Logo

Cool News

Derek Flint has a fling with CHARLIE'S ANGELS!!!

Published at:  Oct 23, 2000 7:11:27 AM CDT

Hey folks, Harry here with that swinging daddio from the six-zeroes years... Derek Flint went out on the mission to get to the bottom of these new millenium angels, and see how much of a rise they'd get out of a poon wolf like Flint. Well, from the sound of it, it sounds fun as hell. Personally I can't wait. I just want silly hysterics and action. I want to leave happy. Here's Flint...






CHARLIE’S ANGELS


Here’s a movie where I wasn’t sure what I was gonna’think. I sure knew
those original angels real well. In fact, I miss ol’Kelly, Sabrina and…
hell, what’s her name? Gimme’ a break, getting so many bad guys slamming
their fists against your noggin jogs your memory. Know what I mean?

Here’s a flick which had all this bad buzz going for it, and then all of a
sudden that bad buzz turned to good once people started seeing it in
previews.

Guess what? I can’t say that it’s a good movie, but I also can’t say it’s
bad. It’s a time filler, nothing more… but it does give you a chance to
check out some gorgeous chicks. This flick kinda’ reminded me of some of the
stuff they used to make in the sixties… movies where great looking girls
like“Fathom” and “Modesty Blaise” ran around wearing nothing but bikinis
and smiles trying to do the same job all us master spies do.

Now, since I saw her in “E.T.” when she was a little kid,it’s tough for Drew
Barrymore to make me get all hot and bothered. I don’t know, I just feel
funny looking at the chest plate of the little girl who screamed at that
extraterrestrial fella. She plays the toughest cookie in the bunch,and I
gotta’ say I really didn’t buy her in the part… although, for a girl, I have
to say she done pretty good.

Cameron Diaz. Whatcan I say? She plays the nicest, most accessible angel
who’s also a bit of a klutz. The girl has a full plate of goodies which she
ain’t afraid to shake,and shake 'em she does. I mean, that’s what a can
like hers is for. Push it into the camera and SHAKE IT, BABY! GRIND! It’s
what women were made for.

Cameron looked pretty dang good fighting too, except that you’re supposed to
be flying on wires when you play “Peter Pan,” not an action hero. Hell, I
fought plenty of foes in my two flicks and you didn’t see me sailing through
the air like I was looking to knock Captain Hook on his butt.

The three angels in this flick sorta’ remind me of that story about the three
little bears... or is it pigs? Anyway, it was the kid story about the little
beds. The first one is too hard. The second one is too soft, but the third
one is just right.

In this case, that third one which is just right is the third angel: Lucy
Liu. She’s the reason to see the movie and does everything correctamundo in
this one, pals.

Somebody definitely saw her performance in “Payback” and did the right thing
and let her step up to the bigscreen action plate. The girl has got all the
moves, and is real funny too. More than anybody else in this flick, she knew
how to play her part, letting us all in on the fact she knows this whole
thing is a joke.

Don’t get me wrong, jokes are part of the problem with this“Charlie’s
Angels.” Sometimes, it tries to be a little bit like a “Naked Gun,” which I
never found all that funny. I mean, “Don’t call me Shirley” was worth a
chuckle once, but after awhile Leslie Nielsen became about as amusing as the
Maytag Repair guy. The tone for “Charlie’s Angels” can’t make up its mind,
and feels like a whole lot of those writer guys were playing a real big game
of “cut and paste” with the proceedings.

Also, a real man like me can’t bear to see Tom Green playing anybody’s
boyfriend. In fact, all the dudes who romance the girls in this movie don’t
meet the criteria of what it means to be a real man in my book, and listen
up… I wrote the book.

I didn’t think Tim Curry was the right choice for a villain here, even though
it’s not all that big a part. You see, he played the bad guy in the big
screen version of“McCale’s Navy,” and that’s all I could think of when I
was watching him. I pay money to see movies on the big screen,even when
they’re based on TV shows. Either you cast Alan Rickman or one of those
classically trained Brit guys,or yah don’t. End of story.

