So, Kong took up the chance to see the second Charlie's Angels film last night, and he wasn't dissappointed. That's not to say that Kong actually liked the film, but that the film wasn't any worse than Kong expected. What was Kong expecting? Just a rehash of the first installment with a couple new faces, and costumes.
Cameron Diaz, Lucy Lui, and Drew Barrymore once again compromise the crime fighting trio known as Charlie's Angels, and once again they prance about in tight-fitting, stylish outfits while karate chopping fauxhawked fiends. Some would say that this is simply harmless fun, and, to a point, it is. The problem with the film is that its transparency can only last for a few scenes; it's not long before we notice that the "fun" is little more than a veil covering up a gaping void in the film's storytelling. Worse yet is that McG, the movie's director, knows this. He realizes the visceral excitement lacks tension, the convoluted plot lacks intrigue, and that much of the humor lacks originality but McG doesn't care. He is apathetic to these things. The idea is that sex appeal and style are enough to entertain, and that these qualities don't need a strong foundation to hold them up. For some viewers this might be true, but for Kong it's not.
If Charlie's Angels were told in a clever way and with a plot that was, at the very least, interesting, it might hold up. Unfortunately, the film's contrivances and convolutions end up weighing heavier than its other qualities and the film progresses from slightly amusing absentminded eyecandy to tiresomely absurd Martix wannabe action and finally to aggravatingly shallow nothingness disguised as fun under the auspices T&A.
** of ****
Cameron Diaz, Lucy Lui, and Drew Barrymore once again compromise the crime fighting trio known as Charlie's Angels, and once again they prance about in tight-fitting, stylish outfits while karate chopping fauxhawked fiends. Some would say that this is simply harmless fun, and, to a point, it is. The problem with the film is that its transparency can only last for a few scenes; it's not long before we notice that the "fun" is little more than a veil covering up a gaping void in the film's storytelling. Worse yet is that McG, the movie's director, knows this. He realizes the visceral excitement lacks tension, the convoluted plot lacks intrigue, and that much of the humor lacks originality but McG doesn't care. He is apathetic to these things. The idea is that sex appeal and style are enough to entertain, and that these qualities don't need a strong foundation to hold them up. For some viewers this might be true, but for Kong it's not.
If Charlie's Angels were told in a clever way and with a plot that was, at the very least, interesting, it might hold up. Unfortunately, the film's contrivances and convolutions end up weighing heavier than its other qualities and the film progresses from slightly amusing absentminded eyecandy to tiresomely absurd Martix wannabe action and finally to aggravatingly shallow nothingness disguised as fun under the auspices T&A.
** of ****