|Page 6 of 55:||               |
|Index||548 reviews in total|
It was...so ridiculous. The out-takes in the credits were better than the
movie. I used to respect those actresses, but this was just too much. And
how did Bosley turn from a older white man to a younger black one? This
isn't explained, is "Bosley" a title? Or did they hire him 'cuz his name
"Bosley"? A -little- explination would be good. Or is the picture behind
his mother there to lead us to believe that Jimmy Bosley is the other
I thought maybe if the movie was good enough, I could ignore Bernie Mac, but he's terrible. The movie was a action packed stripper movie
It is just entertainment and my daughter loves to watch them over and
over. As a matter of fact, she has been taking lessons in Karate
because of Charlies Angels.
She would love to see more movies and more empowered women take action and do what is right in this world. She is way too tired of watching the Power Puff Girls.
She would love to see the Desoto Case. And would like to know who Charlie is, because my wife and I will never tell.
She would also like to see more Angels, past or present. Does not matter, but it shows her that women can be smart, intelligent, and most of all empowered to take charge over their own lives.
Not necessarily a preview, but a comment.
I accept that most movies and TV require some suspension of belief, and
that's half of the fun.
The original premise of "Charlie's Angels" (or "She Spies") was that three beautiful women could use their training, intelligence, disguises, and, in particular, their feminine wiles to fight crime and injustice. I found this . . . ummm . . . "believable".
For that matter, "Superman", "Spiderman", "Alien", or "Harry Potter" are "believable" because the original premise is fantasy or SciFi.
But the two don't mix.
After watching the first fight scene in this movie - with its Matrix-like ignorance of physical laws, the strand that suspended my disbelief was stretched spider-silk thin. But after they flew 400 feet through the air to land on a helicopter a few minutes later, it snapped completely.
Fortunately, I was watching it on TV, so all I had to do was change channels. I spent more time writing this review than I did watching the movie.
It's interesting to note that most people with brains enough to write a review give this movie "one star", and even though the votes actually follow a Bell curve in general, there is a huge spike at the bottom.
But if you like mindless dreck (or are appropriately chemically altered), you might like this movie.
to describe how truly awful this movie is. I want my two hours back. And I want to throttle all the people involved in this movie. Why do they subject us to this slop?
This crap does laugh at itself but it doesn't know what it wants to be. Because it doesn't take itself seriously, we `treated' to a healthy dose of self-mockery and some truly idiotic action sequences. Take that one at the beginning, where they tumble off a bridge and climb into a helicopter while it and they are plummeting to otherwise certain destruction. I can honestly say that the scene is the stupidest thing I've ever seen perpetrated in a non-cartoon action movie. If there was some nudity I could forgive this awful plot. There's simply not enough skin shown to send blood rushing away from my brain and to my privates. If you're male and at all coherent, this movie just flat out stinks.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle may not be an Oscar quality film but I enjoyed it and its really a guilty pleasure of mine. The Angels--Natalie, Dylan, and Alex--prepare to strike without warning as they go undercover to retrieve two missing silver bands. These are no ordinary rings. They contain valuable encrypted information that reveal the new identities of every person in the Federal Witness Protection Program. When witnesses start turning up dead, only the Angels, using their expertise as masters of disguise, espionage and martial arts can stop the perpetrator, a mysterious "fallen" Angel. The plot sounds cheesy which isn't a bad thing as the TV show was cheesy as well. I think the execution is a little disappointing though as the film didn't really make a lot sense. It was pretty much action sequences followed by one another. The action sequences were pretty good but they were tied together with a thin plot. Most of the cast returns with a few new additions. Drew Barrymore played Dylan and she did a good job. Cameron Diaz also did a good job and seemed to really be enjoying herself. Lucy Liu does a good job as well and this film works a lot better thanks to these three actresses. Bill Murray is out and he is replaced by Bernie Mac. Mac does an okay job though he does get a little annoying sometimes. Demi Moore returns as the fallen angel. She plays her role well an she also looks great. Luke Wilson, Matt LeBlanc, John Cleese and Crispin Glover all appear and all have minor roles. I was a bit confused to see Crispin Glover as I'm pretty sure he died in the first one but its Hollywood and anything goes. Shia LaBeouf is only the film for a little bit yet he is annoying every time he is on screen. Also what happens in the end with him is incredibly stupid even for this film. McG directs and does kind of a messy job. Most people will probably hate this film while others will view it as a so bad its good type of film. I'm more with the latter as I did enjoy this film. Yes, the dialog was lame and the story didn't really make sense but if you can look past those then you should be able to enjoy this sequel. Is this one better then the original? No, the original was more fun to watch and it had Bill Murray. In the end, this film isn't really worth watching but if your looking for something you can just shut your brain off and enjoy then this film might fit the bill. Rating 7/10, not the best film of 2003 but you could do a lot worse.