What a surprise that Crispin Glover kid turned out tobe. The kid may be a
freak, but he sure makes a real weird heavy. If he were in one of my flicks,
I wouldn’t know how to fight a guy this kooky. In the middle of this light
and silly movie,Glover was actually kinda’ disturbing… and I mean that in a
good way.

Finally, last but not least, there’s Bill Murray as Bosley. The big Bill
does his stuff and does it well, but there ain’t enough of him. Who’s the
knucklehead that cast this brilliant dude in this flick and didn’t realize
that he should be in every other scene? Didn’t the dopes at Sony see
“Rushmore” or something?

You can tell ol’ Bill is doing his improv thing all through the film, and the
stuff this guy comes up with off the top of his head is better than most of
the stuff the fleet of typists threw towards this screen.

Should you see it? Yeah, it’s a good enough time, I guess… but you don’t
really need to go to the movies for this. Just wait a few months, pop the
cassette in the ol’ VCR and press play, then fast forward through that ol’
FBI logo until yah come to that first bikini shot.

Anyhow, that special phone of mine is ringing, and I better pick up before
Austin Powers beats me to the call.

Derek Flint













    + Expand All

    Readers Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 7:21:03 AM CDT

    First!!!!!!

    by cav-4

    I am the greatest!!! I am first!!!!!! (Oh, and by the way, that review was crap)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 7:26:11 AM CDT

    FIRST - this movie will SUCK

    by damocl

    Its true its true.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 7:28:14 AM CDT

    I jumped the gun - was second

    by damocl

    But the movie will still suck

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 7:45:10 AM CDT

    Does anyone have a pin?

    by islander

    3 hot babes, car chases, karate, Drew and those ballons (anyone have a pin?) Bill Murry as Bosley, Oh Yeah-The 3 Hot Babes. This is the kind of movie this country will alsway need. God bless theses fine women. I will see you opening weekend. :)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 7:58:32 AM CDT

    McHale's Navy wasn't that bad!

    by jarek

    It was kind of funny, and had Bruce Campbell and that guy from 3rd rock in it.... it wasn't terrible, there are worse movies out there.

    Reply to Talkback

  • A little exploitation and action without any meanness to it...sounds like fun to me anyway. Cool tongue-in-cheek trailers too. And say, is it just me or are nimrods who post "it'll suck" about an intentionally cheesy flick like "Charlie's Angels" among the lamest Talkback posters of them all? Oooh, the daring critique! Oooh, the glory of your superior tastes! Lighten up, dingoes.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 8:17:34 AM CDT

    If this flick makes ANY money at all....

    by acid_rain327

    you can chalk it up to that shot of Diaz, in tighty-whities, shaking her ass at the camera. This film is going to suck. In fact, I personally don't see the draw to Diaz at all (awaits flames...). She looks like she's about 80 years old if you take off all the make-up.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 8:21:37 AM CDT

    "don't call me shirley"......hehhehheh

    by iamgladiator

    I thought that was from "Airplane," not "Naked Gun."... I don't know...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 8:25:25 AM CDT

    Cormorant...

    by acid_rain327

    We're not saying it's gonna suck for reasons you named. It's gonna suck because it's going to be cheesy (we all know that it's SUPPOSED to be cheesy), but it's not going to be funny. It's gonna be a rediculous film with a probably non-existant plot and some really derivative fight scenes. It'd be cool if someone could do a cheesy film, yet also do something ORIGINAL...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 8:42:31 AM CDT

    Ugh

    by becka

    Of all the horny fat toads in the pond THIS is the one you choose to write a review Harry? I'm very disappointed.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 8:49:40 AM CDT

    Has anyone ever uttered the phrase "I can't wait for Drew Barrym

    by cruel shoes

  • Oct 23, 2000 9:13:46 AM CDT

    Yeah...yeah, I dig ya, Acid Rain...

    by dave_f

    But beating up on a guilty pleasure-type flick like "Charlie's Angels" is such an easy thing to do, it's almost pathetic when the best someone can muster is "it'll suck". Real shining beacons of intelligence and originality we got here. At least dimwit posters like the Warrior used to be funny every once in a while. And you, you actually had a point to make, Acid, so I can appreciate that. I'm not expecting the hilarious campiness of, say, "Flash Gordon" either. Still, the girls are cute, the action in the preview looked cool, and Bill Murray's on board, so what

