Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle

Shane · June 29th, 2003, 01:20 PM

This movie was highly entertaining. The action scenes while highly far-fetched were awesome!

Bernie Mac was funny as Bosley!

I know some of you arent Cameron Diaz or Lucy Liu fans but all I can say is YUMMY! I can never get enough of watching Cameron dancing around in her skimpy outfits or her bikini shots! WOW!

Throw in Demi and her fine azz 40 year old self and all I can say is there is plenty of male eye candy to go around!

Even without all the skin shots this movie was very funny and fast paced!

Chris Sanders you probably already know this but since you didnt like the first you probably wouldnt want to bother with this one!

Bob I know you will enjoy it

Chris_Sanders · June 30th, 2003, 09:27 AM

I am sure I will watch it on HBO in like 5 months or so. It had a pretty disappointing opening weekend.

Chaplin · July 2nd, 2003, 08:11 AM

Well, I saw T3 last night and afterwards was bored so we snuck into this movie. I didn't particularly want to, but it was the only convenient time we could do it.

**************SPOILER********************

First of all, this is an absolutely terrible movie. Just horrible.

Let's start with the basics.

The script is the worst piece of crapola. The plot makes no sense whatsoever. The whole thing revolves around the stealing and recovery of two rings, that while worthless apart, together cna provide the information needed to locate every person ever put into the Witness Protection Program. At one point, Demi Moore says she wanted to "play God". Huh?

The acting was also woeful. I know a lot of people are big fans of Cameron Diaz, but I don't see it. She's easy on the eyes, no question, but she's like Heather Graham, she can't act for ****e. Drew is a better actress, but they made her one minute a heavy metal groupie, the next, well... her character really has no personality. Even her backstory/subplot has absolutely no substance and is so cliched as to produce laughs when none were needed. And Lucy Liu, well, what can I say--she needs to do the quirky characters she's famous for (like, for future instance, the assassin in Kill Bill)--a little strange and really sexy. Here she does absolutely nothing except punch and kick and smile in the camera. Her "relationship" with Joey Tribiani--oh, wait, Jason whats-his-name wasn't even close to believable, and who in their right mind would believe that John Cleese is her father? Talk about a joke falling flat and an excuse to put Cleese in the film...

There were 2 good things about the actors:

1) Bernie Mac--he was funny in the 20 minutes of screen time he had, but again, a lot of his character was cliched--it was Bill Murray with a ghetto sensibility. His first appearance was funny as he was getting used to the gizmos and gadgets that go along with the job.

2) Demi Moore--her acting was abyssmal, but damn, she sure looks good, even at age 40.

To tell you how good the stunts were, let me just say this: Hong Kong action directors would be horrified. A lot of wire work, but where Hong Kong Wire Fu has a sort of midair ballet to it, this had a "Wayne's World 2 fight with Tia Carrera's father" feel to it. Jerky and unrealistic, it just comes across as cheesy and fake. Now, I'm sure proponents of this schlock will say that it is supposed to be cheesy, but this is no B-movie folks--this is meant to be an all-out Hollywood commercial action fest. And it fails miserably.

The music was as commercial as it gets. The director, McG, must have directed some Prodigy music videos, because I counted at least 3 Prodigy songs on the soundtrack. Everything else, from the regular music cues to the other songs, were well-known and used many times before. The composer should never work again--there is not one piece of original composition in the film.

And finally, is there anything more pretentious than a director who calls himself McG? Sure, it works for Madonna and Cher, but these are superstars who started in the 80s and the 60s/70s. McG isn't even a performer. How the hell can anyone call the guy McG on the set? It just sounds... wierd.

As for a rating, gotta go with my new patented "Armageddon System". Ratings go from 1 to 4:

4) Would watch the film over Armageddon any day
3) Could watch the final act of Armageddon instead, but only barely
2) Could watch the whole film of Armageddon instead, but minus the Ben Affleck/Liv Tyler romance
1) Would rather watch the entire film of Armageddon, along deleted scenes and commentary (translation: the reviewed film sucks)

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
2

Mike Olbinski · July 2nd, 2003, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaplin
Well, I saw T3 last night and afterwards was bored so we snuck into this movie. I didn't particularly want to, but it was the only convenient time we could do it.

**************SPOILER********************

First of all, this is an absolutely terrible movie. Just horrible.

Let's start with the basics.

The script is the worst piece of crapola. The plot makes no sense whatsoever. The whole thing revolves around the stealing and recovery of two rings, that while worthless apart, together cna provide the information needed to locate every person ever put into the Witness Protection Program. At one point, Demi Moore says she wanted to "play God". Huh?

Wow, that you would even take the time to do a review on a movie that is so obviously NOT TRYING TO BE REALISTIC is beyond me.

Of course the movie is crap, of course the plot made no sense and of course the action was unrealistic. But it was a funny and entertaining movie.

