Boy am I glad DS gave this a little bit of Reagan, because we will not see a movie unless there is at least one pixel of Reagan’s image at the bottom of the review. Seriously!

And we really did want to see this movie.

Ralph Goy on December 18, 2013 at 11:30 am

Debbie,

I don’t think its in the same class as the classic 70s movie “Network.” Peter Finch was excellent and its funny!

Of course, that was the pre-CNN era. And 24 hour cable news has gotten old.

NormanF on December 18, 2013 at 1:00 pm

Reagan loved a good laugh.
And could carry off a good joke on a liberal.

panhandle on December 18, 2013 at 3:50 pm

I need to know if you also think The 3 Stooges are stupid, because I might like this movie … nuk, nuk, nuk.

Dale Zalaoras on December 18, 2013 at 7:04 pm

Actually Debbie, it earned its PG-13 Rating (the original was R). I hated the original with a burning passion- at the end, I was disappointed that Ron hadn’t fallen into the bear enclosure and died a horrible, painful death. So as to prevent being subjected to a sequel.

R: You are right (I confused the IMDB pages for the two movies and, therefore, the ratings), and it’s been corrected. This one does deserve an “R”-rating, though. DS

Robert on December 18, 2013 at 10:15 pm

I never liked Will Ferrel – don’t think he’s very funny or gifted in that way. I never understood why unfunny people and untalented hacks became mega-superstars, but I think I finally figured it out. I hated Eddie Murphy, too.

DS_ROCKS! on December 18, 2013 at 11:40 pm

I despise Will Ferrell, and only part of it is because he became a darling of the left because of his pounding away at Dubya. Not that I think that much of Dubya by himself, but Will Ferrell made an industry out of impersonating him, when guys like Caliendo were doing it just as well.

Will Ferrell is NOT funny. Will Ferrell is making 586 pictures a year, and collecting $1.3 billion per picture? Ever see such a thing in your life? NEVER. Who’s he __________? Know what I mean? I don’t want to get graphic, because I don’t want Debbie to smack me upside the head and ban me. But, SOMEONE, is in Will Ferrell’s corner for SOMETHING that he’s done, or IS doing, and it has NOTHING TO DO, . . .

with talent.

DS_ROCKS!, I love you bro, but Eddie Murphy IS funny, or at least he was. Ever see him in his stand up days? Saturday Night Live? This kid was a comedic genius in his early days, and almost NO ONE, could do old Jews as well as Eddie Murphy in his prime. Problem was, when he started making movies about idiotic Africans coming to America and being bowled over by toothbrushes and toilets, . . .

he lost it.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 19, 2013 at 12:07 am

‘Fredo: “Eddie Murphy IS funny, or at least he was. Ever see him in his stand up days? Saturday Night Live?”

Sure, I saw SNL. I watched it religiously when I was a thirteen y/o kid from episode one in 1975 with the first cast of Jane Curtin, Garret Morris, Lorraine Newman, Chevy Chase, Belushi and Akroyd (didn’t even have to Google that!) Comedy was my life and “National Lampoon” was my bible.

Back when they had to say “Live from New York – it’s Saturday night!” because ABC already had a variety show running at the time with Howard Cosell as emcee that was named “Saturday Night Live.” After it was canceled, Lorne Green then started using SNL.

I idolized that show, but it started falling apart when Bill Murray took over for Chase. I I never liked Murray, either, and also thought he was overrated.

But the succeeding iterations with Murphy et al. – BLECCCCCH Hated them all. I never could stomach the show after that.

And so it goes with individual taste and all that, I often found myself outside of the mainstream. Still do. I’m as mystified why people find certain comedians funny as they are mystified as to what I see in mine.

Here’s my litmus test for assessing one’s comedy values compared to mine: Chris Elliot is a genius and “Get A Life” was the funniest sitcom in the history of TV. His current show on Cartoon Network, “Eagle Heart” is the second funniest of all time.

If you agree with above statement, then you’re an oddball like me. If you don’t, then you’re part of the mainstream. It’s not a judgement, just a fact.

DS_ROCKS! on December 19, 2013 at 2:10 am

Okay, cool. Sorry, Eddie Murphy fans, can’t reel this fish in. LOL!!!

Don’t know who Chris Elliot is. But you’re right about taste, and I have no problem with that. I love Brussells Sprouts. Some folks don’t.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 19, 2013 at 8:43 am

Will Ferrell is an overrated creep who supports gun control and is pushing it in a national advertisements. Remember, these Hollywood scumbags have bodyguards and an eager police force to defend them. We have no one, as the police only care about wealthy neighborhoods and celebrities.

