Charlies Angels 2 :: Full Throttle

Moderators: Spartan, menime123

 

Postby S4BUK » Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:13 pm

Saw it today :P Its kinda cool, not as good as the first one although Cameron looks waaaay hotter!
User avatar
S4BUK
Manager
 
Posts: 3370
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002
Location: Brighton

Postby Virgostar » Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:45 am

I'm going to see it on Monday night...I have a new hatred for movie critics - they suck! This movie got 2 1/2 stars by one Sydney newspaper I was reading yesterday :( :roll: but hopefully I'll enjoy it more than they did....
Let's embrace the point of no return.
User avatar
Virgostar
Ex-Admin
 
Posts: 29063
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001
Location: Somewhere else.

Postby king_oxymoron » Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:40 am

Has anyone else noticed that is the advert clips Cameron is much more shown off than the other two?: You barely see Drew!
User avatar
king_oxymoron
Lickin' On Both Sides
 
Posts: 36927
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003
Location: Just alone with my thoughts...

Postby Jami » Fri Jul 04, 2003 10:24 am

I'm going to see this tomorrow...I'll probably like it. It's just one of those eye candy films. I'm looking forward to that Pussycat Dolls scene 8-)
User avatar
Jami
Superstar
 
Posts: 5905
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001
Location: Holland

Postby S4BUK » Fri Jul 04, 2003 12:55 pm

king_oxymoron wrote:Has anyone else noticed that is the advert clips Cameron is much more shown off than the other two?: You barely see Drew!
Its like that throughout the movie.
User avatar
S4BUK
Manager
 
Posts: 3370
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002
Location: Brighton

Postby aaliyah_fan » Fri Jul 04, 2003 3:39 pm

Bring out the balloons!We have yet another huge blockbuster on our hands.I wonder which film will be the biggest!?
"It's so COOOOOOOOOOOLD in the D."
User avatar
aaliyah_fan
Manager
 
Posts: 3705
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2002
Location: Sheffield, England

Postby Muzikritik » Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:32 pm

Critics suck. They like movies like 'American Beauty' and 'The House'. Charlie's Angels is just an action-packed fast-paced fun film wit plenty of fiiiiine women to stare at.

Likewise, the critically-ripped apart 2 Fast 2 Furious was just an action-packed fast-paced fun film wit plenty of cool cars to stare at!
User avatar
Muzikritik
Legend
 
Posts: 10269
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001
Location: Kiwi livin' (it up) in London

Postby Lynx » Sat Jul 05, 2003 2:55 am

Muzikritik,

Are you a 12-year old boy? The movie sucks BIG TIME, apart from lovely soundtrack by Pink. You will waste your money and time

Trust me. 8-)
Gotta hold on to..New Sensation...A New Sensation.
User avatar
Lynx
Manager
 
Posts: 2191
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002

Postby Dazzle » Sat Jul 05, 2003 4:22 pm

I dunno why im replying in both topics but :lol:
My mate saw this without me yesterday! He said it was brilliant!
I got a pirate DVD but the wuality is crap and I wanna see it with all the effects! :(
When you left I lost a part of me, It's still so hard to believe
Come back baby please cos We belong together

June 27th
User avatar
Dazzle
Legend
 
Posts: 20386
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002
Location: Jason's arms/Hugh Grant's face

Postby Jami » Sat Jul 05, 2003 11:43 pm

Lynx wrote:Muzikritik,

Are you a 12-year old boy? The movie sucks BIG TIME, apart from lovely soundtrack by Pink. You will waste your money and time

Trust me. 8-)
Erm, okay. YES SIR!! *salutes*

I saw it tonight and thought it was good, like I expected just a fun movie. Just like the first one.

Trust me. :-?
User avatar
Jami
Superstar
 
Posts: 5905
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001
Location: Holland

Postby San » Sat Jul 05, 2003 11:50 pm

Muzikritik wrote:Critics suck. They like movies like 'American Beauty' and 'The House'. Charlie's Angels is just an action-packed fast-paced fun film wit plenty of fiiiiine women to stare at.
The House WtF? you mean The Hours, cos that movie is amazing and Charlies Angels is nothing compared to..

