I just watched this trailer and it looks like the next movie makes full use of CGI. Now I do not know about you, but this really turned me off. It's also the reason I did not like Die Another Day. Don't get me wrong, if used correctly, I think CGI can be brilliant and really add to the movie, like in "Jurassic Park", "Cast Away" and "Toy Story". But so many directors are abusing it and not using it to add to the movie, but instead detracting from it. James Bond movies used to have real stunts that made your heart pound and they were real. Now with CGI, seeing computer animated objects manipulated around the screen, and appearing so, many have lost that same sense of excitement. Movies have always been make believe, but they were made to appear real and captivate the audience. Now, unfortunately, many have lost this magic quality.
Giantrobo
03-11-03, 06:17 PM
My suggestion?
Just open your mind and HAVE FUN with CA's....don't over anylze it 'K?
BadlyDrawnBoy
03-11-03, 11:52 PM
I agree 100% with the poster above, this is a summer movie which is to be consumed with Candy, and Soda, and popcorn.
Sit back relax and enjoy the fine women on screen, and the fun antics of Bernie Mac.
clemente
03-12-03, 08:14 PM
If ever there was a definition for "mindless summer action romp" Charile Angels 2 is it.
Its not based on a awesome novel, or a comic near dear to our hearts.....its a remakes of Charlie's Angels the TV series!! Cheese and elements of the unbelievable of part of the fabric.
borisdisco
03-12-03, 08:24 PM
I was disappointed with the first CA. I realize it is mindless summer entertainment, which I love, but I just thought it was a bad movie. I was glad I saw it on HBO instead of buying it. I hope the new one is better.
matome
03-12-03, 08:38 PM
I'll be one of the first in line for this one.
Giantrobo
03-12-03, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by matome
I'll be one of the first in line for this one.
Yep!
I didn't think I would like the 1st one but when it was over, I realized I had fun :up:
TCG
03-12-03, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Giantrobo
I didn't think I would like the 1st one but when it was over, I realized I had fun :up:
Exactly. And #2 seems to be more of the good stuff from #1. But I'm disappointed about Bill Murray.
indycohiba
03-12-03, 10:06 PM
I never said I did not like the first movie, and I am sure I will see this one. My point was more general in terms of how CGI is being deployed in movies today and how it can detract from the experience if used to excess or in unreal ways.
Jackskeleton
03-12-03, 10:08 PM
Popcorn flick that has decent/good looking chicks. Leave your brain at the door and enjoy.
indycohiba
03-12-03, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
Popcorn flick that has decent/good looking chicks. Leave your brain at the door and enjoy.
Again, you guys are all missing the point. I am not talking about the plot, acting, dialogue or anything else. I am talking about what make a good action, "popcorn flick". My definition includes something that gets my heart pumping and computer objects being thrown over computer generated bridges, as in this trailer, does not do it. What's the point of paying for that, I can do that on my computer. The past Bond films were mindless flicks that had real stunts. The new one had that but also had a lot of excessive CGI that detracted from the movie and ruined it for me.
clemente
03-12-03, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by indycohiba
I never said I did not like the first movie, and I am sure I will see this one. My point was more general in terms of how CGI is being deployed in movies today and how it can detract from the experience if used to excess or in unreal ways.
I think you're point would be better reacted to if you had placed in away from Charlie's Angels 2, a movie in which we don't give a rats ass how the SFX are used.
Also, that particular topic is pretty much beaten to death around here, maybe no one wants to talk about it this week.
That said, I really wanted to hate part 1, I went to see it begrudgingly, but I had a blast! I'm definately in line for part 2.
indycohiba
03-12-03, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
Popcorn flick that has decent/good looking chicks. Leave your brain at the door and enjoy.
Jack, I meant no disrespect, you being a hero. I am quite impressed by the 33 post per day.
Jackskeleton
03-12-03, 11:14 PM
That was nothing. Back in the day.. oh those glory days. ;) Actually I don't talk much about the post count... after the twikoff situation. ;)
None taken. I guess I misread your gripe with the movie. I too felt that the whole chopper falling and making a quick turn on and flip around was a bit over the edge of what my boundry of disbelief will accept, but I just figure it's one of those flicks you have to stretch to accept some of the events that happen. I think the main selling point is the actresses... Though I do not find Lucy Luo to be "hot" at all. and the first one had atleast murry(sp) as a factor for me. Lets see how this one turns up.. though I do agree with you on some level were it might be a little off.
borisdisco
03-12-03, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by matome
I'll be one of the first in line for this one.
Originally posted by Giantrobo
Yep!
I didn't think I would like the 1st one but when it was over, I realized I had fun :up:
You can't both be first! :eyebrow:
Tyler_Durden
03-13-03, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by Giantrobo
Just open your mind and HAVE FUN with CA's....don't over anylze it 'K? I don't know, I can't have fun with something that's insulting to my intelligence. There was a time in my life when films like xXx or Charlie's Angels would have passed for "entertainment" or "popcorn fun", but those days are long gone. Stupidity, I find, is not fun, when the focus is on cheerful carelessness (Legally Blonde) and not on irony (Beavis & Butt-Head). I guess I just love cinema too much to like seeing it go to waste on such derivate nonsense. Call me cranky, but I'm actually younger than you.