I will not see the movies of any of these cretins in this advertisement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SqDocHFJ8k

In fact, I won’t see any movies as I am boycotting any Hollywood production due to their left wing anti-American viewpoints and actions.

Jonathan E. Grant on December 19, 2013 at 10:54 am

Words of wisdom and practicality, Mr. Grant. It’s why I haven’t been to the movies in over 30 years, and why I only know people like Will Ferrell because The Government Media Complex beats our heads in with their exploits and the accompanying accolades. I only know him due to my cultural observations, and what I know disgusts me, in addition to the fact that the man is talentless.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 19, 2013 at 11:19 am

Another SNL movie that goes out of its way to bash conservatives. What I really hate is that Meagan Good is in this movie. She is one of my favorite actresses.

Gerald on December 19, 2013 at 3:00 pm

DS Rocks:

Rats, Chris Elliot’s TV show is on Adult Swim. Unfortunately I cannot patronize it because I despise Adult Swim.

Gerald on December 19, 2013 at 3:02 pm

I encourage everyone here to tell ten friends three things this holiday/New Year’s season.

The first is to tell everyone to read Debbieschlussel.com on a daily to thrice daily basis.

The second thing is to tell everyone to boycott Hollywood, until they stop supporting left wing, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-White, anti-Second Amendment positions and candidates, and until they stop making such anti-conservative movies. I am not going to pay to see a movie to see people like me belittled.

The third and final thing to tell everyone is to call sponsors of companies that sponsor television shows that bash conservatives, Jews, Christians, and America, and tell them that you will boycott their products as long as they sponsor such garbage on television.

And have your ten friends tell ten other friends, etc.

Jonathan E. Grant on December 19, 2013 at 3:21 pm

“The Anchorman” franchise (they are already in preproduction for “The Anchorman 3”) deconstructs (white) masculinity.

“Ron Burgundy” is basically an extension of the Don Draper archetype from “Mad Men” as how women’s studies, queer studies and black/Hispanic studies types see successful white males in the pre-feminism/pre-civil rights era. The idea is that such people weren’t successful due to hard work or individual merit, but instead were just handed everything that they got by “the system” or by ruthlessly oppressing and robbing minorities and women.

Burgundy is basically able to be an award-winning anchor for a very successful news team in a competitive market despite being dumb, lazy and having terrible professional and social skills. Why? Because he is a white male, and the same is true of his news team. They’re not successes because of hard work, creativity, ingenuity, intelligence or even luck, but instead simply because they are white males because the game was rigged to favor white males over everybody else. So all it took was a single white female to be inserted into the mix – and they made a point of the fact that the workplace was forced to hire her because of diversity quotas – to turn their world upside down. The unlike the males, the female is actually qualified, smart, ethical and hard-working. The males resent her because they know that she is better than they all are and because they know that their little privilege system has been upset. So they treat her terribly – including but not limited to Burgundy sexually harassing her until she gives in to his sexual advances – and she is “forced” by her terrible treatment by the male chauvinists (the worst of which is a closeted homosexual) to do something unethical to get Ron fired (not due to an immoral choice of her own, but she was a victim).

“The Anchorman 2”? The same deal. Because qualified women and nonwhites are entering the workplace in increasing numbers, unqualified Burgundy is out of work again, replaced by his wife. His masculine ego can’t handle the affront so he ditches his wife and child. (Which is exactly the opposite of how an actual man’s man from that period – or any period – would have done … it is actually more like what a chick-man metrosexual who gets his feelings hurt and “needs to go find himself” would do … an actual masculine guy from that era would have simply gotten a job, any job, just because it was a husband and father’s duty to have one, and obviously a guy with Burgundy’s background could have easily gotten a job in middle management or advertising but hey who cares about reality when you are doing a hatchet job on heterosexual white males?) He winds up at a network where once again he is emasculated by a smart, hardworking qualified woman (this time black to boot) and he succeeds, not by using that wide open gold rush type of opportunity to be a better newscaster, but instead by using gimmicks to appeal to what the SNL types consider to be the knuckle-dragging lowbrow crowd that a short time later sought refuse in conservative talk radio and Fox News.

