When you see a film review containing the words What the picture represents, in a very real way, is the death of cinema you know you have to go and see it. Especially as I was planning to anyway.
Well, I loved the first one, so unless the second one isn't as good (always a possibility) and doesn't live up to the trailers (which were excellent), I'll probably be happy.
It may just be that we have different taste in movies, too :-)
I can't think of any thing in the theatre's I want to see, right now . . . I did enjoy dumb and dumber-er . . . if only for seeing Bob Sagat say "shit" 8 or 9 hundred times.
It was well beyond stupid . . . a genre my wife and I tend to gravitate toward. We go for the brainy artsy films . . . and the mindlessly unredeamable ones.
I have to admit to being somewhat similar. I need films that are either serious, and treat themselves seriously, or films that refuse to do so.
So I loved Armageddeon because it refused to take itself at all seriously, The Bourne Identity because it never showed me anything I couldn't believe, and Charlies Angels because it was amazingly cool and completely unbelievable all the way through.
All of them were obviously written by smart people - either smart ones trying to draw me into something, or smart ones having a good time. Films that expect me to take them seriously while presenting something that's completely unbelievable aren't interesting to me at all (most action movies, for instance).
I completely agree with you about both the first Charlie's Angels movie (which I enjoyed and found better than I expected) and any of the alleged comedies like Dumb and Dumberer - modern humor often baffled and appalls me.
I knew the first CA movie would be fluff, with was very pleased to see that it was surprisingly well-intentioned and well-executed fluff, which exceeded my expectations - I primary went to it because my friend Dawn wanted to go, and she is excellent at providing a deeply amusing running commentary for dubious films (which was thing that made seeing Bulletproof Monk at all tolerable.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I don't intend on it, at least not intentionally. I doubt there's any thing offered in the movie, aside from bikini-shots.
no subject
I'll let you know :->
no subject
I can't think of any thing in the theatre's I want to see, right now . . . I did enjoy dumb and dumber-er . . . if only for seeing Bob Sagat say "shit" 8 or 9 hundred times.
no subject
no subject
I liked phone booth.
no subject
So I loved Armageddeon because it refused to take itself at all seriously, The Bourne Identity because it never showed me anything I couldn't believe, and Charlies Angels because it was amazingly cool and completely unbelievable all the way through.
All of them were obviously written by smart people - either smart ones trying to draw me into something, or smart ones having a good time.
Films that expect me to take them seriously while presenting something that's completely unbelievable aren't interesting to me at all (most action movies, for instance).
no subject
I knew the first CA movie would be fluff, with was very pleased to see that it was surprisingly well-intentioned and well-executed fluff, which exceeded my expectations - I primary went to it because my friend Dawn wanted to go, and she is excellent at providing a deeply amusing running commentary for dubious films (which was thing that made seeing Bulletproof Monk at all tolerable.