Posted on 11/16/2019 9:18:49 AM PST by EdnaMode
Hollywood had gone the way of Saturday night live.
They used to put out a product that sold all over the country, but eventually made a product that only appealed to themselves. Hope they enjoy their “successes”.
Then you'd have to watch Star Trek Beyond ;-)
I did see the Charlie’s Angels flick over the weekend. Here’s the rundown:
Most of the woke elements were in the very beginning and end of the movie. The opening has Kristen Stewart give this opening monologue about how women can do anything (she’s in disguise and talking to this guy who’s trying to put the moves on her). There are other moments: a male boss arrogantly dismisses Naomi Scott (she plays an employee who’s trying to warn her boss about a flaw in a energy source she helped invent), Naomi Scott is later told “to smile” by a male security guard, and there’s a montage at the opening of the film of women and teenage girls doing all kinds of sports and other activities to beat it into your head that this flick is about FEMALE EMPOWERMENT!!
And by the way, did you know Ruth Bader Ginsburg was (or is secretly) one of the angels? It’s in the last flurry of scenes in the film. It’s mentioned she skydived out of a plane at one point during an angels training session. This is the third time I’ve seen a recent movie that references her; the other two were kids movies (The Lego Movie 2 and Dora and the City of Gold). It was a really stupid moment.
Mostly, the problems I had with this movie were in the direction and the script. This is the first time Elizabeth Banks has directed an action flick and it really shows. There’s a shoot out at a café and an ensuing car chase and it’s not easy to tell what’s going on. You’ll be asking yourself “Huh?” a few times over the course of the whole sequence. The directing quality picks up a little in later fight scenes, but at times I could have used some more wide shots to properly discern just what was going on.
I also thought the script was clunky and unfocused. It wasn’t easy to tell at times who the angels were supposed to be fighting against (The company that Naomi Scott’s character works for wants to weaponize the energy source she helped invent, but it’s not always clear which faction in the company is involved). There is a twist that reveals the true bad guy but it feels labored and if it a different party was involved, it would have made far more sense.
I actually was okay with Kristen Stewart’s nutty as a fruitcake character. Some of her lines were funny, but it just drew attention to the fact that with a better scriptwriter she could have been truly memorable. I also thought Naomi Scott was adorable (I also liked her in the Disney live-action Aladdin and the 2017 Power Rangers flick).
But as an action flick, it’s very subpar and completely unremarkable. I’ve seen a ton of movies that do what this movie did a lot better.
I think a large percentage of movie goers are couples and families. I think an increasing percentage of men are refusing to spend THEIR money on male-bashing films, which I would regard as a good sign.
Yeah. Just haven’t gotten around to that one, either. :-P
How’d you end up seeing it ? Did you lose a bet ? :-P
Any movie that makes Patrick Stewart the bad guy sux.
#126 sullen, unisex feminazis clones
That is it. The actors both men and women come across as sullen clones.
I never saw the Drew Berrymore one, I remember people were offended they didn’t use guns. But I recently saw a comedic review of it and it actually looked entertaining.
This one? Princess Jasmine is nice looking but it looks like a waste of time.
I dunno, he was the bad guy in Conspiracy Theory and that movie was pretty awesome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.