![]() |
|||||||
|
|
What to say about Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle? Well, for starters, I think it's inferior to the original. That may be bad or awful, depending on what you think of the first. Let me say that I really enjoyed the "original" Charlie's Angels and this new one brings nothing new to the table. Sure, we get the three angels strutting their stuff as we all expect them to. Yes, that's a good thing that was appreciated the first time around. But also, the first time around was fresher and funner. The "plot" in the first one was cooler, too. Probably due to Sam Rockwell's presence. Here, there's some flimsy deal about some rings that contain the Witness Protection Program's complete list of identities. Firstly, why would people put those in rings? Secondly, why should I care? As in the first one, Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore induce cringing. Fine, we get that Diaz's character (do their names really matter?) is a goof. But does she have to be so grating? And there's something about Barrymore's voice I cannot stand! I hate to say it, but Lucy Liu is the best actress (I guess) of the three and I say this despite the fact that I abhor Lucy Liu. She looks so confrontational. And I never liked Demi Moore either. The cameo appearance by an original TV angel was neat...I guess...but will go over the heads of the majority of people who see the movie, so who cares? There are good things to the movie though. Bernie Mac has some very funny moments that apparently the rest of the audience didn't appreciate. John Cleese has some lightly amusing scenes as Liu's father and Matt Leblanc also provides some laughs (gotta love "Maximum Extreme 2"). The action was entertaining, too (but not enough of it, I find). Crispin Glover as the Thin Man is excellent, albeit criminally underused. There is some good to be found, sure, but there's also much bad. If you liked the first Charlie's Angels, you'll find something to like in the sequel. But if you were on the fence for the first, you should probably stay away.
|