|
Was "Charlie's Angels" Really Worth a Remake?
|
||
 Posted by Erin Barrett on 2000/11/03 21:48:18 US/Eastern Roger Ebert opens his review of the new movie Charlie's Angels like this:"'Charlie's Angels' is eye candy for the blind. It's a movie without a brain in its three pretty little heads, which belong to Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu. This movie is a dead zone in their lives, and mine."Yow! See the rest in the online Chicago Sun-Times at http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/angels03f.html .Most reviews bash the lack of plot, pathetic fight scenes, and having nothing to offer movie go-ers but pretty girls in inauthentic situations. Hmm...Sounds just like the TV show it's based on. I'd say director McG may have hit the nail on the head, then.
| ||
|
The following replies are owned by whoever posted them: |
||
| Re: Was "Charlie's Angels" Really Worth a Remake? | ||
| by Aron Trauring on 2000/11/04 09:33:23 US/Eastern |
||
| You can even see the trailer at <a href="http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2000/11/03/charlies/index.html">Salon.com</a> The heights (or depths) of the reviews, make this movie entertaining even if you don't go see it. Favorite quote: "As a director, McG is far too hyperactive to hold the story together neatly, but he and cinematographer Russell Carpenter ("Titanic") do come up with some nice optical touches, as when the lithe Diaz dons a snow-white scuba suit (she resembles a chic version of Woody Allen's costumed sperm) " Hmmmmm..... |
||
[ Reply to This ] |
Post a Reply