I would have given this a zero if possible. The first movie was not bad, it was a pleasant surprise. My son wanted to watch this (he's 13) and he was really disappointed. After this bomb we watched "The Getaway" with Steve McQueen and he said "now that is a good movie".
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I liked this. It was intelligent. It was competent. It was cinematic. It was post post- feminist sex-as-joke smart. It was original in its perspective on the unoriginal nature of film.
There's a reason that this ended on a stage -- it is placed as a movie about movies. Of course most movies today are, but this one carves out a unique niche. "Hulk" was equally intelligent but it respects the cinematic mechanisms it exploits. "Moulin Rouge" was much more intelligent but added a vicious intent: to demolish the genre.
This one is in between: it doesn't demolish, it exploits so extremely yet subtly that we have the choice ourselves. But just along the way, the makers wanted us to know that they were aware: so we have the stage, the "observe" atory (used before, notably in the selfreferential "Bowfinger"), the goof on "Maximum Extreme 2," the reference to the TeeVee show by bringing Jaclyn back as Jaclyn. Within this, we have a constantly accelerating series of references to other films: when they got to "Black Narcissus" meets "Star Wars" I had to completely surrender and let the flow of cinematic microorgasms wash over me.
I love this stuff. Yes it is fluff, but it is fluff that intelligently walks the line between masterfully executed fluff and a parody of fluff. Bruce Willis invented this genre, at least in this Summer movie form, and it is extra cool to see him (and Demi!) dancing through it. I credit Drew Barrymore for this, and -- mark me -- when the long view is written, this film will be important and she will be remembered as our K Hepburn. She is the one who invents this film, who monitors its balance.
Here's a side issue: when the counterculture of the sixties was being forged, its key notion was that for the first time in celebrity we had not a single role model but a compound one. In the Beatles, we had four complementary beings melded into one. That quaternity fascinated because while everyone chose an individual among the four to emulate, they were inseparable. As the ambition of that era faded, we reverted back to single roles: the typical high-schooler had seven (or so) to chose from.
Drew is moving back into that mode, or at least referencing it. Here we have the cute one, Cameron, who out-Julias Julia Roberts in working that smile. She's supposed to be dumb, the sexy Ringo. We have Lucy (no diamonds here), who is a fascinating character. Ostensibly the genius, ostensibly the most graceful and beautiful one, she is presented as the one tied to the movie world (with her celebrity Dad and boyfriend). But as everyone knows, she's an intolerable bitch, nearly impossible to work with. In fact, the only reason we have the clueless Bernie Mac instead of the perfectly self-aware Bill Murray is because she drove him away. Just think about this: no amount of money could bring him back, and we're talking big bucks here.
And we have Drew, Drew the mastermind who is both IN this and creating it. Who has left the world of hedonistic drugs so although radiantly healthy is relatively chunky compared to her anorexic buddies. Who never had the camera-loving sweetness this movie celebrates but who shows up anyway as if to say so what? Who does a Willis tenfold in winking at us and saying: ain't it a gas and I can wiggle my butt too. (Though it got a little labored with the intelligently conceived but incessantly drummed "Hell on Ass" bit.)
These days, I try to watch films in pairs. My partner for "Angels2" was "Gremlins2." Check it out, seriously. Gremlins2 was a similar walk through other films, similarly balanced between nearly taking itself seriously and dumping on itself with religious fervor. Similar goof on pulchritude.
Opening sequences are promises. This one, with the extreme continuous pans (borrowed from the similarly situated "The Player") told me right away what a clever goof this would be.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
I'm in Awe, with emphasis on the awful. This movie is proof positive that
the movie going public gets what it deserves. People have already wasted
their money on this film, and i'm sure we will see another opus by McG in
the form of Charlie's Angels 3.
Not even mindless fun.
Its a shame because as watching this film I tried to pull out bits that might have held some faint hope of a plot, such as an angel gone bad.... heck lets explore that, my god, at LEAST TRY.
We even got a great cameo by Jaclyn Smith, I'm sure put there for fans of the original show, however, I doubt any real fan of Charlie's Angels would have lasted that long, or at the very least would have been busy cleaning up vomit off the floor during the cameo having lost all bodily control by what had previously transpired.
And then the closing credits. Apparently for lack of anything redeeming in this film, and i mean ANYTHING, at least we're to presume that the girls had a good time. Though, I envisioned a team of lawyers standing off camera pointing to their contracts which amongst other things, required the girls to have a good time, or else be in breech.
This movie, and I use the term lightly, is as bad as I've seen. IMDB needs a ZERO rating.
I haven´t seen the first one but i think the second one is the worst movie i ever seen.It´s no story at all and bad act.It is also unrealistic in a high grade and redikoless.I can´t believe that Lucy Liu is so good in Kill Bill but so bad here.No good at all.
|Page 6 of 55:||               |
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|