|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Nov 11, 2019 15:05:52 GMT
What I don’t like about this new Charlie’s Angels movie is that this is NOT a Charlie’s Angels movie. This is a female empowerment movie. Banks has made this very clear when she’s talked about it too. What’s funny though is that the original 2 movies are already female empowerment movies just without the wokeness. Seriously I won’t be surprised if there is an “orange man bad” joke in this movie somewhere.. It looks more like a bitch empowement movie and men better watch the f<>k out, because the vile ferocious sisters are coming to emasculate them. It looks cold and nasty in tone, with nothing angelic about it. That too!!! |
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Nov 12, 2019 5:34:33 GMT
Go Woke Go Broke
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Nov 14, 2019 20:32:26 GMT
I’m gonna take one for the team and see this tomorrow so you guys won’t have to suffer. Not looking forward to it, but I’d hate for anyone else to have to go see this.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 15, 2019 1:47:38 GMT
So it's woke simply because Boz is a lady this time? I dont really understand either side of the fence on this one. CA has always been about three strong women kicking ass, so the gender of their middle manager seems kinda superfluous. The filmmakers are silly for patting themselves on the back for it, but so are the people getting hyperoffended.
Someone mentioned a transgender Angel. That'd actually be pretty funny. Charlie hires a TG Angel who is way more athletic than the "cis" ones, and they go out of a job.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Nov 15, 2019 12:07:06 GMT
So it's woke simply because Boz is a lady this time? I dont really understand either side of the fence on this one. CA has always been about three strong women kicking ass, so the gender of their middle manager seems kinda superfluous. The filmmakers are silly for patting themselves on the back for it, but so are the people getting hyperoffended. Someone mentioned a transgender Angel. That'd actually be pretty funny. Charlie hires a TG Angel who is way more athletic than the "cis" ones, and they go out of a job. No. It’s woke because it has a woke director behind it, has a very leftist ideology so there’s stuff like climate change and shit like that being thrown around. Sounds like instead of trying to make a good movie Ms. Banks decided to do a movie about lefties wet dream. Again this is NOT A CHARLIE’S ANGELS MOVIE!!! This is a movie that took the name and the character Bosley, but that’s about it. The movie is also sitting at a 56% from critics so that says a lot about the quality of the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Nov 15, 2019 16:10:34 GMT
Only 900k in Thursday previews
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 15, 2019 20:23:30 GMT
So it's woke simply because Boz is a lady this time? I dont really understand either side of the fence on this one. CA has always been about three strong women kicking ass, so the gender of their middle manager seems kinda superfluous. The filmmakers are silly for patting themselves on the back for it, but so are the people getting hyperoffended. Someone mentioned a transgender Angel. That'd actually be pretty funny. Charlie hires a TG Angel who is way more athletic than the "cis" ones, and they go out of a job. No. It’s woke because it has a woke director behind it, has a very leftist ideology so there’s stuff like climate change and shit like that being thrown around. Sounds like instead of trying to make a good movie Ms. Banks decided to do a movie about lefties wet dream. Again this is NOT A CHARLIE’S ANGELS MOVIE!!! This is a movie that took the name and the character Bosley, but that’s about it. The movie is also sitting at a 56% from critics so that says a lot about the quality of the movie. Is climate change still considered just leftist ideology? Kind of a weird subjdct for a Charlie's Angels movie, granted. |
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Nov 15, 2019 21:37:28 GMT
No. It’s woke because it has a woke director behind it, has a very leftist ideology so there’s stuff like climate change and shit like that being thrown around. Sounds like instead of trying to make a good movie Ms. Banks decided to do a movie about lefties wet dream. Again this is NOT A CHARLIE’S ANGELS MOVIE!!! This is a movie that took the name and the character Bosley, but that’s about it. The movie is also sitting at a 56% from critics so that says a lot about the quality of the movie. Is climate change still considered just leftist ideology? Kind of a weird subjdct for a Charlie's Angels movie, granted. It seems to be. Cause most lefties seem to think it’s still caused by humans. |
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Nov 15, 2019 22:00:54 GMT
Alright, so I got to see this for free. This was definitely a female empowerment movie. The intro was literally nothing but clips of women doing things from snowboarding to riding a horse and crap like that. Didn’t tie into the movie at all. Apparently this movie is supposed to be connected to the original 2 movies because there’s pictures of the other angels. The angels are pretty bland if you ask me. At least in the show and the 2 movies they were fun and had something special about each one. Banks as Bosley was fine, not good, not bad. Apparently Bosley is a rank now. Was it like that in the show I don’t remember?
