If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Anchorman 2 gives The Hobbit 2 a run for its money as audiences flock to see Ron Burgundy and company return to the big screen, with the two sequels at the top of the box office while Frozen remains strong   (latimes.com) divider line 38
    More: Followup, Smaug, box offices, movies, sequels, Walt Disney Pictures, Will Ferrell, Tom Hanks  
•       •       •

874 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 22 Dec 2013 at 1:11 PM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-22 01:21:55 PM
Anchorman 2 was a lot funnier than I thought it would be.  The commercials did no justice to this film.  Definitely a good sequel film.

//I especially loved the battle near the end of the film
 
2013-12-22 01:52:30 PM
My kids saw it and said it was okay, but nowhere near as good as the original. They were kind of meh about it.
 
2013-12-22 01:55:00 PM
And India released Dhoom 3 in theaters this weekend.  I normally think bollywood movies are meh, but I really liked Dhoom 2.  I'll have to check this new one out at some point.
 
2013-12-22 02:00:30 PM
American Hustle is a good, well acted movie. Jennifer Lawrence stole every scene.

But it wasn't as "con artisty" as I had hoped.
 
2013-12-22 02:02:00 PM

Darth_Lukecash: American Hustle is a good, well acted movie. Jennifer Lawrence stole every scene.

But it wasn't as "con artisty" as I had hoped.


Saw it last night. Liked it, but I wanted to like it more. Great acting all around - I continue to really, really enjoy Bradley Cooper.
 
2013-12-22 02:03:05 PM
Goddammit, people. You just gave the movie studios the greenlight to drown us in more movie promotions.
 
2013-12-22 02:06:43 PM
The Hobbit: TDOS was quite entertaining; the 160 minute running time that seems, inexplicably, to be one of the chief complaints (really?!) wasn't even an issue. I'm unsure as to how it stacks up to the first movie since I've yet to see it.

American Hustle, Her and yeah 47 Ronin are next on the agenda. I'll probably wait to see Anchorman 2 on Netflix.
 
2013-12-22 02:11:44 PM
www.eonline.com

www.eonline.com

www.coolestfamilyever.com
 
2013-12-22 02:16:30 PM
I can't stand the guy.  Give me a LOTR movie that doesn't follow the farkin' book and panders to little kids anytime.
 
2013-12-22 02:20:07 PM
My wife and I went to a matinee showing of Anchorman 2 yesterday, and it was dead, maybe 15 other people in the theatre. That said, the movie was a lot of fun.
 
2013-12-22 02:27:45 PM

Klippoklondike: And India released Dhoom 3 in theaters this weekend.  I normally think bollywood movies are meh, but I really liked Dhoom 2.  I'll have to check this new one out at some point.


I loved how they upped the ridiculousness in Dhoom 2.

I think I need to see what the "plot" of Dhoom 3 is

(Hrithik Roshan is so good at disguises he could be an old white lady!)
 
2013-12-22 02:58:30 PM
I liked The Hobbit as a movie, but jesus are they shoehorning in shiat that never happened in ANY of Tolkien's writings.

SPOILER ALERT!

The love triangle got REALLY annoying as I don't give a flying fark about any of the characters. In the context of this story, I was WAY more interested in Legolas' father than in Legolas. The tension between he and Thorin was great, and it got all of 90 seconds. But we get about 20 minutes of Legolas doing wire-fu.

I know they needed to flesh out what Gandalf disappears from the story, but the level they are going to with Sauron completely undercuts the drama of the main story. It also makes it inexcusable for Gandalf to sit on his hands for the next sixty years and not recognize the ring that Bilbo found (he doesn't know about it yet, but by the start of LOTR, he has obviously known about it for some time).

That aside, I thought they got Smaug EXACTLY right. Cumberbatch sounds exactly as I imagined, and the computer animators got his smile perfectly.
 
2013-12-22 03:03:18 PM
Took my elderly parents to see Anchorman 2. My dad laughed when Carell said "Gin!" and my mom laughed the whole time.
 
