Movie Review - Charlie's Angels ||>
When I found out about Charlie's Angels playing at a theatre in my small little town, I had mixed feelings. Having been burnt by Mission: Impossible, I was wary of any movie trying to recreate a really cool 70's TV show. I had also seen the previews which made the stunts look very little like the TV show and very much like a certain movie starring Keanu Reeves. So it was with a feeling of determination that I entered the theatre, determination that, even if this movie sucked, I'd at least start out watching with an open mind.
So the first scene comes on, and there is a parody of 70's shows made into movies. I started chuckling. Then the movie went on, and I started full out laughing. By the end of the movie I was suffused with this feeling of overall happiness and... well, relief at having not been disappointed for once. Or to put it another way: I now have the poster.
So what about the parts of the movie that make any genre lover groan (and not groan like when James Marsters takes off his shirt... or maybe that's just me.)? Well, first there were the fight scenes. In this aspect, I really think the previews did the movie a disservice. The Matrix was rather unbelievable even for a movie. The bullet time technology made it really cool, but if it had been done in real time, it would have looked stupid. Charlie's Angels would have looked cool in real time, but they made the new technology its own with how they used it. The director said himself that he didn't want to use guns (and apparently Drew Barrymore's against them anyway). So he decided to use "the female form" as the weapon. Which has a lot more girl power than, you know, when girls take off their clothes and dance on bars (ahem).
And the other problem with the movie that people said they would have: scantily clad women. Well, yeah, the director's a guy, what do you expect?? (Just kidding+ well, actually maybe I'm not) Actually, the cool thing about this one is that the scantily-cladness was not upsetting (or in my case, depressing). It was all used for a "reason." But it was also funny. Seeing Cameron Diaz dancing to Soul Train in Spiderman underwear made me bust a gut.
Oh, and then the last thing is continuity. Was this movie in the spirit of the original show? Now I was like, 7 years old when I saw this show (and mad because I wanted to watch cartoons instead), but from everything I remember it was completely within the spirit. The TV show was about California, and sunshine, and scantily clad women that kick butt (woah... just a thought but - Buffy vs the Angels?? Hmmm). This was the movie in a nutshell. Now if you're one of those people that needs to go out of a movie thinking about the Holocaust for a day or so, this will not be the movie for you. It is completely in the vein of fun times had by all. This movie did not sacrifice anything from the way it was when Aaron Spelling created it. Mission: Impossible made the mistake of sacrificing actual plot and spirit to jumping on trains and stuff. This movie was not that stupid. Yes, there was action, but there was also fun.
Warning: include(sepfoot.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/seprahcom/seprah.com/charliesangels.php on line 13
Warning: include(): Failed opening 'sepfoot.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php:/usr/local/php5/lib/pear') in /home/seprahcom/seprah.com/charliesangels.php on line 13