Bradley-Grube Reviews

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)

People have revisionist history

[7/10 · 5 January 2014]

I remember way back in 2004 when I went to the theater in high anticipation of Will Ferrell's first starring vehicle(he was really a supporting actor in "Old School") in the original "Anchorman". I walked out of the theater feeling somewhat disappointed that the movie was just a so-so effort by a comedian I highly respected as one of the funniest people in the business. Over the next ten years,however, I became one of the legions of people who could quote the movie beginning to end while laughing myself into a stupor. Oh how I would continuously quote "It means a whale's vagina" or "60% of the time, it works every time". My point? I believe "Anchorman 2" will follow the same pattern with people. I have read many of the user reviews of this movie and they mostly provide the same complaint over and over again that the movie was sophomoric, vulgar and stupid and didn't live up to the original. Really? I challenge those same people to look at the user reviews for the first "Anchorman" in 2004. I'll give you a hint: They are the same reviews! Yet today, "Anchorman" is considered one of the greatest and most quotable comedies since "Animal House" and "Airplane". Why? I believe it is because Ferrell and Adam McKay try to pack in so many jokes into one movie (almost every other line!) that many jokes go over peoples heads, some inevitably just don't work or viewers miss them entirely because they are laughing from a previous joke. This is the same style of rapid fire comedy we are accustomed to seeing from Ferrell and McKay, as evidenced by the first "Anchorman", "Talladega Nights" and "Step Brothers". Over time and after re-watching these movies again and again, the jokes get rediscovered and the movie gets funnier.

That is not to say that this sequel is as good as the first. Many jokes did not land and, in my opinion, the side story with Steve Carrell and Kristin Wiig was just not that funny. HOWEVER...there were quite a lot of jokes that did land. Smoking crack on television (who knew you couldn't smoke crack on live television?), Champ Kind's chicken restaurant("I'm not eating that!"), the dinner with his girlfriend's parents ("say whaaaat?"), his relationship with his son, etc. For the critics who feel this movie didn't live up to the original, I ask that you remember how you felt about it in 2004 instead of the years (and multiple viewings) following its release. To the critics who just felt it was stupid, I wonder if you even liked the first. To those who are fans of Ron Burgundy and his band of idiots and who have yet to see it, just remember that you will have to watch this again and again in order to really appreciate it...just like the first movie.

Texas Chainsaw (2013)

Ahhhhhhhh........nuts

[2/10 · 11 August 2013]

I was really looking forward to this too. I heard that they were scrapping all the prequel stuff and going for a straight sequel of the original. Sounds good...until I watched it. The movie starts off well enough by recapping the original and then moves into the typical stuff. A group of twenty something CK models pack up their van and head to Texas because the main character inherits the house from the grandmother (a Sawyer) she never knew she had because she was taken away from the Sawyers when she was a baby. Got it? Good. Wait! Did I say twenty something? How is that possible if the original took place in 1974 and this takes place in 2012? Would that mean that the main character should be at least 38 years old? Yes it does, but oh well! Right? HA HA HA! RIGHT??! Anyway, the movie progresses with the typical slaughter of the underwear models when all of a sudden, Leatherface becomes....becomes...a good guy??? What the *bleep* *bleepin* *bleep*??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Really producers? Really writers? C'mon guys! Its not that hard, is it? I mean, we only expect so much out of these movies. A little gore, a few jumps, a couple of near heart attacks. Bada bing bada boom, you're done! Why do you have to reach like this? Leatherface doesn't need to show emotion! This isn't "Citizen Kane"! It's TCM! Good God people! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

The Canyons (2013)

I watched only because I thought to myself "It can't be THAT bad!"...oops!

[1/10 · 11 August 2013]

I read an article yesterday in which the writer of this movie, Bret Easton Ellis, said that he couldn't understand the hate for this movie. Really? You don't know? How about the fact that you cast a porn star as one of your leads? There's one reason. James Deen gives you a performance here that is no different than what he gave you in "Anal Buffet 8" (not making that up folks). I half expected him to show up at Lindsay Lohan's door in a pizza delivery uniform. The other lead, Nolan Gerard Funk, was slightly better than Deen...slightly. Here's another reason for the hate. The script was dismal. Christian(Deen) and Tara(Lohan) are living together in a huge house in LA where they enjoy, or at least Christian does, an open relationship where Christian gets his meat and two veg off sharing Tara with other men. When he finds out that Tara is having an affair with the lead in a movie he is financing(Funk), he goes nuts. Huh? Christian has Tara followed everywhere and starts messing with Funks's character by hacking his bank account and pretending to have him replaced in the movie. At this point Christian is in firm control over Funk's character and Tara. So much so that he decides to murder Funk's ex girlfriend?! Say what? To top it all off, he confesses to Tara that "something happened" to this poor girl and needs an alibi. All this while Tara is trying to break off the relationship. Christian is of course upset that Tara is leaving...I think...You know, I couldn't tell. That's how good Deen is here. I won't give away the ending because I had no idea what the heck happened at the end...yeah. To summarize, this movie had terrible acting, a ridiculously bad story and dialog fit for Deen's main profession. Don't see it, really. I thought the critics were being too hard on this movie and I was wrong. So very very wrong.

Halloween II (2009)

I know I'm the only one who liked this...I know

[8/10 · 4 August 2013]

I understand the hate for this movie, I do, but I loved it. Here's why. I hate remakes, especially horror remakes. I am a huge horror fan and if I see Michael Bay ruin one more classic, I will freak out! So I get that Halloween fans hated this movie because it ventures way off the path of the other Halloweens, but is that such a bad thing? I ask you Halloween fans, did we really want another movie with Busta Rhymes?? Really?? The franchise was at a standstill and the studio decided to change it up by enlisting the talented (I said it) Rob Zombie to breathe new life into the franchise. The first movie (2007 Halloween) was good but Zombie said he felt compelled to stick with the original's premise. OK, fine. He changed it up for the first half of the movie but had to eventually circle back and recreate the original. The second movie is where Zombie is able to do his own thing. Now in the original Halloween 2, its the same night and we really don't get to see the psychological effect that the events of that night had on Laurie down the road. This is where Zombie chose to focus his attention and I agree with it. Of course Laurie is going to be affected by what happened! So why not show it? It's real. I applaud Zombie for taking a chance instead of dishing out the same old script which he very easily could have. He decided to try something new and put his own creative spin on a tired story. Good for him. Now with all th complaints from Michael Myers purists, the franchise is stuck in limbo again. So thanks! Because guess who now has his hands on the franchise? That's right kids, it's Michael Bay! Yay! Anyone looking forward to the new Halloween in the same capacity as 2009's Friday the 13th or 2010's A Nightmare on Elm St.? No? Oh well! That's what you're going to get.