|Page 11 of 55:||               |
|Index||548 reviews in total|
Along with the Armenian Genocide and the Rape of Nanking, this movie was
possibly one of the worst atrocities in human history. First off all, I
this is not supposed to be a realistic movie...but unless characters are
endowed with magical powers, it seems ridiculous to have character break
laws of physics. Most of stunts performed are not only phony looking, but
ridiculously phony looking. I love Justin Theroux...Mullholland Drive is
of my favorite movies ever...but even he couldn't save this
Mix the unrealisticness along with a non-existant plot (they break into spontaneous dance for no reason! this is not the Sound of Music, McG) and horrendous dialouge ("She's fired."), this movie takes the $200 million it was allocated and throws it out of the window. I mean there's at least five car chases with luxury sports cars...that must have cost $10 million alone! Don't even get me started on the wasted guest stars (what the hell is Chandler doing in the movie???)
This flick rocked, mainly because it never pretended to be some "important", deep movie. It's proudly stupid, free-spirited and almost unbelievably high on fun. I think that the people slagging this movie off take their movies far too seriously. Not EVERY film has to be some Oscar-winning, melodramatic classic. So chill out, lay back and let McG and a talented, fun-loving cast take you on a ride. "Charlie's..." is a movie that can transport you into a kick-ass, colourful, zany, big-hearted utopia. And not many movies can do that.
I know this will sound awful, but the only reason to see this movie is for Cameron Diaz's many butt shots. My wife couldn't stand it anymore, particularly the scene in the strip club, but it was the only element that made the movie for me. Otherwise is was chokingly bad. Bring back Bill Murray. And fire that stupid bad imitation of Colin Farrell forever from the movies.
Charlie's Angels II definitely won't win any Oscars for substance or
but it's an enjoyable flick just the same. No doubt other reviewers will
have panned the film for its superficiality, lack of originality,
and paper-thin plot premise, but let's be honest here - did anyone really
expect anything different walking into this film? It's one of those films
that make fun of itself and the industry in general, and doesn't take
too seriously. In today's stressful world sometimes people just want to go
into a theater and watch a flick to forget their problems for a couple of
hours. It's a great way to kill a couple of hours watching some good (if
unoriginal, but who cares) Matrix-like cinematography, and a pretty
soundtrack. It's a couple of hours of eye- and ear-candy, and as long as
people know that when they walk in then they can set their expectations
accordingly and they won't be disappointed.
Besides, if you haven't reset your expectations after watching the opening action scene then you're awfully slow on the uptake!!!!
Its finally here! I have waited almost three years to see this sequel to one of my favorite films. I loved Charlie's Angels. I agree that its silly but its still a lot of fun. Is this sequel worthy? The answer is a resounding YES. Its not as good as the original (what sequel is?), but it is as close as you can get. Once again, the three angels give dynamite performances. My princess Cameron Diaz is my favorite as Natalie. Some of the action scenes are almost cartoonish, but still fun to watch. Its like MCG the director just went all out to make this as thrilling as possible. The fight scenes are even better then in the first one, especially the one in the end between Cameron and Demi Moore. By the way, for all the hype and hulabuloo about Demi Moore's "comeback", she is only on screen less then 20 minutes. Its such a small part I cannot understand why she got all that publicity. Its not fair to the others in the film.
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003) Another rip of sequel.
What I thought would be a great sequel like Terminator 2 Charlie's angels was not.
The opening 10 minutes of the film is quite weird and at first it makes no sense. But when we see the girls jump back on that couch waiting for Charlie's tone, we know what we are in for. So now the mission is briefed, the bikini's on, and the fun begins.
It's the same old concept really, chicks with the moves, guys with the groove's but I've seen it all before. The film involves the angels juggling relationships (Alex still refuses in that same old way) while doing all those cool wire fight scenes over and over, to death. If you haven't seen the films that were first to use these techniques, like the matrix you won't notice a thing.
If you're a Charlie's angel fan then you'll love this one, especially the younger female audience, Males may be intimidated, but the older Male audience wont miss a thing... The film is made for fun and fun only, so don't expect too much from it.
I'd personally wait for rental if you haven't seen the movie yet. 5.5/10 General.
Yesterday, I watched that movie and in its middle I was wondering: "Something is wrong!Did I get tickets for Charlie's Angels or for the Matrix 4 in female version?!!!.Unfortunately tickets were saying the truth,I was in the right movie...My opinion is that slow motion tricks and all the other stuff belong to Matrix and nowhere else.Charlie's angels, the series!! were more serious from the movies.
Ususally directors make a film out of a good story. This is not the case.
Charlie's Angels 2 is just a money making film. A movie made with no good
ideas which seems full of improvisations.
The only purpose of the film is to show 3 good looking girls wearing little clothing and beating up the most toughest man in the world.
It's a B Class movie without any shadow of doubt. Directors! wake up! Don't waste your talent (if you've got any), money and time making this piece of s***.
My advise: it's not worth your money and your time. You better off watching TV adverts.
As usual, Hollywood earned enough on the 1st one that they sacrificed story for FX & guest stars the second time around. But I digress... The Angels were great...Demi was good...The return of Kelly Garrett was awesome. Now, lets talk about the movie... or lack thereof. Hollywood always manages to spend less on a script the second time around because they know if people paid to see the 1st one, then they are going back for more...& we do. Although some sequels have been better then the original (Austin Powers, Terminator, Batman) most of the time the sequel isn't good & is just a refresher of "that old feeling" that you got the 1st time around (Airplane, Men In Black, Land Before Time)...keeping that in mind, CH2 is a silly & fun reincarnation of part one. (7)
I liked the TV show, I liked the first movie, I,d sell my soul for CA:FT never to have existed. It makes a guano farm look like a nice place to stay, it makes you yearn for the spanish inquiition to come round and ask about what you said last week, it makes a great reason for strangling at birth, it is, in short, tripleungood. what,s wrong with it, let's see the angels act like they have superpowers, entire scenes appear to be missing, half the movie appears to be from a different movie. Lets take some examples shall we, Why is lucy lui's dad john cleese apart from he was available?, when it clearly sets up that robert patrick is the villain in disguise and not the real spy they rescued (someone would have checked him out and confirmed his ribs were broken on the flight back) do they the angels automatically realise the whole plot?, why does Bosley know how to activate the screen without knowing the screen exists? I could go on forever but I,ll spare you. if you have any hope of enjoying an action movie ever again avoid like the rancid piece of drek this movie secretly aspires to be.
|Page 11 of 55:||               |
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|