 |
|
|
|
|
Charlie's Angels 1 |
watched
most of the the first Charlie's Angels movie on Friday, and then
finished it Sunday evening. The fact that I had no problem watching an
hour of it, taking a 2 day break, and then finishing it off should give
you some idea of just how thrilling and edge of the seat I found it. In
fact, the only reason I watched it at all was because the library had it
on tape, and I was mildly curious.
Although I didn't like it, I can't say that it's a bad movie. It's not really a "movie" at all, on a fundamental level. Oh, there's a plot, sort of, and characters and things happen, and much of it is pretty and occasionally amusing, but it's just not a real movie. It's a series of short scenes set to music, essentially music videos to classic rock songs, most of them featuring explosions or fight scenes filled with so many ridiculous flips and tumbles and quadruple spinning kicks that you almost wish The Matrix had never come along and made slow motion spinning maneuvers cool. (Not to mention spawning Matrix 2 and 3, but that's another story.) Anyway, here's my quick categorized review:
I don't have a "accurately reflects physical reality" category, but if I did this movie would get a negative score. I've never seen a movie that had more "that could never happen" moments in it. Every fight scene had at least 3 or 4 double flipping spins in defiance of every law of physics, someone kicked through a solid brick wall who wasn't hurt by it, someone who took 3 or 4 knock out punches and didn't even feel them, etc. The action scenes in Charlie's Angels were sort of like the "Neo vs. 100 Agent Smiths" fight in Matrix 2, except that the Angel fights had more spins and flips, more annoying/distracting camera angles, and the participants behaved with even less regard for physics or attention to personal injury. They also reminded me of something I found so ridiculous and inauthentic about the light saber fights in Episode 1 and 2; no one was ever tired or even a little bit out of breath after a long fight/chase. Or sweaty. Or dirty. Or in pain. They'd grunt appropriately during the battles, but the second they were over the Angels and/or the bad guys were completely fine and back to normal, as though they'd just walked over from their trailer and posed while someone shouted, "Action!" Charlie's Angels did demonstrate something conclusively though; it's no longer important for the participants in a movie fight scene to have even the most rudimentary ability to fight. There wasn't a punch or a kick in the entire movie that appeared to be forceful enough to bruise a ripe peach, and I never got the feeling that anyone there could come out on top of a fight with a punching bag. It's just a form of dance now, carefully choreographed with wires and special effects, and being able to actually hit another person, bare-handed or with a weapon, is entirely irrelevant. Aside from the obvious wire-fu 20 feet leaping kicks, the most unrealistic ones were the simple roundhouse kicks, where one of the Angels would stand on one foot and kick someone's face with her other foot. Every time this was shown (it was shown a lot of times) you'd see one camera on the Angel's face, and another on the bad guy's face with a foot hitting it. There were no long shots, since that would require the participants to actually execute the move with some realism. I'm sure that Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu are all flexible enough to stand on one foot and put their other foot up next to a man's head, but they are clearly unable to do so with any power. Every time I'd see them kicking back and forth, with as much force as a cat's flicking tail, it reminded me of those old Bruce Lee movies, where he'd do that and knock people flying. Literally; it wasn't all effects, the man had such strength in his legs that he could stand on one foot, balance perfectly, and kick back and forth hard enough to leave you spitting teeth. Obviously everyone in a movie can't be a legendary deceased martial arts master, but you'd think with all of the cuts, camera angles, and blue screen special effects, they could at least be made to more closely resemble one. I suppose my biggest objection to Charlie's Angels, in retrospect, was how everything seemed so unimportant. I never had any doubt any of the good guys would survive their latest brush with death, I never had any doubt they wouldn't win in the end, and I never cared much one way or the other. There is not a single character in the movie who shows any actual emotion one way or the other, and not a single character who is believable as a real person. The three Angels are all obviously having fun playing a little acting game, the bad guys are gnashing their teeth and being bad, and the supporting boy toy interests are nothing but one-note foils for the Angels to interact with briefly, and then run back into action. I suppose this is sort of the ultimate in popcorn movie fun; crunchy while you're eating it, but full of empty calories, and you know you'll be hungry again an hour later. Originally posted June 28, 2004
June 29, 2004 The next day, a reader mailed in with some comments that have not previously been posted in the blog.
Based on this recommendation and my own dislike for Charlie's Angels 1, I think I'll be skipping the 2nd movie. Even if I see it at the library, it might be free to view, but that's still 90 minutes out of my life that I'll never get back. |
|
|
All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007. |
