Charlie's Angels Full Throttle=Best Movie Ever

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (23 of them)
Yeah, but I mean it in a good way....

JesseFox (JesseFox), Thursday, 3 July 2003 04:50 (twenty years ago) link

I'm not that bad, am I?

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 3 July 2003 05:08 (twenty years ago) link

You know there is such a thing as pop art, people.

s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:43 (twenty years ago) link

Yes there is! For what it's worth, here's my actual review. (They dropped an em-dash and thus confused one of the sentences needlessly, but ah well. Editing's hard.)

JesseFox (JesseFox), Thursday, 3 July 2003 16:45 (twenty years ago) link

(also, pardon the didactic explanation of mash-ups in the first few grafs -- I had to assume that at least some of the reading audience would be unfamiliar with the concept)

JesseFox (JesseFox), Thursday, 3 July 2003 16:46 (twenty years ago) link

You know there is such a thing as pop art, people.

i agree of course. and part of my point was that since i dont particularly distinguish between "pop" and "art" in my own viewing i have notice a peculiar double standard in the way people approach pop films vs. self consciously artistic films. seeing as how i dont find hypertextuality or metatextuality very interesting in either case i dont know what i would make of CA2.

Adaptation, however, is not that great but it DOES do more interesting things by being metatextual than just the standard Godardian "hey i'm a movie" stuff.

ryan (ryan), Thursday, 3 July 2003 17:40 (twenty years ago) link

I saw it with a gay friend & he said something to the effect of: "In my whole life I've never seen anything so - what's the opposite of homoerotic?" - and with an (older) female friend who barely stayed awake.

Despite this, I liked it, though not as much as the first one even though McG's finally realised he's directing a MOVIE and not a bunch of music videos connected only by ass-shots. But his very competence is part of the problem - the very fact that there's some attention to narrative flow (and even occasional ill-timed realism)this time means there's less room for the out-and-out goofiness of last time - now when Cameron dances it's all stylised instead of silly, and with Cameron silly is funnier.

Also don't think the references resonate in any way - the Hammerdance should be hilarious but is only amusing because it's not adding any new blood to an old joke.

Soundtrack is terrific, though.

b.R.A.d. (Brad), Saturday, 5 July 2003 02:30 (twenty years ago) link

one month passes...
loved it.

PVC (peeveecee), Wednesday, 27 August 2003 22:30 (twenty years ago) link

john cleese was a bit pathetic but what do you want with a role like that. i found it very bitter to see. it made me sad. he was struggling to do something with it but what could he do?

erik, Monday, 1 September 2003 17:15 (twenty years ago) link

Hilarious motorcycle scene, but I can't remember anything after that, and there was nothing as purely wonderful as the Cameron Diaz butt dance in the first one. Both movies were about 30 percent inspired with a whole lotta dud scenes...

Pete Scholtes, Thursday, 11 September 2003 18:14 (twenty years ago) link

I think the brief break into the Hammer Dance was as wonderful, but there wasn't anything as breathtaking as the shot where Crispin Glover turns and fires and the Angels peel out.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 12 September 2003 14:15 (twenty years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.