2013-12-22 03:19:30 PM

Mad_Radhu: [www.eonline.com image 634x923]

[www.eonline.com image 634x924]

[www.coolestfamilyever.com image 850x662]


You should really watch the movie.
 
2013-12-22 03:26:56 PM

WhoIsWillo: Mad_Radhu: [www.eonline.com image 634x923]

[www.eonline.com image 634x924]

[www.coolestfamilyever.com image 850x662]

You should really watch the movie.


Oh, I did.
 
2013-12-22 04:12:19 PM

Mad_Radhu: [www.eonline.com image 634x923]

[www.eonline.com image 634x924]

[www.coolestfamilyever.com image 850x662]


Oh boy...
 
2013-12-22 04:21:16 PM
I saw American Hustle and Anchorman 2.

American Hustle will be among the best movies of the year when Oscar time comes around.

Anchorman 2 was about 40 minutes too long, but I still liked it. Completely off the wall.
 
2013-12-22 05:21:43 PM
Way to spin the headline. Try:

"Despite a record-breaking multimedia advertising blitz for weeks before release, Anchorman 2 fails to top the box office chart on opening weekend."
 
2013-12-22 06:29:32 PM

Disgruntled Goat: Way to spin the headline. Try:

"Despite a record-breaking multimedia advertising blitz for weeks before release, Anchorman 2 fails to top the box office chart on opening weekend."


Learn how to read ya geek.
 
2013-12-22 06:59:18 PM

Satan's Chocolate Starfish: My kids saw it and said it was okay, but nowhere near as good as the original. They were kind of meh about it.


Saw it last night and thought the same thing. Laughed a few times, but the storyline was all over the place. The not so subtle point of the movie - how the 24 hour cycle and the battle for ratings has made it all less about news and more about entertainment. Valid point, but tilting at windmills.
 
2013-12-22 07:06:43 PM
os * * Smartest * Funniest 2013-12-22 02:06:43 PM The Hobbit: TDOS was quite entertaining; the 160 minute running time that seems, inexplicably, to be one of the chief complaints (really?!) wasn't even an issue. I'm unsure as to how it stacks up to the first movie since I've yet to see it.
======================================================

It's basically the exact same movie as the first... but with Legolas, Evangeline Lilly, and Smaug.

Granted, neither of the first two were even in the hobbit, but Legolas could have theoretically been and Evengeline is hot so I didn't care about that. I enjoyed them. And Smaug is cool.
 
2013-12-22 07:38:49 PM
Frozen was better than both The Hobbit and Anchorman 2.  By far.
 
2013-12-22 08:05:04 PM
I like how no one saw that Dinosaurs film.
 
2013-12-22 08:14:47 PM

TheJoe03: Disgruntled Goat: Way to spin the headline. Try:

"Despite a record-breaking multimedia advertising blitz for weeks before release, Anchorman 2 fails to top the box office chart on opening weekend."

Learn how to read ya geek.


Say what?
 
2013-12-22 08:25:03 PM

bborchar: Frozen was better than both The Hobbit and Anchorman 2.  By far.


Could have been better without the magical snowman.
 
2013-12-22 09:12:36 PM

Orgasmatron138: I liked The Hobbit as a movie, but jesus are they shoehorning in shiat that never happened in ANY of Tolkien's writings.

SPOILER ALERT!

The love triangle got REALLY annoying as I don't give a flying fark about any of the characters. In the context of this story, I was WAY more interested in Legolas' father than in Legolas. The tension between he and Thorin was great, and it got all of 90 seconds. But we get about 20 minutes of Legolas doing wire-fu.

I know they needed to flesh out what Gandalf disappears from the story, but the level they are going to with Sauron completely undercuts the drama of the main story. It also makes it inexcusable for Gandalf to sit on his hands for the next sixty years and not recognize the ring that Bilbo found (he doesn't know about it yet, but by the start of LOTR, he has obviously known about it for some time).

That aside, I thought they got Smaug EXACTLY right. Cumberbatch sounds exactly as I imagined, and the computer animators got his smile perfectly.