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 9:19:47 AM CDT

    Who let the dogs out?

    by pomona88

    Diaz looks like a goon, and Liu is a cross-eyed bitch. I'm sick of her fucking shtick.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 10:06:50 AM CDT

    Harry's head is in the box.

    by *veers*

    Never liked Diaz with her classic Hollywood good looks (yeah right), but indie sensiblities. Leave the indies to the true indie queen Parker Posey and stick to big budget pieces of shit like Charlie's Angels Cameron coz that's all yer good fur. And you've got a boys name.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 10:15:15 AM CDT

    We're just two hooded guys,...no, really, who else did you think

    by battle-poster

    "Darth Flame, the Ainticoo website is ripe with Talkbacks. Go there now to wreak havoc." "Yes, my master. I will reduce the talkbackers to ashes in approximately--" "Silence, Darth Flame. There is no need for specific numbers now. It is only a matter of time." "Viceroy Nerdmodian, begin landing your troops." "But Lord Idiot, is that deleeetable?" "I will make it del--wait, no, it's not deletable! You fear Chancellor Knowles more than me? I am amused. Now, I must retreat to my private quarters to "enjoy" the Charlie's Angels trailer and some old Farrah Fawcet posters. Darth Flame, are you clear on your objective?" "Yes, Su--my master. It is apparent from the review that the film is to be dealt with swiftly, as well as the Talkbackers." "Good, good. Now, leave me be and don't send any holographed messages, as I will be watching Jen Na Jaima Sen holoporn for a good while."

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 10:30:40 AM CDT

    Pleasing everbody...totally impossible

    by terry_1978

    Seriously, why in God's name are we even debating if this movie is good or bad. We all know this flick was made by McG for one purpose....to give us all sweet money shots of Cameron, Lucy, and Drew. Nothing more, nothing less. It's obviously supposed to be campy, so I'm not even gonna try and complain about how illogical the flick is plot-wise, or how mediocre the acting may be. I am just gonna sit back and gaze upon the beauty, baby. And by the way, you truly have no life whatsoever if you feel the need to make a crack about the eyes of such a freaking lovely specimen such as Lucy Liu.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 10:59:43 AM CDT

    SPOILER! The Whole Thing Takes Place In A Computer!

    by buzz maverik

    See, Quentin Tarantino is playing this rich but lonely guy who grew up in the '70s when his only pleasures were the Farrah in the red one piece with the nipples poster and watching CHARLIE'S ANGELS with the sound off. He got rich in the early 80s inventing the formula for Diet Coke. He hired some computer geek (Haley Joel Osment) to make him VIRTUAL ANGELS. The problem is that what comes out on the computer reflects the kid's taste in babes (which isn't bad, just different) and not our heroes. Instead of Sabrina, Kelly and Jill, we get Duncan, Garrett and Munro, or whatever their names are supposed to be. Instead of going undercover as stewardesses or gogo dancers, they're doing Matrix-like fights because the Kid is influenced by Jet Li and Lara Croft more than our heroes faves Bruce Lee and Christie Love (incidentally, Quentin wrote his own piece of dialogue which answers Mr. White, Mr. Orange and Nice Guy Eddie when they were talking about who starred in GET CHRISTIE LOVE. Spoiler: It was Teresa Graves. Also, there was a cool trailer for the GET CHRISTIE LOVE feature with Vanessa L. Williams as our favorite lady cop). However, our hero is pleased that for Bosley, instead of that Eunuch guy, the Kid created a Bill Muarry character. He is pleased with the Crispin Glover villain, but says to the kid, "I said Tim Roth! Does Roth sound like Curry?" This is all just a framing device and the story of the Angels, well, just doesn't exist.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 11:04:58 AM CDT

    coffee

    by sdg

    Did you ever wonder whether just writing a subject heading like that might constitute some sort of betrayal of one's girlfriend?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 11:20:46 AM CDT