You should not go to movies like this Chap, because it just doesn't seem like you can enjoy movies that are just trying to entertain you, not blow your socks off with quality.

If you can't relax and just laugh at something that is obviously ridiculous, then these type of movies just aren't for you...

And I mean all this in a nice way

Mike

Bob Chebat · July 2nd, 2003, 08:32 AM

A friend of mine up here in Fountain Hills went to see this film on Monday, and the first thing he told me was that the acting was absolutely atrocious.

My daughter went to see it over the weekend, Saturday night I believe. We picked her up after the movie and asked her what she thought. Keep in mind, she is 15. She said, "there was some good action, but the acting was horrible." This from a 15 year old.

I'll wait for the rental, and maybe, I will break down and see it. I also heard that while Demi looks fantastic, she is not in the movie long enough to make it worth a $6.50 matinee, let alone an $8 feature price. No wonder this movie collapsed over the weekend.

Oh, and nice rating system Chap. That is some funny stuff.

Mike Olbinski · July 2nd, 2003, 08:35 AM

Demi Moore was the least attractive of all the women in this movie...she's so old now, she just looks like someone who has smoked too much or something

Mike

Bob Chebat · July 2nd, 2003, 08:42 AM

The closer you get to 40, the more you will understand just how amazing she looks.

Stout · July 2nd, 2003, 08:49 AM

Nothing on the movie (haven't seen it), but I never saw what anyone else does with Diaz. She has chicken legs, no azz, no breasts to speak of, a goofy looking face with a smile five times too big for it, gap-teeth, buck teeth, and besides, can't act to save her life.

I actually turned off Leno one night (I don't watch it normally, but I was flipping) when she was on. He, of course, is always a sycophantic toadie to any woman that walks on (fell all over himself telling Flockhart how gorgeous she was), and she was wearing a hideous outfit...a floppy hat, no bra and a shirt that would have let her boobs fall out, if she had any. She kept pulling it closed and I wondered, as I flipped, 'What's the point? Nobody's going to see anything anyway...as if mosquito bites can fall out of a shirt!!!'

So, other than being skinny, why do people find her attractive? I'm not putting others down for their attraction (everyone's entitled to their own tastes), but I truly want to know why.

Bob Chebat · July 2nd, 2003, 08:57 AM

No azz?

Stout · July 2nd, 2003, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob Chebat
No azz?

I'm sorry...by azz I meant something that provided more than 1/2 an ounce of flesh on the bone, or an azz that cannot fit each cheek into a teacup.

Shaped it may be (hard to tell with how tiny it is), but it has hardly anything to it...it's simply...barbie-doll sized. *shrug*

Stout · July 2nd, 2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stout
or an azz that cannot fit each cheek into a teacup.

Oops, was I talking about her azz or her boobs?

Shane · July 4th, 2003, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chandler Mike
Wow, that you would even take the time to do a review on a movie that is so obviously NOT TRYING TO BE REALISTIC is beyond me.

Of course the movie is crap, of course the plot made no sense and of course the action was unrealistic. But it was a funny and entertaining movie.

You should not go to movies like this Chap, because it just doesn't seem like you can enjoy movies that are just trying to entertain you, not blow your socks off with quality.

If you can't relax and just laugh at something that is obviously ridiculous, then these type of movies just aren't for you...

And I mean all this in a nice way

Mike

Perfectly said Mike!

This movie was funny and entertaining and gave no expectations of excellence! I really wonder why some people watch movies at all?

Chaplin · July 4th, 2003, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shane H
Perfectly said Mike!

This movie was funny and entertaining and gave no expectations of excellence! I really wonder why some people watch movies at all?

It's just convenient excuses used for people who like BAD movies.

I already know your tastes, Shane...

j/k

Shane · July 4th, 2003, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaplin
It's just convenient excuses used for people who like BAD movies.

I already know your tastes, Shane... j/k

LMAO!

schutd · July 5th, 2003, 09:53 AM

Nice review Chap, but I don't think you could be more wrong when you say this:

"Now, I'm sure proponents of this schlock will say that it is supposed to be cheesy, but this is no B-movie folks--this is meant to be an all-out Hollywood commercial action fest. And it fails miserably."

I almost fell of my chair when I read this. And let me preface my counter with the fact that I absolutely HATE letting filmmakers off the hook for a crappy film by calling it campy. It's 9 times out of ten NOT what the director intended in my opinion.

But seriously, how can you possibly say this film is trying to be an "all-out Hollywood commercial action fest"?

Was it the hilariously brilliant spoofs on The Sound of Music and Cape Fear all the way down to using their theme songs???? Or was it the fact that after blow after blow and fall after fall these girls came up sans a single bruise or scratch?

In NO WAY was this film trying to be a high budget action flick. What it was, and what made it so successful, was that it flew the middle finger to the action flick genre the entire time. Using over done songs, and spoofing other films, and over acting galore.

Full Throttle was an absolute treat. I cant wait for the next one.