The US public proves yet again

November 5, 2000 11:57 AM

The US public proves yet again that it has no taste whatever, but does have an insatiable apetite for attractive young female skin. (But then, that was the only reason the TV show was ever successful.)

What's scary is that the reviewers seem to be liking it, too.
posted by Steven Den Beste (34 comments total)

Indeed. The pure, unyetagained, proving of the public's tastelessness being, of course, their insatiable appetite for a two party system which, as Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader points out, offers no real choice or diversity of opinion and is run by fat cats in suits.
posted by EngineBeak at 12:13 PM on November 5, 2000

i haven't seen it yet (you can bet i will; anything to get the taste of last weekend's BW2 out of my mouth). from what i'm seeing, it looks like a smart update of a dated concept: the original angels were bimbelinas cooing under charlie's wishes. these ladies are hard as nails.

besides, drew produced it. she's proven herself to be a smart salesperson of positive role models for young women (see: "ever after").
posted by patricking at 12:22 PM on November 5, 2000

I saw it last week at a reviewer's screener, and all I can say is, don't knock it until you see it. First time I have ever seen an audience of reviewers applaud.
posted by kristin at 12:45 PM on November 5, 2000

Have you actually seen the movie, Steven, or are you just basing your opinion on the fact that there is a lot of flesh with a supposed little depth to the movie?

Note, Steven, that this spawned a bit of a screed that really isn't directed you, just people who dismiss a movie, any movie, as meaningless because it isn't meaningful. It isn't personal, it's a rant. :-)

Not only is there a plot, which was mildly suprising, it's actually an interesting one. A mildly involved story. Not too tough, because this isn't a movie that makes you think, but it doesn't slap you in the face and say "THE PLOT TWISTS THAT WAY THEN THIS WAY" unless it's mocking itself in the process.

It's mildly analogous to Scream, in that it's using the genre of film/television in which it's classified to mock that genre.

Plus, it's got 3 babes in lots of skin, one of the most fabulous car stunts I've seen in recent memory, lots of explosion, cool kung fu effects (though mediocre kung fu, truth be told - pose like this, jump like that). I was chuckling the whole way through from subtle jabs at the original series, blatant jabs at the original series, physical comedy and the occasional pop-splurting one-liner.

Perhaps the reason the critics are liking it is because it's a very likeable movie. It's already sold me a seat for the sequel, too. It's a fun movie, it's supposed to be a fun movie. Not everything has to induce thought and reverence, it's entertainment for Pete's sake.


posted by cCranium at 12:52 PM on November 5, 2000

i consider myself a film buff, but that doesn't mean i can't enjoy a good MOVIE. Charlie's Angels is just that, a movie. It is self-referential and post-modern entertainment.
posted by brittney at 1:09 PM on November 5, 2000

It was a piece of junk, but a fun one. Plus, there were cute girls and stuff.
posted by dogwelder at 1:40 PM on November 5, 2000

I can hardly wait until Tuesday. After that, Ralph Nader won't pop up in every single thread on MeFi irrespective of its subject matter.

No, I haven't seen the movie. I don't go to movies. I was making fun of it because it's a jiggle-flick, no more, not to mention a movie based on a TV show, which are almost always horrible.

Perhaps I have misjudged this one. Jim Berardinelli liked it; that probably means I'm wrong.

posted by Steven Den Beste at 2:20 PM on November 5, 2000

i hate to break it to you, steven....but after tuesday, when nader is elected president, you'll be hearing a lot more about him.
posted by lescour at 2:37 PM on November 5, 2000

Apparently false. THINK. I'll stop anyway.
posted by EngineBeak at 2:38 PM on November 5, 2000

I had fun watching the movie. I don't think it was junk. It was way more enjoyable than MI:2.

I believe watching Crispin Glover as a bad guy is worth the ticket price (which, for me, was $4.50 for the first showing on Friday).

The only scary thing was watching 70%+ of the crowd go nuts upon viewing the Little Nicky trailer.
posted by gluechunk at 3:00 PM on November 5, 2000

Is the movie interesting even if you've never seen the TV show it was based on?

-Mars, who probably won't see it anyway, but is curious
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:15 PM on November 5, 2000

...."but does have an insatiable apetite for attractive young female skin"

Guilty as charged, Steve.
posted by Optamystic at 3:18 PM on November 5, 2000

Slate has a good take on it. I've met a number of people who seem to bear an animus against Berrymore, and I wonder if that set may line up with the Angel-haters.
posted by EngineBeak at 3:23 PM on November 5, 2000

I second that motion, Optamystic.

In fact, If having an apetite for attractive young female skin were a crime, I would be on death row.
posted by howa2396 at 3:24 PM on November 5, 2000

Crispin Glover doing kung fu! How can you not want to see it!? The management at our company took the whole staff out to see it on Friday, and I liked it much better than Mission Impossible 2, the last film we saw on the company tab.