    More Spoilers! Claire Danes Will Play A Shelley Hack Character,

    by buzz maverik

    That Drew Barrymore is one shrewd producer. She's worked out a deal with the exhibitors where she gets a cut of the concession, so when we all go out for soda and popcorn and Milk Duds and M&Ms during the Shelley Hack scenes, she'll be making even more dough. And for the DVD, she knew that some pagans out there preferred Cheryl to Farrah. And she was smart enough to not let Cameron know that Suvari was duplicating her role for the at home audience.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 12:28:32 PM CDT

    Chief?

    by slaanesh

  • Oct 23, 2000 1:13:12 PM CDT

    Goddammit, tom green!

    by freexter

    who the FUCK though this annoying, goatee-wearing motherfucker was so funny they had to keep casting his fucked up ass in movies. Jesus chris, i won't see his movie just on he grounds that I hate Tom Green's annoying ass.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 1:30:22 PM CDT

    This is a plot for women to destroy all men!

    by kyle.reese

    Why didn't they get the Spice Girls to do the song for this film?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oh yeah, Tom IS funny as hell. He is supposed to be annoying you cocksucker. Sorry, I just really like saying cocksucker...........cocksucker....cocksucker........cocksucker...cocksucker.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 1:47:32 PM CDT

    And no, I am not going to see this movie......

    by jigs

    But if I was it would be BECAUSE of Tom Green. At least he is entertaining.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 1:50:13 PM CDT

    Just had to be pointed out, Darkwing

    by sdg

    A lot of horny posters on this site write as if they'd never heard of concepts like betrayal or faithfulness (let alone respect or class). Since you brought it up I felt obliged to make something of it. But it's worth keeping this sort of thing in mind.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 2:14:34 PM CDT

    Make up your mind!

    by mr. stevens

    Reading this review I thought this guy loved the film, but at the end he tells us to wait for the video release. Do you like the film or do you hate it?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 2:25:53 PM CDT

    Interesting how 3 of the most mediocre looking women in Hollywoo

    by phantom cruiser

    I can't hope this movie goes up in flames fast enough...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 3:42:20 PM CDT

    Who dissed Diaz and Liu!

    by rabid kimba

    I believe it was homo # 1 Acid Rain327 and homo # 2 Pomona88. Give me Diaz & Liu in a sandwich anytime!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 4:39:40 PM CDT

    Did this guy actually see the movie?

    by hofzinser

    For what he wrote I assume he didn't. If he actually saw it, he needs to take a writing course right away. Topics: writing a review. First, tell the reader what the movie is about. Second: next class...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 4:39:42 PM CDT

    The Previews look like P-I-S-S Piss!

    by superhero

    It's The Avengers all over again... How now brown cow? UGH...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 6:14:50 PM CDT

    A page from Hong Kong girls-with-guns movies

    by samurai7

    It looks to me from the trailer, that the makers of this movie have seen some of the Charlies Angels inspired girls-with-guns flicks that were popular in Hong Kong in the late 80's and early 90's like Deadly Angels, Angel 1-3 and Avenging Quartet. As usual, Hollywood is just picking up on this trend and trying to exploit it along with the popularity of movies based on TV shows. If you've ever seen any of this type of HK fare, you know they are rather light on plot and heavy on action, but a lot of fun to watch with some badass females kicking butt. I expect nothing more or less from this Hollywood version. It could be fun. As far as the comments about Lucy Lui being cross-eyed, these comments smack of prejudice and ignorance on the posters part.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 6:39:53 PM CDT

    I'll go see it.

    by superninja

    I predict LL Cool J will have the worst cameo of the year based on that trailer, though. Who cares what these women look like in real life -- it's a fantasy?! No one in TalkBacks will ever date them, just based on mathmatical probability (what I mean to say is: No insult intended). I've got news for you jokers...women don't all look like porn stars, either. Reality vs fantasy -- learn to tell the difference.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 7:50:53 PM CDT

    bad casting!

    by moovees

    The problem with this film from the getgo was BAD CASTING! Did they actually ever WATCH Charlie's Angels or even look at who used to star in it? Although Cameron Diaz is a great piece of eye candy, they should've been trying to get people like Catherine Zeta-Jones, etc. Entrapment did pretty well at the box office mostly because of that "ass under the laser" shot, and neither Liu, Barrymore, or Diaz could pull of the same thing. They just don't have the right kind of curves for it...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 9:49:22 PM CDT