I saw it with my wife earlier this week, and I think the biggest problem is that they didn't make these movies first and then LOTR afterwards.  Because of this, we're forced to compare these movies to the narratively superior LOTR story.  Because the book never bothers to give character traits to the dwarves, the result is that at least 10 members of the party are less interesting than the least interesting member of the Fellowship.  This makes it nigh impossible to get invested in Kili's injury or the other dwarves that stay with him (can't even name them) or the love triangle.

The set pieces are fantastic, but there's not enough narrative to hold the trilogy together.
 
kab
2013-12-23 01:01:23 AM
Watched the Hobbit 2 today.

Really dragged out in a lot of spots, flat out absurd in others, but they did an a-ma-zing job with Smaug.

/Jupiter Ascending looks like it's going to be a fun watch.
 
2013-12-23 07:56:46 AM

Orgasmatron138: I liked The Hobbit as a movie, but jesus are they shoehorning in shiat that never happened in ANY of Tolkien's writings.

SPOILER ALERT!

The love triangle got REALLY annoying as I don't give a flying fark about any of the characters. In the context of this story, I was WAY more interested in Legolas' father than in Legolas. The tension between he and Thorin was great, and it got all of 90 seconds. But we get about 20 minutes of Legolas doing wire-fu.

^^ this

however saw it with the gf and will go see again! Anchorman2 and american hustle will probably get some of my money too

I pronounce smaug like smog on commercials it is pronounced smaog

whay say you farkers?

 
2013-12-23 08:33:06 AM
Saw "Catching Fire".

It was pretty good. Better then the book actually.

Won't see Mocking Jay Part 1 though. There isn;t enough story to draw it out over 2 films.
 
2013-12-23 11:18:02 AM

Stile4aly: Orgasmatron138: I liked The Hobbit as a movie, but jesus are they shoehorning in shiat that never happened in ANY of Tolkien's writings.

SPOILER ALERT!

The love triangle got REALLY annoying as I don't give a flying fark about any of the characters. In the context of this story, I was WAY more interested in Legolas' father than in Legolas. The tension between he and Thorin was great, and it got all of 90 seconds. But we get about 20 minutes of Legolas doing wire-fu.

I know they needed to flesh out what Gandalf disappears from the story, but the level they are going to with Sauron completely undercuts the drama of the main story. It also makes it inexcusable for Gandalf to sit on his hands for the next sixty years and not recognize the ring that Bilbo found (he doesn't know about it yet, but by the start of LOTR, he has obviously known about it for some time).

That aside, I thought they got Smaug EXACTLY right. Cumberbatch sounds exactly as I imagined, and the computer animators got his smile perfectly.

I saw it with my wife earlier this week, and I think the biggest problem is that they didn't make these movies first and then LOTR afterwards.  Because of this, we're forced to compare these movies to the narratively superior LOTR story.  Because the book never bothers to give character traits to the dwarves, the result is that at least 10 members of the party are less interesting than the least interesting member of the Fellowship.  This makes it nigh impossible to get invested in Kili's injury or the other dwarves that stay with him (can't even name them) or the love triangle.

The set pieces are fantastic, but there's not enough narrative to hold the trilogy together.


I say that Hobbit 2 can EABOD.

***Spoiler alerts***

Farking 45 minutes of legolas wirefu and elven dwarf love triangle that never existed... Plus 45 minutes of Dwarven theme park antics that never existed... And they Farking cut to the end before Smaug even attacks Lake town??? This movie should have ended with his death and the set up for the battle of five armies.

Now we're going to have to sit through an hour of Jackson wanking off with his dragon attack, and how it impacts the various families that he's attempted to make us care for. More random elven antics that never existed. Still have to resolve Gandalfs escape from the necromancer... And then somehow play out the battle of five armies and the denouement to set up LOTR?
I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we here they're doing the last movie as a part 1 and part 2 just so that Jackson can buy his hookers their own yacht complete with more hookers and blow.