I don’t really remember much else. Plot was basic. Angels have to get something out of the hands in a villain from destroying the world or something. Action scenes were nothing spectacular. Comedy wasn’t all that funny.
All in all I guess it was fine for an almost 2 hour movie. Probably wouldn’t watch it again. It wasn’t the worst thing I saw, but it just wasn’t very memorable. At least the first Charlie’s Angels was fun to watch and had some memorable things about it. 5/10 and I’m being generous.
Oh and get this. Charlie is a woman this time around. She used a voice simulator to disguise her voice. No I’m not kidding!!!!
Honestly I think the original movie respected the show way more!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 15, 2019 23:33:24 GMT
Is climate change still considered just leftist ideology? Kind of a weird subjdct for a Charlie's Angels movie, granted. It seems to be. Cause most lefties seem to think it’s still caused by humans. lol |
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Nov 16, 2019 0:37:17 GMT
Is climate change still considered just leftist ideology? Kind of a weird subjdct for a Charlie's Angels movie, granted. It seems to be. Cause most lefties seem to think it’s still caused by humans. That's only because it largely is. (Even the cow farts gambit doesn't work. Cow farts wouldn't be such a problem if we weren't farming so many of them for food.) |
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Nov 16, 2019 2:10:06 GMT
It seems to be. Cause most lefties seem to think it’s still caused by humans. That's only because it largely is. (Even the cow farts gambit doesn't work. Cow farts wouldn't be such a problem if we weren't farming so many of them for food.) Lol, but it’s not true. Even if it was it’s only a small percentage. We’re not even in a climate emergency. Let that sink in, Buddy. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Nov 16, 2019 7:33:28 GMT
Oh and get this. Charlie is a woman this time around. She used a voice simulator to disguise her voice. No I’m not kidding!!!! Tell me you're joking?! |
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Nov 16, 2019 13:24:39 GMT
Oh and get this. Charlie is a woman this time around. She used a voice simulator to disguise her voice. No I’m not kidding!!!! Tell me you're joking?! I wish!!! It was the dumbest change. No reason whatsoever behind it. |
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Nov 16, 2019 14:40:26 GMT
Alright, so I got to see this for free. This was definitely a female empowerment movie. The intro was literally nothing but clips of women doing things from snowboarding to riding a horse and crap like that. Didn’t tie into the movie at all. Apparently this movie is supposed to be connected to the original 2 movies because there’s pictures of the other angels. The angels are pretty bland if you ask me. At least in the show and the 2 movies they were fun and had something special about each one. Banks as Bosley was fine, not good, not bad. Apparently Bosley is a rank now. Was it like that in the show I don’t remember? I don’t really remember much else. Plot was basic. Angels have to get something out of the hands in a villain from destroying the world or something. Action scenes were nothing spectacular. Comedy wasn’t all that funny. All in all I guess it was fine for an almost 2 hour movie. Probably wouldn’t watch it again. It wasn’t the worst thing I saw, but it just wasn’t very memorable. At least the first Charlie’s Angels was fun to watch and had some memorable things about it. 5/10 and I’m being generous. Oh and get this. Charlie is a woman this time around. She used a voice simulator to disguise her voice. No I’m not kidding!!!! Honestly I think the original movie respected the show way more!!! Isn't that how they advertise tampon commercials? It's a wonder how being on the rag can make a female empowered and that men need stand up and take notice.  I was hoping they were gonna do an intro similar to the show like the original 2 movies did. Seriously I can’t believe I’m saying that the original movie is actually good. That is just saying how much they screwed up this one. |
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Dec 19, 2019 0:30:14 GMT
Review on IMDB. Spot on: linkCharlie's Angels (2019) 1/10