    Funniest thing about Tom Green: He only has one nut now! Testicl

    by bari umenema

    If anyone deserves to lose a nut to T cancer it's douchebag Tom Green. What on earth does darling Drew see in him anyway? Perchance it's just a phase she's going through on her way to full-blown lesbianism. God I sure hope so. Many lipstick lesbians often date and even marry really ugly guys just to prove to their inner selves that they can "please" a man, any man for that matter. However this pic does look like some pleasant fun so I will actually see it just to see Lucy Liu because guys she is dead sexy.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 10:18:32 PM CDT

    A Real Review (with a few tiny spoilers)!!

    by the junketeer

    Well, I saw "Charlie's Angels" over the weekend and I think our man Flint was a little too into his pose to enjoy himself. I have to admit I hated the movie at first (even the disguises in "Mission: Impossible" aren't good enough to convince me Drew Barrymore can pass as LL Cool J), but the movie is just so over the top energywise that it soon won me over, like having a scene at a racecourse just so the Grand Prix cars can leave the course and go racing on the open road! Well, why not? Plus the fights are great fun and the jokes really work. If only James Bond movies could be this fun! Don't wait for the video... this is the most fun movie of the year!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 11:51:49 PM CDT

    Just Go See The Movie People Afterall We Ain't Got Much To Choos

    by the founder

    Face it people in this day and age in Hollywood we're lucky if we even get a fun movie out of them.The creative and oringal talent has almost gone from Hollywood.Very few films come out today that actually have a story and plot and we're blessed from God if we get a great plot and action combo.I know that Charlie Angles is going to be nothing more than camp and action, so don't go in expecting a great plot and story,but just go in wanting to have fun.I know its sad that we have to lower our standards in movie viewing, but its not like we have much of a choice.At any rate I gave up a long time ago tring to pull a movie with a good story and had actual plot twists from hollywoood.I'll give Usual Suspects,The Matrix,X-men,and Almost Famous an exception to the norm of today's hollywood shitfest.So with the crap flowing
    in to movie houses today Hell Yes! I look foward to the Angels movie. Almost forgot I got to add LA Confidential to the list above.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 23, 2000 11:53:10 PM CDT

    Of course we could all just save $5...

    by dlhstar

    And go to our local Blockbuster, rent "The Heroic Trio" and marvel at Anita Mui, Michelle Yeoh, and Maggie Cheung.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 24, 2000 4:47:50 AM CDT

    MY PREDICTION: CHARLIES ANGELS WILL KICK ASS!!! SO FUCK ALL YOU

    by geekbasher 3.0

    Not since SHOWGIRLS HAVE I been so looking foward to camp, fun and hot chicks in aviator sunglasses, go back to all yer beach beer bars and barf mother fuckers and let all the fierce fucking bitches RULE...THIS MOVIE WILL ROCK...and all you TARGET wearing mother fuckers will KISS MY ASS!!! RIGHT DREW????

    EXACTLY!

    OH by the way, feel free to stick things in my e-mail, whoops I MEANT SLOT!!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 24, 2000 4:51:17 AM CDT

    I ACTuALLY SKIMMED THRU THESE TALK BACKS and GOD!!

    by geekbasher 3.0

    What a bunch of Retards you all are!!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 24, 2000 5:00:37 AM CDT

    See the original thing, Yeah Baby!!!!!!!!!!!

    by spyboy

    If you want to see the REAL thing and not this lame-assed, matrixy thing. They could've at least gave it some credibility and added Yukari Oshima, Moon Lee etc. Anyway, go out and get any of those Girlz'n'Gunz movies to see how it really should be done. Of course, the original and the best is Yes Madam, Kickboxers tears is pretty good too. Hell, Cynthia Rothrock could wipe the floor with the whole cast and not even break a sweat.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 24, 2000 8:47:12 AM CDT