*** end spoilery rant ***

Anyway, other than that it was a perfectly enjoyable movie.
 
2013-12-23 11:23:34 AM
''... But the $50 million comedy, which Paramount initially turned down, also suggested it will be more popular -abroad- than most U.S. comedies.''

Because nobody translates the dialogue, right?...
 
2013-12-23 12:12:12 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: Saw "Catching Fire".

It was pretty good. Better then the book actually.

Won't see Mocking Jay Part 1 though. There isn;t enough story to draw it out over 2 films.


Seeing as the book was originally intended to be 2 books I don't see how this is accurate.
 
2013-12-23 01:39:54 PM
What is American Hustle about?  I don't understand the overall context other than being a 1970s crime drama from the previews (or "trailers" in other dialects of English).
 
2013-12-23 02:19:22 PM

Myria: What is American Hustle about?  I don't understand the overall context other than being a 1970s crime drama from the previews (or "trailers" in other dialects of English).


You bought a computer without Google, huh?
 
2013-12-23 02:33:14 PM

peterthx: Jim from Saint Paul: Saw "Catching Fire".

It was pretty good. Better then the book actually.

Won't see Mocking Jay Part 1 though. There isn;t enough story to draw it out over 2 films.

Seeing as the book was originally intended to be 2 books I don't see how this is accurate.


**SPOILER ALERT FOR ANYONE WHO HASN:T READ THE FINAL:BOOK OF THE HUNGER GAMES**

Where do you cut it? Where is the "midway" point of the book that lends a decent cinimatic cutoff? I mean, she barely even leaves home base for 3/4s of the book. Man, if the author really meant it as 2 books I am super sad I am missing her not doing anything for 300 MORE pages.

I get why the character would need to, i do. Unless they truly focus and expound on all the stuff all the OTHER characters are doing for the first half of the book, then you may have 2 movies.
 
2013-12-23 03:18:45 PM
Jim from Saint Paul:
**SPOILER ALERT FOR ANYONE WHO HASN:T READ THE FINAL:BOOK OF THE HUNGER GAMES**

Where do you cut it? Where is the "midway" point of the book that lends a decent cinimatic cutoff? I mean, she barely even leaves home base for 3/4s of the book. Man, if the author really meant it as 2 books I am super sad I am missing her not doing anything for 300 MORE pages.

I get why the character would need to, i do. Unless they truly focus and expound on all the stuff all the OTHER characters are doing for the first half of the book, then you may have 2 movies.


You do what they diid with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows films: you do the first 3/4s (as you said with her at home base) in the first film and then the second is mainly the final battle and epilogue.
 
2013-12-23 03:45:20 PM

peterthx: Jim from Saint Paul:
**SPOILER ALERT FOR ANYONE WHO HASN:T READ THE FINAL:BOOK OF THE HUNGER GAMES**

Where do you cut it? Where is the "midway" point of the book that lends a decent cinimatic cutoff? I mean, she barely even leaves home base for 3/4s of the book. Man, if the author really meant it as 2 books I am super sad I am missing her not doing anything for 300 MORE pages.

I get why the character would need to, i do. Unless they truly focus and expound on all the stuff all the OTHER characters are doing for the first half of the book, then you may have 2 movies.

You do what they diid with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows films: you do the first 3/4s (as you said with her at home base) in the first film and then the second is mainly the final battle and epilogue.


**CONTIUNUED SPOILERS**

That's what I was thinking too. That's a whole lot of no action in the first movie then (she leaves before then, what, once?). I mean, I like the idea of making the first movie more of a character study. I was hoping the end would be about 30 minutesish. No, it will be 2 and a half hours ish.

Watching them together will be pretty cool. I just don't think that they get the most interesting part of that 3rd book IS the last 70 or so pages.
 
2013-12-23 09:50:44 PM
Saw Achorman 2 - could've shaved 30 minutes off and been better.  Preferred 1, but 2 had some moments.

/So hoping I can bust out 'Which one of you pipe-hitting biatches is gonna pass me some biscuits' at family Christmas dinner.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report