Yes, it is neatly masked in a comedy by decent writing, directing and actor/comedians who have some talent but the message/agenda is that straight white males – unless they are effeminate feminist liberal/progressives – are a bunch of stiffs who have never accomplished anything worthwhile without a gender/race privilege system to hand them everything. And if you’ve been raised on TV, movies and the public education system in the past generation, that’s the entire image that you will ever get. You won’t know anything about the white males that composed classical music, did fantastic paintings and sculptures, were outstanding architects, wrote classic novels and plays, invented political and economic theory, and produced all those breakthroughs in medicine, science and technology. You won’t even know most of that stuff (especially related to western culture like the arts or great literature or actual philosophy) exists in the first place, and the rest you are going to believe was stolen from a woman or minority, was spontaneously generated or was created by “the government” (i.e. Obama’s “you didn’t build that”).

Let me give you an example of how thoroughly brainwashed we’ve been: the “Iron Man” movies. Tony Stark is this super-genius who builds this Fortune 500 company by inventing and marketing weapons, employing who knows how many people, creating a ton of wealth and playing a vital role in our economy (not to mention for national security). Why is he able to do this? Because he is a genius, a hard worker, an innovator, he was trained in business and hard sciences at the best schools and oh yes he learned from his father, who built the company in the first place. What does Stark do? Make his personal assistant his CEO. His PERSONAL ASSISTANT, whose job had been to do Stark’s laundry, order his groceries, pay his bills and schedule his medical appointments. What on earth qualified her to be qualified to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Gave her the intelligence, the experience, the knowledge and skill? Simple, because she is FEMALE (and spunky and tough and assertive, a Hillary Clinton type and not a Nancy Reagan type) then OF COURSE she is qualified. She even immediately starts hobnobbing with S.H.I.E.L.D. involving matters of national security despite having no military background, no top secret clearance, nothing. Why do we buy this? Simple: because these movies and TV shows have been conditioning us to accept it all these years.

Just know this: the object of ridicule in an “Anchorman” type movie will NEVER be a Katie Couric caricature, and you will NEVER see a Walter Cronkite (an actual qualified, hardworking, intelligent and indeed brilliant) character expose Katie Couric or Rachel Maddow (not just satire movie characters but the actual real Couric or Maddow) for what they are. And Will Farrell, Steve Carell, etc. are just willing participants in the “I hate straight white males” self-hate because they are adherents to the same liberal/progressive ideology. They have no concept of the type of world that they are helping create for their own kids and grandkids, as if the feminists and minority rights activists are going to look after their interests of something yeah right.

It is just so pervasive these days that I wonder if Confederate Grant’s suggestion above to just boycott Hollywood is a good idea after all. Stuff like this is even depicted in kids’ cartoons. The male characters are always weak and effete, the female characters resourceful and strong. And in any competition between the males and females, the females always win (and decidedly). Anything that the male characters “accomplish” (i.e. beating the bad guys) is often by dumb luck or pure silliness, not by courage, competence or perseverance.

Yeah, that Hollywood boycott is sounding better and better all the time.

Gerald on December 19, 2013 at 8:02 pm

ugh. i’ll skip it. i hate these over-the-top, lowest common denominator flicks. can’t stand the current middle aged new brat pack, although most have some natural talent.

they always go too far. wedding crashers could have been good, but they pushed the envelope too far and ruined it with will ferrell.

night at the museum proved that you can do good work, amuse us and stay clean. i don’t mind a little smut, but there’s a line.
regarding will ferrell..can you say, “overexposed?”

the fog on December 20, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Have you seen the posters for this new movie starring Stallone and DeNiro, a boxing related picture called “Grudge Match?”

ARE YOU KIDDING???!!?!?!!!! Stallone and DeNiro fighting each other in the ring???!!!?!?!?!?!?!!!!

I know they’re both in good shape, Stallone in part because of the HGH and steroids that he advocates, but DeNiro’s 237, and Stallone is 229 years old!!!!!!!!!!!!

The culture becomes more ridiculous, another piece of evidence that Satan is furiously stirring the pot, and adding loads of pepper.

These posters are ALL OVER NYC!!! I’M FLYING OUT MONDAY, AND I CAN’T WAIT!!! AUUUUUUGGGGHHHHH!!!

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 20, 2013 at 7:35 pm

Thanks , I’ve recently been looking for information about this topic for ages
and yours is the greatest I have found out so
far. But, what concerning the conclusion? Are you certain about the source?

emploi à domicile le week-end on July 18, 2014 at 1:11 am