|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 20, 2019 9:22:32 GMT
I like how Elizabeth Banks blames men because the movie is doing badly and completely ignores that women is not watching the movie either. Apparently 34% of the audience was dudes who went to go see Charlies Angels this weekend, and at under $9m at an average of $9ish a ticket that means less than 1m people in the US went to see it, less than 666k women, where as Rambo last month did $19m and had 34% women for it's opening weekend which means more women went to see Rambo Last Blood than went to see Charlies Angel's in their opening weekends...lmfao.
Banks also has tried to discount and ignore every female led franchise in the last 2 decades as if this film and the last Charlies Angel's films were the only ones that counted, so you know fuck Hunger Games, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Underworld, Divergent, Resident Evil, Aliens and Terminator to name just a few of the multi movie female led action films in the last 20 years, not to mention Red sparrow, Atomic Blonde, Fury Road, Lucy, Alita and so on, thank god that she FINALLY made another action movie women could enjoy...
|
|
Caesium137
Sophomore
I am simply not there
@cobalt
Posts: 654
Likes: 305
 
|
Post by Caesium137 on Nov 20, 2019 10:21:07 GMT
^ I would add Edge of Tomorrow to that list as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Nov 28, 2019 11:40:09 GMT
I looked at the IMDB ratings. Women rate it at 6.1 and Men rate it as 3.4. The average rating is 3.9
The audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is at 79%
The Audiens score on metacritic is 2.7
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 29, 2019 2:16:59 GMT
Kristin Stewart's sugar daddy really needs to stop trying to make her a star at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 2, 2019 1:18:18 GMT
im seeing it all for the tits simply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 21:31:12 GMT
another would be franchise bites the dust. But nothing deserves it more than this rubbish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 1, 2020 16:27:23 GMT
CHARLIE'S ANGELS PART 1 7/10 CHARLIE'S ANGELS PART 2: FULL THROTTLE has a terrible soundtrack, because they try to cram in as many songs as possible that they end up playing like 30 seconds each. And they use the most obvious songs in non-sensical ways. These are the 2 worst examples: -WHAT A FEELING, the theme song from FLASHDANCE, plays while the title characters (3 spies named Natalie Cook, Dylan Sanders and Alex Munday) are disguised as welders. Even though the protagonist of that movie was a welder too, the song itself is about the sensation you have when you dance. -THE LONELY GOATHERD, one of the songs from THE SOUND OF MUSIC, plays while the Angels visit a convent disguised as nuns, which is what the protagonist of that movie wanted to become, so they play. However, a group of children and their governess perform this song (which tells some random story) in order to entertain their father. Well, in some versions, the governess sings it to the children so they'll forget about the scary thunders. My point is that the song has nothing to do with nuns. One of the main flaws in CHARLIE'S ANGELS PART 1 was that we didn't get to know the trio of protagonists very well. This sequel could've easily been better because it gives their personal lives more screen time. Unfortunately, Dylan's "How long will we be a team?" problem is underdeveloped, Natalie's scenes with her boyfriend Pete are pointless, and even though I laughed a lot with Alex's father, her time-out with her boyfriend Jason makes no sense. Not only they never explain why they're doing this in the first place, but when they get back together at the end, we don't know what has changed. And I don't even want to start thinking about the Thin Man's subplot, because I know it'll give me a headache. Cameron Díaz and Drew Barrymore's performances are weak compared to the previous movie. They're not as bad as Demi Moore's, though. Bernie Mac and John Cleese steal every scene they're in. Both installments are ridiculous, but the 1st one was a blast because it didn't take itself seriously and it had genuinely funny moments, while this one crosses the line and becomes an insult to the viewer's intelligence. 4/10 Despite not having the number 3 in the title, CHARLIE'S ANGELS 2019 is in fact part of the same continuity. I know this because we see photos of the actresses from the previous movies and the 1976 TV series alongside their Bosley, which is the alias used for people who assist the Angels. That's why they're played by different actors, while the Angels in each incarnation have different names, because they're not supposed to be the same characters. This movie confirms it by calling it a rank. However, Patrick Stewart has been inserted in the aforementioned photos (the effects are embarrassingly bad for a $55 million production) and it's revealed that his name really is Bosley and the rank name was created in his honor. Wait. So when he's revealed to be the villain, we're essentially seeing Bill Murray and David Doyle (these 3 guys look and act nothing alike, by the way) turning to the dark side?! What a slap in the face! One of my first doubts was "Does this also mean that the Bosley that Djimon Hounsou is playing is supposed to be the Bernie Mac one?!", but it was later confirmed that he wasn't. The climax takes place in a room full of men, until a lot of women show up to defeat them. I know that's because the Angels in this organization must be females, but why couldn't the different Bosleys (who are both male and female) join the fight? It actually would've had more meaning, since they must all feel bad due to the OG's betrayal. That could've been an interesting angle to explore (and whether they will look for a different name for the rank). Also, what prevented evil Bosley from hiring henchwomen instead of just henchmen? I think you can see where I'm going with all this. Yes, there's an agenda. Before I forget, if you know about an upcoming event that celebrates women in any way, please let me know. I'd love to go and talk about their rights and the opportunities they should have. I might even bring up this movie as a terrible example on how to make a feminist movie. It's so against the "Show, don't tell" rule that it literally begins with a "Things that chicks can't do" conversation. Remember how the title was revealed in 2000 and in 2003? With a brief yet exciting animated sequence. Here, it's just an onscreen text after showing a montage with random girls from around the world instead. It feels like a bland ad. You don't need all these gimmicks to convince us that women kick ass. They already do in real life, and not just in terms of strength. And you don't need to make every man have negative personality traits in order to create a contrast. There's a certain male character who's very heroic, but he dies early on, so it's hard to say that he counts as an exception. Anyway, just give us heroines with abilities and values we can admire. And if you really need to convey a message, be subtle about it. With all that out of the way, how is the movie as a whole? Overlong and predictable, but I appreciate how Elizabeth Banks makes these ladies look good without exaggerating (unlike McG and his male gaze) and how she makes the world more grounded without going full dark and gritty. Kristen Stewart is very funny. She, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska have some chemistry, but it's nothing compared to their predecessors. How ironic, considering that this installment is about them forming a team. Aside from a sequence involving a rock crusher, the action isn't memorable. There's a shot where the 3 protagonists are in a field. Jane Kano is sad and Sabina Wilson tries to make her feel better, while Elena Houghlin is throwing up. They obviously filmed it outdoors, so why does Bill Pope's cinematography look so fake here? There's another scene when they're on a boat. The camera briefly shows the back of a little girl's head and Sabina looking at a distance. Then there's a close-up of Sabina where, out of nowhere, she turns to the camera and makes weird faces. Is she breaking the 4th wall? Did they leave a blooper in the final cut by accident? No, the movie then cuts to the little girl doing the same thing. This wasn't the right way to film and edit the scene. It's too jarring. 4/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