    Yo, samurai7

    by pomona88

    Let me retort to your insipid statement that "(a)s far as the comments about Lucy Lui being cross-eyed, these comments smack of prejudice and ignorance on the posters part." On the contrary, our observations were based on an objective look at someone who, like Barbra Streisand, is clearly cross-eyed, an affliction from which you also appear to suffer since you can't even spell "Liu" correctly. Either that or you're too prejudiced or ignorant to get it right. How do you like them apples?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 24, 2000 10:26:19 AM CDT

    Ew, superninja

    by all thumbs

    Some of those porn stars are pretty nasty looking. And I mean nasty in the greasy, hot dog lipped, bad hair and obviously fake boobs nasty.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 24, 2000 12:37:50 PM CDT

    ...have any of you ever heard of "Kitch"?

    by tett

    and even if you have, and don't like it, why do you post just to say you don't like it?
    People don't really have any use for, or appreciate in any capacity-useless, rambling bitching about a product. In other words; If the news topic doesn't interest you, why would you even READ it, much less take the time to spout venom about it? Is your time really that valueless?
    Will even ONE of you spineless plebians answer my question?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 24, 2000 2:28:03 PM CDT

    But you've got a handle on reality vs fantasy, All Thumbs

    by superninja

    Women know what other women look like when the lights are off, and the makeup mask is removed. And I was talking about the good looking porn stars, not the skanky ones anyway ;)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 24, 2000 11:26:05 PM CDT

    Anna Nichole Smith

    by x-girls

    I really really can't stand her either, boo hoo, I'm an obvious golddigger but I cry and say I'm not, so gimme ...how much cash? That's what I really can't stand about her. And to Mad Mag: don't waste time trying to get in our faces with banner ads here, chances are, we know the quality of Mad mag is getting lower all the time, just because we're fanboys doesn't mean we'll buy anything, try a little more. Certain artists are great, though: Peter Kuper, I think people know who they are.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 24, 2000 11:27:08 PM CDT

    Anna Nichole Smith

    by x-girls

    I really really can't stand her either, boo hoo, I'm an obvious golddigger but I cry and say I'm not, so gimme ...how much cash? That's what I really can't stand about her. And to Mad Mag: don't waste time trying to get in our faces with banner ads here, chances are, we know the quality of Mad mag is getting lower all the time, just because we're fanboys doesn't mean we'll buy anything, try a little more. Certain artists are great, though: Peter Kuper, I think people know who they are. Charlies Angels looks boring if you don't want to look at an unoriginal movie, lusting over the chicks, and the guy in the review said rent it instead, because this sort of thing looks better on video-cheaper too.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 25, 2000 1:33:32 AM CDT

    'Angels' may kill the movie from TV series trend

    by snidelywhiplash

    If Charlie's Angels dies and goes to heaven, it may just kill the whole take an old TV series and make a movie trend. How many bombs have we had from that um.. genre? McHale's Navy was already mentioned. Plus The Avengers ( What a great show too!), The Mod Squad, Leave it to Beaver, Dudley Do-Right, My Favorite Martian and Rocky and Bullwinkle. The Wild Wild West...the less said the better. If they had just left the lame jokes out. Well, the whole script.Lost in Space was lost once that monkey creature showed up and the time distortion second part was snooze city. LIS was never about Prof. Robinson, it was always Will, Dr. Smith and the robot. The Brady Bunch Movies were well made (Marcia!Marcia!Marcia!), so was the Fugitive but mostly these movies all seem to suck. If Charlie's Angels tanks we may be spared Gilligan's Island: the movie, Hogan's Heroes (Which was a rip-off of Stalag 17 if I'm not mistaken)and about a million others. The Prisoner was too good for TV so it doesn't count.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Harry, was there no one else around to review this film that you HAD to post this 'flint' guys review? "Grind!? Shake it baby?"
    What the hell is this? May I suggest that you mr. flint sir take some lessons in reviewing something for an audience??
    (Sometimes I have to wonder. Did people like this graduate college?)