It didn't take itself too seriously. I like that.
posted by waxpancake at 5:44 PM on November 5, 2000

Am I the only one who thinks it's completely insane that Steven attacked the whole of America's population based on the box office gross of a movie he hasn't even seen?
posted by Doug at 7:02 PM on November 5, 2000

Seconding most opinions: it's a good stupid movie, and Crispin Glover is worth the ticket cost alone. Few actors can smoke with such desperate relish.

What I object to is the continued portrayal of the 70s as hip and / or cool, and an interesting resource for design ideas. The 70s were ugly from start to finish, and those who don't remember this particular past are doomed to keep buying it at Old Navy.
posted by lileks at 7:21 PM on November 5, 2000

That is so true. Most of what I remember from growing up in the 70s was ugliness in varying shades of avocado, harvest gold, gold lamé, tortoiseshell, and brown. Dark brown. Light brown. Medium brown. Whatever. I was so glad when the 70s were over. (The 80s had their own crimes, but I found them more tolerable than the look of the "me decade.")
posted by litlnemo at 8:08 PM on November 5, 2000

I agree with Doug. "The trailers for this movie seem stupid and that means all of America is stupid!" Way to add an extra level of stupidity, Steven.

F.
posted by frenetic at 8:16 PM on November 5, 2000

I'd like to second Steven's notice: Ye gods, do Nader and his catchphrases have to enter every single blasted topic? Does anyone else notice the similarity to fundamentalist Christians who bring every subject back to Jesus?

Lighten up, people.
posted by argybarg at 8:21 PM on November 5, 2000

I'd like to second and third that motion too. I believe that Jesus definitely would not enjoy this film.
posted by lagado at 10:00 PM on November 5, 2000

Funny I saw the Nader post as satire, based on the complaints of too many Nader articles. Not fundamentalist zeal. Some people can take a joke...
posted by skallas at 10:10 PM on November 5, 2000

Oh my Sweet Jesus! Someone GOT IT! I KISS YOU!!!!! skallas!
posted by EngineBeak at 10:13 PM on November 5, 2000

via lagado's link: Apocalypse Feb.
posted by EngineBeak at 10:19 PM on November 5, 2000

Doug, you seem to be the only one here who thinks my original post was intended to be serious commentary.

Cancha take a joke?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:43 PM on November 5, 2000

No, I haven't seen the movie. I don't go to movies. I was making fun of it because it's a jiggle-flick, no more, not to mention a movie based on a TV show, which are almost always horrible.

Sounds like serious commentary to me . . .

But then, I'm not an intellectual who avoids 'jiggle-flicks' on principle.

posted by aladfar at 6:54 AM on November 6, 2000

It's a spoof/comedy/action movie. It's well done, has a great soundtrack, and was really entertaining. I'm recommending it all my friends for post-midterm destresser.
posted by gramcracker at 7:16 AM on November 6, 2000

I was about 15% more inclined to see it after the Tribune's overly serious "critique du film" Michael Wilmington trashed it with one star.
posted by dhartung at 7:37 AM on November 6, 2000

It always seems to be easier to find a bad critic with whom you consistently disagree than a good critic with whom you usually agree, doesn't it?
posted by harmful at 8:26 AM on November 6, 2000

I'm curious, how funny is Bill Murry in this?
posted by john at 10:52 AM on November 6, 2000

I haven't seen the movie yet, but Crispin Glover (George McFly in the BttF films) doing kung fu seems something worth seeing, at least for the laugh factor.
posted by Cavatica at 3:22 PM on November 6, 2000

I'm curious to know why Steventhinks that movies based on television shows are almost always horrible if he doesn't go to the movies.
posted by brittney at 4:17 PM on November 6, 2000

Ah kin rid the reviews, y'all...

Actually, I very much enjoy reading reviews of movies, and it's always fun to go to "Rotten Tomatoes" to see how the latest releases are faring. I generally read both Ebert's reviews and Berardinelli's reviews, as much to contrast them as anything; it's fun when they disagree.

Some examples of conversion failures: Wild Wild West, The Avengers (which I saw on TV and which stunk due to bad casting), Twilight Zone (3/4ths; "Kick the Can" was good).

Vic Morrow was (ahem) wasted in that film.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 7:05 PM on November 6, 2000

John: Bill Murray was pretty funny. Most of the attention and laugh-making was done by the girls (Diaz having the best funny bits, IMHO) but there is a scene that focuses on his character doing funny stuff. None of it was over-the-top Caddyshack funny, but he was pretty funny. A good job in a supporting role.
posted by cCranium at 4:26 PM on November 7, 2000