Sounds like someone needs to get off their high horse & shut up!26 November 2019 Warning: Spoilers Knew from a mile off that this was going to be one of those Me Too themed, misandrist female propaganda type of films easy. It's no wonder that of all films this one here thrives and takes full advantage of today's corrupted PC views on how men in cinema are treated: made to look bad, cowardly & pathetic against women who are good. strong & independent. Kind of typical that a woman has made this film too, Elizabeth Banks, the little girl who said and I quote: "men don't want to watch female lead films". Quote off. Pfft really? It's the same crap with 2018's Oceans 8, film, it didn't do well in cinemas & the female cast members were super quick to lash out at men for the films lukewarm performance, never mind using their tiny brains to think that the film properly didn't do well because it sucked in general? But no, their insecurities of why they made the film in the first place (to hate on men & elevate women) makes them think just that. Typical. Even still it's maybe no wonder why it did get hate for that reason, never mind this film. I mean, imagine how THEY would get if it was men hating & belittling them in the film. They'd be up in arms this lot would never mind feminists who vision of female empowerment is double standards galore. This film was bad, and its corrupted toxic femininity theme did not help at all. It's not about equality, it's about dominance. Women complain about being victims because they get off on being given the "there, there" treatment, they know they get it easy in this world yet love playing the so-called victimhood card this is to not only prolong their dominance, but to ensure that their power isn't compromised Fact. Yet the second a strong female lead film like this comes out & it involves hating & exploiting the opposite sex & men complain, its back to the victim card crap again. It's clear they don't want their privilege being revoked away from them, that's why they carry on the victimhood crap. It's amazing how quick this lot get hysterical & emotional when their man hating film doesn't get the backing, they thought it would. They wonder why. But don't think how they'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot. I also love how the changes in this film also benefit women too like the clothing change, so they won't be objectified, yet they hypocritically make men in this film at the same time are being objectified to look weak, cowardly and overall bad. Unbelievable. Female lead films aren't the problem, but in this world now when Hollywood's concerned, they really try & shove it down your throats & worst of all must exploit it negatively. Honestly, it's just so unnecessary. I can only hope films like this in Hollywood stop or drop the PC trend in propaganda as it's simply not cool in this day & age where we're supposed to be equal. But instead it's dropped for the tit-for-tat route in which women take the piss out of men so they can be empowered. It's just wrong. Alright for women, but wrong for men. Ok, that's very equal isn't it. Yet this lot complain that THEY are the ones being oppressed, it's outrageous and insane it really is. Overall, a very bad film designed to push the female propaganda further & promote hate on men in a world supposedly designed for equality. Elizabeth Banks needs to get off her high horse and shut up. The film got bad reviews because it sucks, simple. If you make a film which exploits men in a bad light with biased/toxic views while promoting toxic femininity, then grow some balls & expect serious negative backlash. Least the previous 2 films & TV Series were done because they were good & not done for the sheer sake of feminism and misandry. Women can be strong, but not anti-male strong that's the issue. This film itself is the very definition of shoe-horning!I guess the only good that can come from this crap is that the more these PC Propaganda get mad then bashed, the more awareness about them gets noticed & then hopefully stopped dead in its tracks. Also, Elizabeth, don't blame men for your film flopping, it sucked. Plain & simple. And also, don't talk to me about men complaining, because when you say that, that's what you're doing while trying to catch us out. You lot are hypocrites. You make a man hating film & you'll get hate for it. It's amazing how quick your "strong sisterhood" turns to "weak victimhood" the second someone bruises it with truth. Now go to a quite corner & cry you pathetic snowflake. Mic Drop. A 1 out of 10 really strains your credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Dec 19, 2019 1:52:21 GMT
How did Clint Eastwood's "fake news is evil" movie work out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 1, 2020 16:26:59 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. |
|