    With the last word,
    Dash101

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 25, 2000 6:54:14 PM CDT

    Yum Yum Time.

    by dropkickmurphy

    Hi All DKM up here. Charlies Angels will be the greatest movie. Ever. Better than Citizen KAne, better than Gone With The Wind. Oh yeah even better than Weekend At Bernies. Nah none of this is true, but the preview has my beloved Cameron Diaz shakin her money maker. I'll be there, opening day.Look for the guy in the dark corner in the raincoat, and say hello, but don't look me in the eye. Dropkick Splittin' like pants...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 25, 2000 7:38:00 PM CDT

    Slo-mo killed the Action Star

    by snootbadger

    From what I've seen in the Trailer and commercials there looks to be a lot of slow motion in this movie which, for me, does not bode well, because in the history of movies there have only been 2 directors, Sam Peckinpah and John Woo, who have really known how to use slow motion. And what they've known is that it's not the slo-mo that counts, it's the cutting between slo-mo and regular speed. John Woo doesn't just lock in a fast film speed and shoot a whole action scene that way. He shoots at various speeds and cuts dramatically between them. That's what makes his action scenes so dynamic. And that's what almost all directors (especially ones who've come up in Woo's wake) don't understand. They just think that Cow Yun-fat looks cool in an over coat firing 2 guns in slo-mo and, boy, when they make their movie they're gonna do the same damn thing. Only they don't. They don't understand that it's all in the cutting, so they shoot way too much slow motion, and they give us action scenes that lack the motion. They're just slow.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 25, 2000 7:38:35 PM CDT

    Slo-mo killed the Action Star

    by snootbadger

    From what I've seen in the Trailer and commercials there looks to be a lot of slow motion in this movie which, for me, does not bode well, because in the history of movies there have only been 2 directors, Sam Peckinpah and John Woo, who have really known how to use slow motion. And what they've known is that it's not the slo-mo that counts, it's the cutting between slo-mo and regular speed. John Woo doesn't just lock in a fast film speed and shoot a whole action scene that way. He shoots at various speeds and cuts dramatically between them. That's what makes his action scenes so dynamic. And that's what almost all directors (especially ones who've come up in Woo's wake) don't understand. They just think that Cow Yun-fat looks cool in an over coat firing 2 guns in slo-mo and, boy, when they make their movie they're gonna do the same damn thing. Only they don't. They don't understand that it's all in the cutting, so they shoot way too much slow motion, and they give us action scenes that lack the motion. They're just slow.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 25, 2000 7:39:19 PM CDT

    Slo-mo killed the Action Star

    by snootbadger

    From what I've seen in the Trailer and commercials there looks to be a lot of slow motion in this movie which, for me, does not bode well, because in the history of movies there have only been 2 directors, Sam Peckinpah and John Woo, who have really known how to use slow motion. And what they've known is that it's not the slo-mo that counts, it's the cutting between slo-mo and regular speed. John Woo doesn't just lock in a fast film speed and shoot a whole action scene that way. He shoots at various speeds and cuts dramatically between them. That's what makes his action scenes so dynamic. And that's what almost all directors (especially ones who've come up in Woo's wake) don't understand. They just think that Cow Yun-fat looks cool in an over coat firing 2 guns in slo-mo and, boy, when they make their movie they're gonna do the same damn thing. Only they don't. They don't understand that it's all in the cutting, so they shoot way too much slow motion, and they give us action scenes that lack the motion. They're just slow.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 25, 2000 7:40:34 PM CDT

    Slo-mo killed the Action Star

    by snootbadger

    From what I've seen in the Trailer and commercials there looks to be a lot of slow motion in this movie which, for me, does not bode well, because in the history of movies there have only been 2 directors, Sam Peckinpah and John Woo, who have really known how to use slow motion. And what they've known is that it's not the slo-mo that counts, it's the cutting between slo-mo and regular speed. John Woo doesn't just lock in a fast film speed and shoot a whole action scene that way. He shoots at various speeds and cuts dramatically between them. That's what makes his action scenes so dynamic. And that's what almost all directors (especially ones who've come up in Woo's wake) don't understand. They just think that Cow Yun-fat looks cool in an over coat firing 2 guns in slo-mo and, boy, when they make their movie they're gonna do the same damn thing. Only they don't. They don't understand that it's all in the cutting, so they shoot way too much slow motion, and they give us action scenes that lack the motion. They're just slow.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 25, 2000 7:41:31 PM CDT

    Slo-mo killed the Action Star

    by snootbadger

    From what I've seen in the Trailer and commercials there looks to be a lot of slow motion in this movie which, for me, does not bode well, because in the history of movies there have only been 2 directors, Sam Peckinpah and John Woo, who have really known how to use slow motion. And what they've known is that it's not the slo-mo that counts, it's the cutting between slo-mo and regular speed. John Woo doesn't just lock in a fast film speed and shoot a whole action scene that way. He shoots at various speeds and cuts dramatically between them. That's what makes his action scenes so dynamic. And that's what almost all directors (especially ones who've come up in Woo's wake) don't understand. They just think that Cow Yun-fat looks cool in an over coat firing 2 guns in slo-mo and, boy, when they make their movie they're gonna do the same damn thing. Only they don't. They don't understand that it's all in the cutting, so they shoot way too much slow motion, and they give us action scenes that lack the motion. They're just slow.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 25, 2000 7:42:43 PM CDT

    Slo-mo killed the Action Star

    by snootbadger

    From what I've seen in the Trailer and commercials there looks to be a lot of slow motion in this movie which, for me, does not bode well, because in the history of movies there have only been 2 directors, Sam Peckinpah and John Woo, who have really known how to use slow motion. And what they've known is that it's not the slo-mo that counts, it's the cutting between slo-mo and regular speed. John Woo doesn't just lock in a fast film speed and shoot a whole action scene that way. He shoots at various speeds and cuts dramatically between them. That's what makes his action scenes so dynamic. And that's what almost all directors (especially ones who've come up in Woo's wake) don't understand. They just think that Cow Yun-fat looks cool in an over coat firing 2 guns in slo-mo and, boy, when they make their movie they're gonna do the same damn thing. Only they don't. They don't understand that it's all in the cutting, so they shoot way too much slow motion, and they give us action scenes that lack the motion. They're just slow.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 25, 2000 7:43:43 PM CDT

    Slo-mo killed the Action Star

    by snootbadger

    From what I've seen in the Trailer and commercials there looks to be a lot of slow motion in this movie which, for me, does not bode well, because in the history of movies there have only been 2 directors, Sam Peckinpah and John Woo, who have really known how to use slow motion. And what they've known is that it's not the slo-mo that counts, it's the cutting between slo-mo and regular speed. John Woo doesn't just lock in a fast film speed and shoot a whole action scene that way. He shoots at various speeds and cuts dramatically between them. That's what makes his action scenes so dynamic. And that's what almost all directors (especially ones who've come up in Woo's wake) don't understand. They just think that Cow Yun-fat looks cool in an over coat firing 2 guns in slo-mo and, boy, when they make their movie they're gonna do the same damn thing. Only they don't. They don't understand that it's all in the cutting, so they shoot way too much slow motion, and they give us action scenes that lack the motion. They're just slow.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 25, 2000 7:44:34 PM CDT

    Slo-mo killed the Action Star

    by snootbadger

    From what I've seen in the Trailer and commercials there looks to be a lot of slow motion in this movie which, for me, does not bode well, because in the history of movies there have only been 2 directors, Sam Peckinpah and John Woo, who have really known how to use slow motion. And what they've known is that it's not the slo-mo that counts, it's the cutting between slo-mo and regular speed. John Woo doesn't just lock in a fast film speed and shoot a whole action scene that way. He shoots at various speeds and cuts dramatically between them. That's what makes his action scenes so dynamic. And that's what almost all directors (especially ones who've come up in Woo's wake) don't understand. They just think that Cow Yun-fat looks cool in an over coat firing 2 guns in slo-mo and, boy, when they make their movie they're gonna do the same damn thing. Only they don't. They don't understand that it's all in the cutting, so they shoot way too much slow motion, and they give us action scenes that lack the motion. They're just slow.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 25, 2000 9:02:50 PM CDT

    But will it be fun?

    by theta

    That's the big deal, will it be entertaining? I can take stupid, provided it's not ridiculously so (Independence Day, Adam Sandler.) As long as it's fun, I'll like it.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Oct 25, 2000 10:54:14 PM CDT

    Blorn

    by snootbadger

User Login

Forgot password? Retrieve it here

or register as new user

Quick Talkback Form

Please login to post talkback