal the airbags out of Mac’s and Kelly’s car, replacing them into various chairs in their house, making them explode when an un-expecting Mac takes a seat. The humour associated around the baby, Stella, is also brilliant, something which although pushes boundaries creates so many laughs. The first time we see our lead characters they are having sex in an attempt to feel young again whilst being conscious of their curious daughter watching from the high-chair, there is also a moment when Stella swallows a condom thrown into the lawn from the frats. The gags are consistent with a nice mixture between slapstick, physical and uncomfortable humour being used, again making it refreshing.

The importance of the lead characters was huge, and the writers deserve some credit however the portrayal by the main cast was great. Seth Rogen for me always produces huge and successful comedies and is one of the funniest and talented comedy actors in present times. He didn’t disappoint with his character of Mac who was hilarious, it was also interesting to see Seth take on a character that had a responsibility too, something he managed well. Zac Efron and Rose Byrne were also good, with solid performances, Kelly’s outbursts of anger were great to watch whilst an angry Teddy was amusing. Dave Franco too deserves credit; his presence brought laughs almost each-time.

There seemed to be a lot of enjoyable things from Bad Neighbours, as a film-lover the in-jokes present throughout added that something extra.  Teddy and Mac, stoned in the early morning decide to debate their favourite Batman Actor whilst making some hilarious impressions, the inclusion of a Robert De Niro party also made me laugh; Dave Franco’s Focker impression was pure gold, “Ay Focker? You’re upsetting Mr Jinxy Cat”

It is really hard to fault this comedy; it really did achieve its aims as I laughed so much, my only criticism comes from the slightly annoying trailer which can ruin some funny moments. I also felt that at times, especially the focus on the Frat parties were unnecessary or dwelled on for too long.

Bad Neighbours will certainly be one of the best comedies this year, and for now it definitely is one of the best comedies I’ve seen in recent years. There is so much more than what can be seen on the surface to this film, with some deep character meanings and development which is handled well by both the cast and writers. The laughs are huge, and some scenes I’m sure will be remembered for ages, along with quotes – “I’m milking a human”, “I put my dick in your mouth when you were asleep, – I was awake” Bad Neighbours is a must-watch, and an easily enjoyable film which deserves a lot of praise and credit.

 

 

 

 

 

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)

Genre: Comedy

Director: Adam McKay

Writers: Will Ferrell, Adam McKay

Starring: Will Ferrell, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, Christina Applegate

Rating:★★★★

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) was kind of a big deal, and is personally one of my favourite comedies, a film labelled as “absolutely hilarious” and loved by many; you could say it’s a film loved more than Ron loves scotch and Brick loves lamp.  When I heard news that there was going to a sequel nearly a decade later, I was at the same time excited but nervous at the thought that it would bring shame to its great original. However full of casual racism, silly humour, big bushy moustaches, even more news reading and of course salon-quality hair, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues doesn’t disappoint. The writing is hilarious with the story being enjoyable and fun despite it feeling slightly lazy, Will Ferrell and Steve Carell produce brilliant performances once again, whilst a handful of cameo all-stars provide great laughter and surprise. Anchorman 2 may not be as successful as its prequel however it is certainly a memorable comedy.

Things have changed since Anchorman (2004), Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is now living the higher life away from his beloved San Diego, in New York City alongside his wife Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), and the pair now even has a son, Walter Burgundy.  However, when their boss decides to promote Corningstone to become the first ever full-time lead female anchor and fire Ron, times a’change once more. Now working part-time at sea-world Ron, away from his wife and son seems to be washed-up once more, however his shot at redemption comes in the form of Freddie Schapp (Dylan Baker), the executive behind Global News Network, the world’s first ever twenty-four hour, around the clock news channel. Ron is hired, and he proceeds to hunt down and reunite his old gang and news team of Champ, Brick and Brian (David Koechner, Steve Carell and Paul Rudd). Ron and his news team are back behind the news desk once again however given the graveyard shift and a challenge to get ratings, Ron creates a radical plan to transform news and put him back as the number one news reader once again. But will Ron and Veronica ever get back together, with Ron becoming a dad again, and will Brick finally grow up and find his true love, are some of the battles the Global News Network team have to accomplish.

Anchorman 2 follows the same narrative as its previous instalment with the feud between Ron and Veronica leaving Ron jobless and in a tough position, meaning he has to fight once more to become the legend he previously was.  I see this as lazy writing, with even simple plots being copied once more with the introduction of another news team war and a pet shark; however it creates the same feel and consequently the same great humour so my criticism is also slightly positive.

The laughs in Anchorman 2 are as expected, always present. Ron once more is foolish, arrogant but mightily hilarious, whilst Brick keeps his place as one of the funniest characters ever created. With the news team reunited and on the way to New York, there’s a scene which is hilarious as their van crashes and the team fly about mid-air in the van along with the beloved Baxter. Brick likewise to his character in Anchorman has a handful of gut-busting quotes, my favourite – “A black man used to follow me around”, “Brick that’s your shadow”.  Even the other characters seem to produce big-laughs; Paul Rudd’s Brain Fantana goes through his cupboard of magical condoms, whilst Chuck talks about the “chicken of the cave” in his new food-chain restaurant.  Anchorman 2 is a great comedy however it isn’t quite a classic like its prequel, with something seeming missing.

The acting was great; of course the two stand-outs for me were Will Ferrell and Steve Carell. Ferrell brought Burgundy back to life with real style, with his arrogant humour and salon quality hair. However Carell was better than before, I was pleased to see him even getting his own story as he kindles up a love with a fellow awkward and dim colleague, which sees them go on a date to get a drink from a soda-vending machine. When we first see Brick again it was hilarious and really made me laugh. Just like Anchorman, The Legend Continues produces an iconic news team war which sees half a dozen all-star cameos, without giving all the names away we see a very animated Kanye West and an even hairier Harrison Ford.

I did find myself laughing throughout this film, but as I have said I didn’t find it as successful as its original. The story seemed too similar and that took away some laughs and enjoyment, whilst I found it slightly un-progressive at times with the story seeming to go round and round in circles. Anchorman 2 also seemed to push a lot of boundaries with its humour which seemed too forced and obvious at times, whilst before I viewed it as refreshing and inventive.

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues isn’t as legendary as its previous original however for me it was a hilarious, funny and great comedy which doesn’t shame its name whatsoever.  Brilliant characters and brilliant acting create laugh after laugh, whilst there are a few very iconic scenes with some very iconic faces, with even a equally fun and lovable 70’s style soundtrack. It is easy to watch and even easier to enjoy with some familiar but decent writing from director and star Adam McKay and Will Ferrell. Anchorman 2 is a must-watch comedy, and should be regarded as the stand-out comedy of 2013. “Oh for the love of fresh nipple cream, this is great”