And don't mess with American Beauty as it is one of the greatest movies of all time..

For those who got it acourse :wink:
User avatar
San
Manager
 
Posts: 4882
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002
Location: Puerto Rico

Postby Muzikritik » Sun Jul 06, 2003 4:31 am

I'm not saying American Beauty is bad in any way - a great movie, but it's not the "fun" that Charlie's Angels is.

And no Lynx, I aren't twelve!

I wanna see Charlies Angels 2 cos I like the first one - an hour and a half of fun is all I'm expecting. And so far, the soundtrack to the sequel sucks big time.
User avatar
Muzikritik
Legend
 
Posts: 10269
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001
Location: Kiwi livin' (it up) in London

Postby Lynx » Mon Jul 07, 2003 1:25 am

Jami wrote:Erm, okay. YES SIR!! *salutes*

I saw it tonight and thought it was good, like I expected just a fun movie. Just like the first one.

Trust me. :-?
eh, it's just boring . . . I wouldn't waste $$ on it. A home movie for boys n girls. What's new pussy cats whoa whoa whoa... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Trust me. 8-)
Gotta hold on to..New Sensation...A New Sensation.
User avatar
Lynx
Manager
 
Posts: 2191
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002

Postby Dazzle » Mon Jul 07, 2003 6:36 pm

I was gonna go and see this today but the cinema wasnt open! :(
Dammit! Im gonna end up going on my own if I have to! :o
When you left I lost a part of me, It's still so hard to believe
Come back baby please cos We belong together

June 27th
User avatar
Dazzle
Legend
 
Posts: 20386
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002
Location: Jason's arms/Hugh Grant's face

Postby Muzikritik » Mon Jul 07, 2003 8:21 pm

Goin to see it today! I saw the first one again on sunday and it's so fun, it's one I can watch over and over! So I'm all psyched up for the second installment!
User avatar
Muzikritik
Legend
 
Posts: 10269
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001
Location: Kiwi livin' (it up) in London

Postby S4BUK » Mon Jul 07, 2003 8:46 pm

I saw it for the second time today...Its really FUN, I liked it more this time...the girls are fantastic and its basically one big massive 'P!ss take'...You need a sense of humour though!
User avatar
S4BUK
Manager
 
Posts: 3370
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002
Location: Brighton

Postby Dazzle » Mon Jul 07, 2003 9:00 pm

S4BUK wrote:You need a sense of humour though!
Dammit! :cry:
When you left I lost a part of me, It's still so hard to believe
Come back baby please cos We belong together

June 27th
User avatar
Dazzle
Legend
 
Posts: 20386
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002
Location: Jason's arms/Hugh Grant's face

Postby Jami » Mon Jul 07, 2003 10:40 pm

Lynx wrote:eh, it's just boring . . . I wouldn't waste $$ on it. A home movie for boys n girls. What's new pussy cats whoa whoa whoa... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Trust me. 8-)
Eh, you sound patronising. I don't like that.
User avatar
Jami
Superstar
 
Posts: 5905
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001
Location: Holland

Postby Virgostar » Tue Jul 08, 2003 2:31 am

I didn't end up seeing it last night, but might go and see it during the week....unfortunately it's being panned here, but I don't care, I'm not expecting something worthy of an Oscar from the movie......
Let's embrace the point of no return.
User avatar
Virgostar
Ex-Admin
 
Posts: 29063
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001
Location: Somewhere else.

Postby Muzikritik » Tue Jul 08, 2003 7:35 pm

Lynx wrote:eh, it's just boring . . . I wouldn't waste $$ on it. A home movie for boys n girls. What's new pussy cats whoa whoa whoa... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Trust me. 8-)
Went to see it yesterday! Woooooo! Boring? Hell no! I haven't had so much fun sitting on my arse for 2 hours in ages than when I was watching Lucy, Drew and Cameron kick some bad-guy-ass! I didn't waste any money on CA2:FT because it gave me what I wanted - and more, and it's so much better to see on a big screen than what I imagine it'd look like on a small screen.

