The problem with these sequels

I agree. But I could watch the latte scene all day, it's *beep* hilarious. It's all about facial expressions and both actors do it well.

I once told a man to go screw himself! Can you even imagine?! - Kilgrave

i like your writing style and i agree with you

Excellently put.

Comedy is such a difficult thing to do because not all people have the same sense of humour. A good drama works because the qualities that make for good drama appeal universally to all of us. Humour is much more specific. It's miraculous that ANY comedy manages to find a wide audience, and it's even more rare that lightning strikes twice.




Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

Oh snap! Shots fired!

Yeah this one was a super lazy rehash of the jokes from the original but that said I laughed a few times and was entertained enough.

Now Anchorman 2 on the other hand, terrible.

Is that it's just your opinion. And that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion and entitled to post it in this forum. But in my opinion, everything you say is wrong with this sequel is what makes it work for me. And again, this is just my opinion so I expect yourself and many other people to disagree with me. I thought the steady orgy relationship was utterly ridiculous and weird and uncomfortable... and that's exactly what made it perfect for this movie and totally hilarious. I mean, come on, Kiefer Sutherland played himself being a member of the orgy group - which makes it all the more ridiculous, weird, uncomfortable and hilarious. And what do you mean Mugatu throwing his latte at his assistant here was longer and over the top? It was a quick one-off joke like in the first one, the only time we saw it again was in the end credits. And why would Mugatu NOT throw his latte at Todd? That's Mugatu. Do you expect in a sequel that he wouldn't do it? That would be strange and make no sense. And as for Magnum having beams that hold the bomb up, I see that as a perfectly natural advancement on a funny plot device from the first movie., as well as the other models being able to do it. Why not? It makes perfect sense in the Zoolander universe. All that stuff worked in my opinion and I thought this movie was a nonsensical, farcical, ludicrous masterpiece of utter stupidity... which is exactly what Zoolander is supposed to be. What would you want to see in a Zoolander sequel anyway, Zoolander, Hansel and all their pals just sitting around in a plush apartment watching the paint flake? To paraphrase Mugatu, Zoolander really is incredibly, white-hot stupid. Which is why I love both movies. To each their own.... eh? (And no, I'm not from Canaydia)

Well said and I agree. I wasn't a big fan of the first. Watching now, actually, haha! It was my husbands turn to choose the movies for tonight.

Thought most of the nods were ok, the latte was one quick moment and the facial expressions were great, and Hansel being in a group relationship just fits his character. I do agree about stopping the bomb with the face beams or whatever. That part was really stupid especially with everyone being able to do it and went on for way to long as well. Since they kept referencing it assumed it would come up again. And it worked as a plot device for Derek's feeling about himself and guilt and when he got past it could do it again, and assumed his son would step in too as part of accepting being Derek's son. But the scene didn't need Hansel and Sting involved nor drag on as longa s it did.

OP is 100% correct.

That other guy trying to defend the movie keeps talking about "my opinion, your opinion, opinion this, opinion that". That means he knows he's wrong.