Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]

---

The steaming pile of monkey-dung that was Charlie's Angels - Full Throttle

152.3.0.86

Posted by Some Guy on June 30, 2003 at 06:33:57

Ok, I know you're going to say that it should have been expected, that there was no way that this movie would be any good anyway, but I expected it to at least be a little fun. And it was... a little. However, this was almost completely eye candy with absolutely no substance or wit whatsoever.

I blame McG. Frankly, I'll blame any director that tries to be hip and swinging by shortening their credited name to a simple moniker. Kids, it's not hip. It's not swingin'. It's pathetic and juvenile. Just ask Kaos, the freakin' genius behind last year's prize winner for steaming pile of goat feces, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever.

I've figured it out. They shorten their name to give the public a hint that they have no idea how to string an idea into three consecutive scenes, form a logical plot that imparts anything to the audience past the point of random colors flickering on the screen at a certain speed, or how to keep anyone from uttering "wha...?" every fifteen seconds. That's what it is. GAH! Pathetic! Someone please let these illiterate schmucks in on the fact that MTV is NOT the cultural basis for film production in our society and that having quick cuts every one and a half seconds (you count them!) is not going to guarantee keeping anyone's attention past the four minute mark (oddly enough, the same length as most music videos).

So enough idiot bashing (man, it's hard to call that guy a director, but I guess he did order the donuts on set...) The movie itself... It wasn't. It was a con into getting a bunch of fun, interesting, or attractive people together so they could share the same list at the end of a bunch of film that could have been better used to make plastic forks for a picnic in bosnia. Sure, I've wanted to John Cleese with Crispin Glover and Eric Bogosian all sharing the same bill, but the latter two had no dialogue (unless you count Crispin's insane screaming, a departure from the last film's more interesting performance) and Cleese was reduced to a character about as interesting as Mr. Roper's socks... wait, the socks were actually pretty funny.

So let's get to the women. You're all heard that Demi Moore is supposed to make her comeback... here's what we learned from this film. She still looks great in a bikini (even after the kids) and apparently she lounges on couches wearing fur coats... that's just dandy. Did I mention the bikini? And what's scary is I never really thought she was that great looking to begin with, but... wow. With the possible exception of Lucy Liu, the Angels are put to shame.

Cameron Diaz is middling at best. She's got a great smile and she's lots of fun, but she really isn't that attractive without the makeup. It works to her advantage, too... there's a scene of her as a CSI operative where she looks like she just woke up in someone else's nightmate and I have to say it takes a hell of a lot of sand to look that bad on a screen 40 feet tall. She's my superhero. I will say that there were a couple of scenes where she looked great in whatever outfit she was wearing, but... oh, Demi. And then Lucy Liu... sure, there's something fun about seeing an Asian in a blonde wig and she does look good kicking ass in heels, but she still didn't get enough to do in the movie. Finally, Drew. She's cute. She's tough. She's wearing ACDC t-shirts. And she didn't even bother to punch the clock to come on board as an actress. I'm surprised her assistant didn't get special credit for holding up her cue cards. GAH! I don't care if she did produce the damned film, that doesn't give her an excuse to limp through a role even in a popcorn movie! She did better acting in ET when she was 6!

Sure, I'd love to review the movie talking less about the HOT appeal of the cast and more about the plot, but there wasn't one... didn't I cover that? We're shifted from one scene to another with no more justification than the whim of the production designer's daily schedule. Characters are introduced that have absolutely no meaning or addition to the plot, but are given more dialogue than people who actually have a reason to be there. And the opening sequence is just... dumb. Stupid. Retarded. Pathetic. Insert your own random insults here 'cos I'm growing weary of it.

See, I'd prefer to watch the interviews of all three girls pushing the movie. They're fun to watch together and they look like they're having fun. The end credits have a blooper reel that's more fun than a lot of the film. I'm assuming that it was tacked on by the third assistant director's intern's understudy as it was actually ok. I don't know how he/she sneaked that past the almight McG... unless he actually gave up and left the editing bay before they got to that point. Please, for the love all that's holy (meaning film, that is) do NOT let this man direct another film until he sits down with a 17 year-old with greasy hair who has a collection of videotapes of films by phil joanou, david fincher, and bob goldthwait so he can learn to slap a coherent piece of film together that's fun to watch and somewhat respectful of the audience.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---