The two movies compliment eachother, and personally, I'm hoping for a series of these brilliant movies!
User avatar
Muzikritik
Legend
 
Posts: 10269
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001
Location: Kiwi livin' (it up) in London

Postby S4BUK » Tue Jul 08, 2003 8:05 pm

I Agree, It is a really Fun Movie, the film itself isn't taken seriously which adds to the humour! and as for Cameron Diaz....Whoa!
User avatar
S4BUK
Manager
 
Posts: 3370
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002
Location: Brighton

Postby Muzikritik » Thu Jul 10, 2003 5:52 am

OK, a question I wanted to pose to you guys. Do you think each Angel got their fair share? Much has been made of the fact that each girl got a signficiantly different pay cheque.

For Charlie's Angels, the salaries were:
Cameron Diaz- 12 million
Drew Barrymore- 9 million (plus a % of gross, for producing)
Lucy Liu- 1 million

... and for Charlie's Angels Full Throttle, they got:
Cameron Diaz- 20 million
Drew Barrymore- 14 million
Lucy Liu- 4 million

and Demi Moore also got 2 million.

Is it fair?

---------------------

I guess for the first one it was. Even though they all had to do the same stuff, it was paid out according to Box Office draw. Seeing as Cameron had the most B.O. success (hehe) she got paid more. Fair enough. But for the sequel, which was a guaranteed hit even before filming, I think the girls shoulda got the same (save for Drew, who gets a % of the gross for producing). I mean, people were gonna see the sequel regardless of whether Cameron was in it or not. I think Lucy got screwed, personally.
User avatar
Muzikritik
Legend
 
Posts: 10269
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001
Location: Kiwi livin' (it up) in London

Postby Smiles » Fri Jul 11, 2003 12:36 am

Firstly, I loved the movie and I personally thought it was better than the first one. They were classic! A lot of the jokes had me laughing for ages. Although I do have one comment (which leads into my second point!), I think that a Cameron gets a LOT more recognition then Lucy or Drew....

Muzikritik wrote:Do you think each Angel got their fair share?
Well, no I dont think they get there fair share. Obviously for one of the reasons being money. How can they justify giving Cameron Diaz more than Lucy or Drew? They are all key roles in the movie!
Smile though your heart is aching......
Smile even though its breaking!

It's not my fault!!!! My mouth has a mind of its own!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Smiles
Manager
 
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002
Location: New Zealand

Postby Tiger » Fri Jul 11, 2003 6:48 am

Muzikritik wrote:OK, a question I wanted to pose to you guys. Do you think each Angel got their fair share? Much has been made of the fact that each girl got a signficiantly different pay cheque.

For Charlie's Angels, the salaries were:
Cameron Diaz- 12 million
Drew Barrymore- 9 million (plus a % of gross, for producing)
Lucy Liu- 1 million

... and for Charlie's Angels Full Throttle, they got:
Cameron Diaz- 20 million
Drew Barrymore- 14 million
Lucy Liu- 4 million

and Demi Moore also got 2 million.

Is it fair?
One word: HELL NO! Ok that was 2 :lol:
But my point being Lucy got soooooooo little, I mean IMO she's much better than Drew and prob just a *bit* less famous! Not 10 million less famous!

And I think Drew deserves more than Cameron personally as well, Cameron hasn't had a hit in years
These foolish games are tearing me apart

My CHART
User avatar
Tiger
Lover Of (Mostly) Everything Pop
 
Posts: 50980
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001
Location: Israel

Postby S4BUK » Fri Jul 11, 2003 12:20 pm

Tiger wrote:One word: HELL NO! Ok that was 2 :lol:
But my point being Lucy got soooooooo little, I mean IMO she's much better than Drew and prob just a *bit* less famous! Not 10 million less famous!

And I think Drew deserves more than Cameron personally as well, Cameron hasn't had a hit in years
Are you Kidding? Drew has done 41* Films, Lucy has done 15* films and Cameron has done 24 (And not had a hit in years? Gangs Of New York? The Sweetest Thing? , Shrek?, Vanilla Sky?)

Granted, Cameron hasn't done as many films as Drew, but Cameron is a more successful actress, almost anything she touches turns to gold.
User avatar
S4BUK
Manager
 
Posts: 3370
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002
Location: Brighton

Return to Movies