|
Just saw Ebert and Doper's review of Charlie's Angels...LMFAO!!!!!
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
I have absolutely NEVER seen a harsher more unforgiving review of a film in my entire history of watching this half hour show!!! That was the funniest thing I ever saw! Basically Ebert was like "This is so aweful, blah blah blah, what a waste of time, blah blah blah, all the effects are the same, blah blah blah... While Doper was like "Oh you're being WAAAAY to nice to this piece of trash! Can we see Demi Moore's acting ability just a lil bit instead of all those beefed up muscles she's put on, including the one hugging her brain":lol: CA: FT OWNED!!!!! |
I figured with all the T&A this was going to get a great review. Maybe next time J Lo can do a cameo, if there is a next time.
|
Strange, Ebert gave it 2.5 stars.
|
Originally posted by mwj I figured with all the T&A this was going to get a great review. Maybe next time J Lo can do a cameo, if there is a next time. |
I know. What is up with that movie(j.lo)? It looked quite lame. I would much rather see them in Jersey Girl.
|
I thought it was kind of strange how Roeper used the expression, "loved every inch of it", for two different movies this week.
|
I figured with all the T&A this was going to get a great review. |
Originally posted by caiman Strange, Ebert gave it 2.5 stars. |
This movie is just another one of the thousand reasons i hate Hollywood!
|
And gave the first one just 0.5 stars. So it's kinda weird he'd give the second one a higher rating since it's basically more of the same stuff from the first film. That said, ever since Brown Bunny/Cannes '03, he's been gearing his reviews more toward entertainment value than artistic credentials. And also commented that if this is what people wanted to see, then more power to 'em - and gave his honest opinion. |
Originally posted by Terrell It has to be Angelina Jolie's T&A in order for Ebert to give it a good review. Wait til Tomb Raider 2, and you'll see Ebert go bonkers. |
Funny how it would only take a naked Lucy Liu to change my mind and see this movie. Otherwise, it looks, (and appears to BE) total crapola.
|
That's funny - Rucy Roo is the only Angel I wouldn't want to see naked.
|
Originally posted by paradicelost This movie is just another one of the thousand reasons i hate Hollywood! |
Originally posted by paradicelost This movie is just another one of the thousand reasons i hate Hollywood! Ditto. |
Originally posted by Tarantino That's funny - Rucy Roo is the only Angel I wouldn't want to see naked. And yes, I would be very happy to see her naked. She is pretty :). |
I turned my brain off and went to see it last night. While I cannot stand Cameron Diaz (IMO, not only is she unable to act, she's not attractive in the least), I thought it might be some fluffy fun.
Unfortunately I couldn't keep the brain turned off. For eye candy, I give it four stars. Demi is great in a black bikini. For action, two stars. For pop culture references and cameos, two stars. For plot and acting, negative seven stars. For continuity, negate 2 stars. Overall this movie was pretty bad, but not so much that I was going to ask for my money back. -doc |
Originally posted by Tarantino That's funny - Rucy Roo is the only Angel I wouldn't want to see naked. |
ebert said in his review that he was giving it 2.5 stars to make up for the .5 he gave the first one...kind an atonement - but said it isn't any better than the first at all....
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert...harlie27f.html I think it has more to do with mood than with what's on the screen. "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" is more or less the same movie as the original "Charlie's Angels" (2000), and yet I feel more forgiving this time. Wow, did I hate the first one: "A movie without a brain in its three pretty little heads." I awarded it one-half of a star. But what, really, was so reprehensible about that high-tech bimbo eruption? Imagine a swimsuit issue crossed with an explosion at the special-effects lab, and you've got it. Maybe I was indignant because people were going to spend their money on this instead of going to better movies that were undoubtedly more edifying for them. But if people wanted to be edified every time they went to the movies, Hollywood would be out of business. "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" is not a funny movie, despite a few good one-liners, as when Bernie Mac explains that the Black Irish invented the McRib. It is not an exciting movie, because there is no way to genuinely care about what's happening, and it doesn't make much sense, anyway. It is not a sexy movie, even though it stars four sexy women, because you just can't get aroused by the sight of three babes running toward you in slow motion with an explosion in the background. I've tried it. So what is it? Harmless, brainless, good-natured fun. Leaving "Full Throttle," I realized I did not hate or despise the movie, and so during a long and thoughtful walk along the Chicago River (have you seen that wonderful fountain on the north bank, east of Columbus Drive?), I decided that I sort of liked it because of the high spirits of the women involved. Say what you will, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Demi Moore were manifestly having fun while they made this movie. They're given outrageous characters to play, an astonishing wardrobe (especially considering the fact that they go everywhere without suitcases), remarkable super powers and lots of closeups in which they are just gorgeous when they smile. It's a form of play for them, to be female James Bonds, just as male actors all like to be in Westerns because you get to ride a horse and shoot up saloons. There is a scene where the three Angels discuss what Dylan Sanders (Drew Barrymore) was named before she went into the witness protection program. It turns out she was named Helen Zas. Now there's a name to go in the books with Norma Stitz. Natalie (Cameron Diaz) and Alex (Lucy Liu) kid her mercilessly about her name, and as Liu comes up with wicked puns, you almost get the impression she's thinking them up herself. The plot ... but why should I describe the plot? It is an arbitrary and senseless fiction designed to provide a weak excuse for a series of scenes in which the Angels almost get killed, in Mongolia and elsewhere, mostly elsewhere, while blowing up stuff, shooting people, being shot at, almost getting killed, and modeling their PG-13-rated outfits. Two new faces this time: Moore, as Madison Lee, a fallen Angel, and Mac, taking over for Bill Murray in the Bosley role, as Bosley's brother, who I think is also called Bosley. The Angels confront Madison high atop Los Angeles at the Griffith Observatory, which for mysterious reasons is completely deserted during their showdown and shoot-out. So. I give the movie 2.5 stars, partly in expiation for the 0.5 stars I gave the first one. So if you want to see a movie where big stars trade witty one-liners with one another in the midst of high-tech chase scenes and all sorts of explosive special effects, the movie for you is "Hollywood Homicide." Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc. |
I wanted to repost my review for the first Charlie's Angels film and say that, while the first one is better, everything I said in my review of part 1 applies equally to part 2:
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 ******!!! 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. |
Originally posted by Trigger Hey round-eye... why don't you take your racism to another website. |
Originally posted by Tarantino That's funny - Rucy Roo is the only Angel I wouldn't want to see naked. Ripper |
Originally posted by Brain Stew The only thing I hate more than Lucy Lui, is people who call her Rucy Roo. As far as Asian women go, Liu's okay. I'm sure I'll like her a lot more this fall in "Kill Bill." |
Originally posted by Ripper Guess your tastes lean more towards fat chicks like Drew Barrymore then? Ripper |
Originally posted by Tarantino That's funny - Rucy Roo is the only Angel I wouldn't want to see naked. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.