Its not every day that you go to a theatre and see a film that blends such a mix of T&A, mild comedy, overused unnecessary special effects, and big explosions all into one film... oh wait, yes it is.
What you'll see when you go see Charlie's Angels is nothing new. For all intents and purposes it's Mission Impossible 2 with chicks. But perhaps that's not fair because even Charlie's Angels isn't that bad. Because unlike Mission Impossible 2, Charlie's Angels is actually entertaining in parts, even though the entire film is nothing more than a big overextended farce.
I could go off again about how too many films are trying to use Hong Kong/Matrix effects in their fight scenes, but look, I've said it enough times, let just move past it, and if you want to hear more on it, go read my rant.
The Angel's themselves are almost sickly sweet at times, Natalie (Cameron Diaz) most of all. Its like they are trying to shove female bonding down your throat in the midst of a hail of gunfire. Even fight scenes are a sort of female bonding between the Angels, as they work together using each other's bodies as weapons. Frankly, I could have done without some of that, but I suspect this film, despite being a T&A filled heavy action flick is actually geared towards women.
Its true, the theatre I saw the film in was filled with cheers and laughter... however if you were paying attention, you'd notice that ALL the cheering came out of rather high pitched female voices. Women for some reason really dig this film. I don't know why, to me, as a man, its just another action flick, and not even that great of one at that. But women seem to feel empowered by the fact that there are finally 3 female action stars on the screen who actually ACT like women, unlike many of the more ruff and tough female heroes Hollywood has give us in the past.
My biggest complaint about Angels is simply that for a movie that seems to want to be taken as a serious action film, it seems more like a parody of every high tech action movie ever made. I found this disconcerting, and frequently found myself uninterested in what was actually going on.
The real bright spot in Charlie's Angels is Bill Murray, the man, the myth, the occasional comic genius. Murray is often very hit and miss where his comedy is concerned, but in Angels Murray is definitely on. This Hobbit was delighted to discover that Bill's role was not just some second banana bit part next to his three beautiful adrenaline pumped cohorts, but had some real screen time in which the director just let him do his thing. Angels is much better for it.
In the end, the Hobbit is stuck with a very wishy washy review. So let me just say this, Angels is what it is, Hobbit didn't hate it and there are probably worse things you could do.
