"Charlie's Angels" vs zombies

[KnowTheToe]

I don't think it had anything to do with making a political statement. There were plenty of guns in the first movie, but the Angels don't use them. And that makes perfect sense, given the tone of the movie.

In an interview Drew Barrymore pointed out that there were no guns by the Angels because she was agaist them. At lest that was my understanding. I still never really wanted to see it.

You can't have a fun, light-hearted movie where the heroes run around shooting people.

Big Trouble little China

 

[Krug]

Boy Full Throttle was awful. Even the girls couldn't save it. I know it's supposed to be light-hearted, but illogical? Jokes weren't funny and had high-school sophistication, action scenes were unexciting and even the spoofs fell flat on their faces. They also wasted John Cleese. McG should be shot for this piece of trash.

Seriously, it's the worst film of the year I've seen so far. No surprise it hasn't done well at the box office.

Don't waste your cash, and spend it on Whale Rider (if you can) or City of God (if it's still around).

 

[Chun-tzu]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
119 reviews: 47 fresh, 72 rotten = 39% approval

28 Days Later
130 reviews: 114 fresh, 16 rotten = 88% approval

 

[Shadowdancer]

Seriously, it's the worst film of the year I've seen so far. No surprise it hasn't done well at the box office.

What!?!?

It took in $38 million at the box office its first weekend to finish No. 1. That's only $2 million less than the first "Charlie's Angel" took in it's first weekend. Movie studios are happy if a sequel does 75 percent of the business the original did.

Sure, some sequels exceed that their predecessors did at the box office. But those are the exceptions.

 

[dravot]

Boy Full Throttle was awful. Even the girls couldn't save it. I know it's supposed to be light-hearted, but illogical? Jokes weren't funny and had high-school sophistication, action scenes were unexciting and even the spoofs fell flat on their faces. They also wasted John Cleese. McG should be shot for this piece of trash.

Why am I unsurprised?

 

[Krug]

What!?!?

It took in $38 million at the box office its first weekend to finish No. 1. That's only $2 million less than the first "Charlie's Angel" took in it's first weekend. Movie studios are happy if a sequel does 75 percent of the business the original did.

Sure, some sequels exceed that their predecessors did at the box office. But those are the exceptions.

No - sequels tend to do MORE box office than the predecessors. You're building a brand, so the 2nd version of something SHOULD do better than the first.

 

[Endur]

Honestly, I liked the first Charlie's Angels movie. The sequel was pretty bad. The director blew it big time and just went over the end into satire.

Every action sequence was far more over the top in the second movie than they were in the first. I felt like I was watching the Matrix and all the Angel's had Neo's abilities.

SPOILERS


SPOILERS

I liked the major bad guys. The only redeeming quality of the film. Although the recurring bad guy was a bit too creepy for me.