Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle

Felix's First Rule of Movies states that "films are always better on their opening weekend". Well, if that's true, then maybe there's a case for adding Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle to the Ten Worst Films of All Time list. Because I went to see it this weekend, and it was really bad.

The good news, insofar as there is any, is that the gross for the sequel was lower than the opening weekend of the original – something which rarely happens with Hollywood blockbusters. This gives me some hope: that a franchise can't just exist in thin air, as it were, but actually needs some kind of structure behind it if it is to succeed.

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, you see, is a bit like the Scream films: its primary interest is in spoofing the competition. Unlike the Scream franchise, however, it seems to have forgotten that there has to be some substance to the film as well. The tipping-of-the-cap to just about every action movie ever made is all well and good, but ultimately only serves to remind us how good many of the referenced films are, especially in contrast to the incoherent mess we're currently stuck with.

The tone is set in the pre-credit sequence, which does a great job quoting everything from Raiders of the Lost Ark to three or four different Bond films, but which ends with a CGI sequence of such physical impossibility that the eponymous girls are essentially treated as superheroes. If they can do that, then to all intents and purposes they are untouchable, immortal, safe from any harm. Which, of course, makes the rest of the movie utterly pointless, since there's no dramatic tension any more.

I'm not sure this wasn't deliberate. Freed from the mundane necessities of plot, tension or character development, the director, McG, can indulge whatever visual fantasies he likes. Cameron Diaz doing a striptease with the aid of her two fellow Angels? Throw it in there. In fact, let's have all three Angels completely naked at one point, especially since we can do a bit of Terminator-quoting at the same time! Demi Moore in a swimsuit? And then later with Face/Off-style gold-plated handguns? Yeah, baby!

The worst thing about Matrix Reloaded was that the action sequences, although technically impressive, carried no emotional punch. Keanu fighting baddies isn't interesting, because we know the outcome in advance: he always wins. (Only when Keanu's quite literally out of the picture, during the car chase, do things really get exciting.) In Charlie's Angels, the goodies have a few more setbacks along the way, but there also aren't any really cool sequences, either. There's a very long motocross chase which even the insertion of bullet-time cinematography in the middle can't save, and by the time we reach the end of the film, we're bored stupid. Cheap jokes are only funny when they serve to defuse tension: without tension, they're just juvenile.

Although it has long been commonplace to pan the Hollywood blockbuster as brainless escapism, in fact the most successful films in the genre do have structure, plot, and even some semblance of a narrative arc. Part of the reason that The Matrix became such an important film was that it didn't shy away from big ideas; they added to the excitement of seeing action in a whole new way. Spiderman was a mess, but at least it told a story; dreck like Tomb Raider, on the other hand, is much less successful because it tries to replace plot with action sequences. And Charlie's Angels, with nary an exciting or memorable action sequence in the whole film, tries to replace plot with post-modern appropriation and pre-modern jokes.

What I'm hoping is that the disappointing box-office performance of Charlie's Angels will help drive Hollywood back to action-movie basics. Some of the greatest action films of all time (Die Hard, Speed) have actually had very little in the way of high-budget set-piece stunts: there are maybe one or two in all. What they have instead is a focused directorial vision, a taut structure, and a rapt audience. By contrast, you can wander out of Charlie's Angels and come back half an hour later without missing anything important: that's bad in any movie.

Indiana Jones and James Bond can be funny because they've earned it. For one thing, both heroes always suffer during the course of their movies; none of the Angels ever does. If Indy is a well-marbled steak, then the Angels are nothing but fat: all flavour and no muscle. I think I speak for millions of moviegoers when I say we want something meatier.

Posted by Felix at 19:01 EST

Comments

You know, I wanted to see "Power Puff Girls" on film and never did. Somehow I imagine it being much better than Angels. And with a little luck, Tarantino's next flick "Kill Bill" might be a juicy alternative to mindless porn like "Charlie's Angels" (porn is totally fine when it's porn, but there was nothing left to the Angels film except T&A and bad jokes). I want to see real girl power... perhaps I must dabble in Hong Kong flicks for the serious stuff. I also tip my hat to Geena Davis and Jamie Lee Curtis for earlier chickita action felines in exciting and fun summer blockbusters.

Posted by: Michelle at 22:40 EST, June 30, 2003

I saw the Powerpuff Girls movie in the theater. I went with two girlfriends, and at the ticket desk, I was standing near some children. When I asked for "three tickets," the associate said, "Two children, one adult?" "Uh, no, actually three adults."

Anyway, PPG movie is fun, though a little too long, even at 80 minutes. The show, however, is rad.

My three useless cents.

Posted by: Jen at 11:37 EST, July 02, 2003

Agree without reservation. What irritated me the most of all was the constant feeling that the three of them were having a fine old time without bothering to include us in the joke. Oh, and Cameron Diaz's over-muscled stomach is really gross.

Posted by: Matthew at 13:39 EST, July 12, 2003