'Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues' - By Matty Jacobson

Tweet

THE SKEWED REVIEW | FILM

As a journalist, "Anchorman" has always been one of my favorite films. I'm not that into Will Ferrell, but for some reason I find the antics of Ron Burgundy, Brian Fantana, Champ Kind and good old Brick Tamland quite hilarious -- and super quotable. (Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?!)

So, as a journalist and "Anchorman" lover, I might have gone into "Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" a bit biased.

Of course the second isn't as good as the first, but you know what? It's pretty damn close.

"2" follows up on Ron (Ferrell) and his wife Veronica (Christina Applegate), both working as coanchors for the same network. But it isn't long before Veronica continues climbing the success ladder, and Ron gives her an ultimatum: It's either him or her job.

So, needless to say, we catch up with Ron a few months later, separated from his wife and now working as an announcer at Sea World.

This all sort of felt like a re-imagining of  "Blades of Glory." The disgraced Ron Burgundy even had stains on his shirt, reminiscent of the vomit-covered Chazz Michael Michaels after falling from grace and having to skate in children's shows. But that's where the similarities ended.

Ron is approached by a producer for a new idea: A 24-hour news network. So he rounds up Kind (David Koechner), Fantana (Paul Rudd) and Brick Tamland (the ever-funny Steve Carell) to help anchor a channel that would be all news, all the time. This is where the journalist in me was really entertained.

The film pokes fun at the ridiculousness of 24-hour news and how the very concept is basically asanine. The only way to make something like that work would be to report on what is actually newsworthy and then fill in the other 23 hours with fluff (the movie hits that nail right on the head).

There was one scene that got a little out of hand for me. In an attempt to cash in on one of the more memorable scenes from the first film, the gang gets into a newsteam gang fight only with national news channels and about double the cameos that appeared in the first film.

We get a fustercluck of celebrities in the form of Sacha Baron Cohen, Kirsten Dunst, Tina Fey, Harrison Ford, Greg Kinnear, Liam Neeson, Amy Poehler, Vince Vaughn, Marion Cotillard, John C. Reilly, Jim Carrey, Will Smith and, in what was almost a movie deal-breaker for me, Kanye West.

Don't get me wrong; the scene had its moments. But at that point, the film was already running a bit long. It could have been cut down just a bit.

Don't miss the face Kristen Wiig makes when she says, "Wanna see the face I make when I'm looking at a snake made out of candy?"

Yes. This film gets my approval. You stay classy, San Diego. Or, wherever you happen to be.

'Saving Mr. Banks' - Matty Jacobson

Tweet

THE SKEWED REVIEW | FILM

There's nothing like a good "based on a true story" story to give you perspective on things. But unlike most "based on a true story" stories, this one is, at least for the most part, truly based on a true story.

"Saving Mr. Banks" follows the tumultuous week where Walt Disney, played by Tom Hanks, tries to convince "Mary Poppins" author P. L. Travers, brought to life by Emma Thompson, to sign over the rights to the story in order for the studio to make it into a film.

Now, we all know Disney succeeded because, well, we've all seen "Mary Poppins." But the trek from point A to point B is very interesting, and incredibly touching.

I read the books when I was a teenager and was completely disappointed in them. They were nothing like the movie, after all. But after seeing "Banks," I can see how Travers saw the characters, and the books make a lot more sense to me now.

Hanks plays a sometimes convincing Disney, but when it boils down to it, I don't know how anyone other that Walt himself could really take on that role. The real scene-stealer was Thompson.

Now, I didn't go into the theater with any real knowledge of P. L. Travers, so there wasn't a lot compare Thompson's portrayal to. I do know, however, that Thompson managed to tug a couple of tears from me on a couple of occasions.

This was the perfect movie to see on Christmas day. It was enlightening and heartbreaking all at the same time.

Plus, it made me want to go to Disneyland.

Bravo.

'The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug'

Tweet

"Oh, I see you're still awake after hours and hours of unnecessary plot,
Barrel Rider!" - Smaug (probably) 

THE SKEWED REVIEW | FILM

When it comes to J.R.R. Tolkein's Middle-earth adventures, I was never able to get into the actual "Lord of the Rings" book or movies.

Reading them is was like having to learn a whole new language, and I think I got through "Lord" and a smidge into "The Two Towers" books before I had to put them down and. All semblance of story was lost within a hodgepodge names, creatures, languages, quests and characters that popped up for no apparent reason other than to take up room. And I still couldn't tell you the motivation behind anything anyone did.

"The Hobbit," on the other hand, was such a great book. It wasn't drawn out to the point of ridiculousness. It had jovial characters who, despite their horrible manners, were generally likable. And the whole tale was told in a fraction of just one of the "LOTR" trilogy books.

That, of course, didn't stop Peter Jackson, Warner Bros., New Line Cinema and MGM from greedily trying to bleed as much money from the audience as possible.

"The Desolation of Smaug" was a four-hour movie, or at least it seemed like it. Why? Because there was a whole lot of nothing happening all the time. It reeked of being fleshed-out for the purpose of length and nothing else. "The Hobbit" could have easily been told in one movie. But instead, we had to be subjected to a bunch of material that was lifted from The Histories of Middle-earth, which include 12 "LOTR" companion-style books written by Tolkien, and new characters written specifically for the movie.

And for what? For hours of fight scenes that should have lasted minutes? For a barrel-in-the-river scene that might as well be a TV miniseries in and of itself? For a movie that feels like it should have been over hours ago when it gets to the good part?

The good part I speak of is the titular character's emergence, but by the time we actually see Smaug, I'd already had enough and I was pretty much ready to leave. I will give the film this though: Smaug's voice was great to listen to. That's about it.

There were so many unnecessary additions to the story of "The Hobbit" that I just couldn't reconcile my feelings for the book and my hatred of the movie.

I just wish Peter Jackson had told a "Hobbit" story that stuck with the "Hobbit" book. If the director wanted to tell all these additional tales, there are plenty of other books to make into movies. I didn't need all the realms of Middle-earth bleeding into what was once one of my favorite stories.