Pants
03-13-03, 04:24 PM
In regards to CGI: Yes it is used too much, and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, by people who don't know how to use it well
In regards to CAngels: I will defend this movie. It IS good. It is different (and better) than xXx and Armageddon and Daredevil, because it is totally and completely over the top. A true glistening, shinning work of POP ART. Andy Warhol would have loved Charlies Angels. Not for one second does it take itself seriously: NOT ONE F**KING SECOND. The Bond films and stuff like Armageddon are always trying to have their cake and eat it too. That is, they want to stun our eyes w/ non-stop over the top action and effects, but then they also want us to weep and care and love the characters.
CHARLIE'S ANGELS don't do none of that s**t!!!
The final decision has to be made by looking at it this way: Is "the film" what the material deserved? The answer is YES!
That is, the material is silly, so the film is silly, it never insults you by trying to make you care. McG said he wanted a big colorfull story book, and that's precisely what he got on screen. Many other film w/ similarly silly material often try TOO HARD to get you to care A LOT more.
Giantrobo
03-13-03, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Tyler_Durden
I don't know, I can't have fun with something that's insulting to my intelligence. There was a time in my life when films like xXx or Charlie's Angels would have passed for "entertainment" or "popcorn fun", but those days are long gone. Stupidity, I find, is not fun, when the focus is on cheerful carelessness (Legally Blonde) and not on irony (Beavis & Butt-Head). I guess I just love cinema too much to like seeing it go to waste on such derivate nonsense. Call me cranky, but I'm actually younger than you.
That's fine I can see where today's audience is smarter.
Mind you, I didn't mean to insult the original poster with my comment. If I did I apologize.
But I think too many moviegoers are expecting CITIZEN KANE in EACH AND EVERY MOVIE.
Some movies are simply what they are and nothing more.
Rypro 525
04-03-03, 04:14 PM
For those who think they might skip (and like hot chicks), you might wanna check out this little link
http://www.killermovies.com/c/charliesangels2/articles/2201.html
warcp
04-08-03, 07:50 PM
I saw the new trailer and thought it looked great! I like the first movie a lot and this one looks even more over the top. Tons and tons of action scenes and lots of costume changes for the angels- that plus a bunch of shots of Demi Moore in a bikini and looking like she's about to kiss Cameron. The CG looked fine for this type of movie-I'd put it under more scrutiny if it was a more "serious" flick like Matrix or Titanic, but for this film it looks good.
devilshalo
04-09-03, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by indycohiba
I never said I did not like the first movie, and I am sure I will see this one. My point was more general in terms of how CGI is being deployed in movies today and how it can detract from the experience if used to excess or in unreal ways.
Originally posted by Pants
The Bond films and stuff like Armageddon are always trying to have their cake and eat it too. That is, they want to stun our eyes w/ non-stop over the top action and effects, but then they also want us to weep and care and love the characters.
CHARLIE'S ANGELS don't do none of that s**t!!!
The final decision has to be made by looking at it this way: Is "the film" what the material deserved? The answer is YES!
That is, the material is silly, so the film is silly, it never insults you by trying to make you care. McG said he wanted a big colorfull story book, and that's precisely what he got on screen. Many other film w/ similarly silly material often try TOO HARD to get you to care A LOT more.
Pants: you just summed up the problems I have with a lot of movies people say to just relax and enjoy. I love mindless entertainment as much as the next guy, but when a film tries to suddenly get serious in the middle of something that should just be fun, it really kills the mood. Examples:Deep Impact, DareDevil, and while I have not seen it, I have heard The Core is guilty of this as well.
Pants
04-09-03, 03:17 PM
Thank you. Sometimes I think people don't read my stuff.
BadlyDrawnBoy
04-16-03, 10:00 PM
The new trailer looks great I can't wait for this film, I think this is for me more anticipated than x-2 but behind the matrix.
I saw it in front of Anger management.
It does not appear on the apple web page yet
but the streaming version are on sony includes Demi and the new 650K Enzo Ferrari
Hmmm...I'm a hug fan of the original and I like the teaser to CA2, but that new trailer really turned me off. I dunno, something about it.
Sunday Morning
04-17-03, 10:50 AM
It seems to have taken all the bad elements of the first film and emphasized them. (loud, dumb action scenes that defy all logic and laws of gravity in a hyper stylized candy coated atmosphere)
I just wish these films were low budget and cheesy like the show. All we need really want to watch are the 3 girls making funny with naughty sexual innuendo and some wacky dance scenes in between trying to solve mysteries in a low tech way.
Sunday Morning
04-17-03, 10:51 AM
PS
I will still be seeing it of course :)
joeydaninja
04-17-03, 10:57 AM
it looks good to me. i saw it without sound even, coz my computer isn't working properly. i didn't respect mcg before, but it looks like he's finally made breakthrough.
tanman
04-17-03, 01:53 PM
looks good to me.
I'm not the biggest fan of Bernie Mac though. I really like Bill Murray in the part.
Buy: