And what transpired behind those doors, simply, was nothing less than blackmail.
How else to explain this movie? How else to quantify, justify why it was made?
Despite my personal bias and prejudice I went to see "Charlie's Angels" with an open mind.
Trying to keep an open mind throughout, though, proved difficult.
Very difficult. For a simple reason: What was this movie? A T & A number for fans of "The Matrix"? An action-adventure flick trying to ride the wave of box office success generated by Jackie Chan movies? A girlie movie for lesbians? A peep show for guys who fantasize about dykes?
What is "Charlie's Angels"? I don't honestly know. But if I were to make a solid guess I would say a send-up of send-ups satirizing satires.
Now a send-up of send-ups satirizing satires can be funny. Just look at "Airplane!" or "Hot Shots", if there is doubt. They are funny.
"Charlie's Angels" is not funny.
Which returns me to The Question: What is it?
Because it is not readily categorized it goes into the box office challenge weighed with a certain burden.
Which, for what it is worth, is the least of the problems with this movie.
The special effects, the explosions, the James Bond-like remarks, the Austin Powers references are okay. But plow on into the plot and problems mount as quickly as the pervert in the back row of the theater who obviously wanted to mount the Angels.
The plot is known to anyone who ever caught even one episode of the TV series this movie is based on: A disembodied voice (John Forsythe) barks commands to three pin-ups who work for him in a detective agency. They do their duties while dressed in fashions that look like rejects from the Salvation Army.
Know the plot, the premise of the original series and you needn't be bothered with it here.
I suspect the creators of "Charlie's Angels" went into production believing this: That anyone who would go see this movie knew the origins. Which goes to explain why they did away with much of the plot, the premise here.
Go To Page: 1 2
