BDB

I will be there friday night.

Nothing beats this for me this summer.

Lateralus

This movie will be a Netflix rental for me at best. Charlies Angels ranks up there with From Justin to Kelly.

matome

Judging from this post, I think you're the one who needs to put the pipe down and take a real good look at what you typed.

PJsig08

Wow a lot of people here are interested in this, very surprising...well maybe not

mwj

Since the name of the thread is Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle-who's going? I said I did not like the first one and would not be attending this on or buying the DVD. I was actually interested in how many people would be seeing this one. Unlike you, I have an interest in movies I would never see. At least on the degree of sucess or failure, since that determines what gets made these days.

audrey

HATED the first one; count me out.

Sessa17

That seems a little far fetched to justify a post in the thread & I still don't buy it. 1: OK, you want to see if people are going to a movie you supposively have no interest in, so why post then. You no your not going, do you need to advertise it for it to be official. And 2: Why are you going to a thread that a few dozen people at best post in about a movie they may or may not see. If it means that much, just wait & look at the actual box office of the people that actually went to the movie. I stick to everything I said, for some reason the people that hate movies like CA's need to express to everyone just how they much they hate it & claim to have no interest. And I still say you all will be seeing the movie, just maybe not in the theater.

Daytripper

"Kind of" SPOILERS:

About "28 Day Later", check out the review for the movie right here on DVDTalk. I couldn't agree more with the critic. I bought the movie as a blind purchase the day it came out (I have an all regional player), and it is a GREAT thriller. However, the previews are a little deceiving. They make it look like non-stop, jump out of your seat, zombie action. And that doesn't happen the entire movie. Just an FYI if that's what you're expecting. Most of the film reminded me of the long forgotten Australian movie "The Quiet Earth". Which is also a great sci-fi/drama/thriller if you can ever find it on video.

clemente

I don't remember a lot of zombies in Charlie's Angels 2

Kal-El

I'm in.

TCG

I really enjoyed the first one for what it was. A tongue-in-cheek, over the top, action movie with hot girls. I was worried it would try to be serious, but after the first 2 mins., i realized it wouldn't. a great popcorn flick.

#2 looks to be much of the same, only more intense, colorful, over the top.

I'm down, or rather up for Full Throttle.

mwj

It seems a little farfetched to me to get pissed off at someone for expressing an opinion you happen to disagree with. The reason I read and now participate in this site is because I am interested in reading other people's opinions and expressing my own.

Daytripper

Um, o.k.

jasonbird

"Watching Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is like being trapped inside a pinball machine operated by a 6-year-old having a sugar rush."
-- Kirk Honeycutt, HOLLYWOOD REPORTER


Don't know if I'll end up seeing this or not. Might wait for the
DVD, but here in Arizona, sometimes you go to a movie just to
get out of the heat, not to see something in particular.

Jason

Daytripper

And yet right below that (on rottentomatoes, right?),
Amy Dawes of Variety writes:
"Bigger, sleeker and better than the first, sequel
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is a joyride of a movie that
takes the winning elements of the year 2000 hit to the next
level."

This is just one of those movies you can't listen to the critics.
Fluff like this shouldn't be reviewed in the first place

Dr. DVD

I agree with that statement. Anything that isn't meant as a serious contender for cinema greatness and just wants to be a fun movie needs to be reviewed as such.

Sessa17

When did I say I was pissed off? That is you assuming things. I just debated the validity of what he said. Message boards are for discussion & like you I posted my opinion. It just seems trendy, especially among the elitist internet crowd, to bash a movie like CA. The guy says he has absolutely no interest in the movie, yet takes the time to post in a thread about it & explain that he has no interest in a movie. And then when I questioned him, he says it's for research, he like to see how many people will do to see a movie he has no interest in, & he does so by checking out a thread with a few dozen people posting that they might see a movie. My opinion, is that just seems a little far fetched.

Stoolie

The first movie was everything that is wrong with the cinema today. The fact that it is popular only makes it worse. Tongue in cheek popcorn flick or not, no film should be allowed to suck as badly as the first. The animatronics at Disneyland had more skill than Lucy Liu. They might as well just put a carboard cut out of her in each scene, because that's what she sounds like when she delivers her lines. The only interesting thing about this movie are the cameos. Everything else should completely and utterly suck, from the special effects to the acting to the story line. I picked this for worst movie of the summer. The previous consists of my opinions on this matter.

I will most likely see this movie in the theaters.

This movie is like the toothless old redneck woman I saw at a bar in the mall, whose loose saggy breasts kept flopping out of the arm holes of her sleeveless t-shirt when she bent down. I could not stomach what I was watching, but I could not help but look.

stoolie

Tyler_Durden

I agree, and so did many (most?) of the respectable critics. Just read Ebert's review for proof. If I recall correctly, he states his rather, shall we say, base expectations of the film at the very beginning of the review and goes on from there.

It's just lazy to use the "it's not supposed to be art" or the "popcorn fun" excuses in defense of a film without any further explanation. Yes, Charlie's Angels was obviously trying to be "merely" entertainment. But it made the grave mistake of confusing having fun with being fun. And, as such, for me it wasn't fun in the least.

Catch 21

I did the screening of this horrific movie tonight. It was sooooooooo BAd (as in not good).

reasons

1. too many locations

2. way way way unrealistic

3. over long dramatic outcomes

4. too many over long dramtic outcomes

5. The many run jump explosion

6. seemed like a music video and not movie

7.predictable is ok, but stalling the predictable is not ok

8. I understand the movie is eye candy, but it seemed like most of the jokes were inside jokes especially with the cameos.

I'm done for now.

matome

Hmmm...pretty much sounds exactly like what I've been expecting! Now I really can't wait till tomorrow! You sure you're not talking about Hulk though?

iggystar

I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed the first and will be going to see Full Throttle.

Darren Garrison

I've been reading some of the reviews coming in to Rottentomatoes. This guy seems to have disliked the film just a bit (no spoilers in the excerpt)

Imagine having a year’s worth of "Maxim" read aloud to you by a group of ADD-afflicted kids while being slammed in the groin with a fungo bat for 100 minutes. It is a grisly scenario and yet it doesn’t even come close to fully conceptualizing the sheer horror of the experience of sitting through "Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle". This is not merely one of the worst films in recent memory but it could well go down as one of the worst things ever conceived by human hands-that is, if it gave any evidence that was actually made by human beings instead of by robots hell-bent on destroying humanity by turning human minds to mush. The only reason that anyone should possibly consider seeing it is so that they can serenely attend every other film coming out this summer content in the knowledge that no matter how bad they may be, they won’t come close to approaching its utter cruddiness.

However, this is no ordinary bad movie-this is something far stupider and uglier indeed. The right kind of bad film can actually provide a weird form of entertainment for viewers who want to watch good intentions gone horribly wrong; even such legendary botches as "Battlefield Earth" and Roberto Benigni’s "Pinocchio" started off as sincere attempts to entertain audiences. None of that sincerity is on display for a second during "Full Throttle"; it is coarse, ugly, moronic, incoherent, incompetent, sloppy and an affront to the senses and while watching the film, you get the sense that the filmmakers made it that way on purpose.

Dr. DVD

I'll be going with modest expectations. I am not someone who will gripe about how bad it looks and then proceed to see it opening weekend.

Dr. DVD

Why?!?! I never understand people who gripe and then decide:"I'm going to see it anyway," then proceed to gripe about how much time they have wasted.