25 October 2000

And while Drew & Co. clearly wanted to make a movie that brought the sense of fun and self-empowerment that Drew and Cameron and eventually, Lucy, had together, it is one of those situations where there was probably more fun going on in the make-up trailer than there was on screen. When the three stars appeared at the press conference style print/Internet junket (Diaz apologized sweetly, but it was inexcusable for a film this size), it was hard to get in their faces and explain to them that whatever their intention, Charlie's Angels is going to play like a high-end version of Coyote Ugly with a lot of explosions thrown in as a kicker. Watching sexy women do high kicks, expose their boobs, twirl their hair, shake their a**es and use sex to get what they want is pretty iffy as a feminist statement. But how do you accuse Cameron Diaz of allowing herself to be treated as a piece of meat, dancing around in a skimpy top and boys underwear, when she explains that that scene was an homage to Drew's real life tendency to start booty-call dancing at the drop of a hat? It's sweet. It's adorable. But when the movie comes out, it's why teenage boys (and older boys) will be looking for a digitized version of the scene on the Web in a room with curtains and a lock on the door. With Drew's boobs hanging out as she auto-fellates a steering wheel, what image of a powerful woman do we get? I know it was fun to be ultra-sexual on the set...but is that sense of fun translating? And what about the ultra-smart Lucy Liu shacking up (literally) with the world's dumbest actor? What's the message there? It's good to be with a piece of a**, whatever the sex? The end credits of the film have the girls and Bill Murray romping in the surf in a scene most reminiscent of Bo Derek's Tarzan, The Ape Man, though you can see how they cut away from any cold water-induced excess exposure of the stars.

The most frustrating thing about Charlie's Angels is that, thanks to a lot (A LOT!) of editing, I can see what this movie could have been...what it wanted to be. I can see that the movie that Drew dreamed of was not impossible. I am trying to avoid any kind of review here -- in fact, I just deleted about 300 words on the director and storyline -- so let me limit my comments, for now, to one example: When Tom Cruise was dropped into a secure place on wires in Mission: Impossible, he was wearing a tight shirt and tight pants, you may have noticed good-looking Tom, but you remembered the sequence. When Cameron Diaz flips through a similarly guarded room in a white head-to-toe leotard, the only memorable thing is watching that incredible body gliding through the air. If you remembered the body and the reason she was there, it might have worked the way Drew dreamed of it working. Instead, you get a T&A&H fest...it's all about Cameron's butt, Drew's boobs and Lucy's hair. Like Hudson Hawk, the memory will be about what a good time the people making the movie had. On the other hand, this will be a much bigger financial success than Hudson Hawk. If Coyote Ugly could do $60 million with no stars, this should be able to do $100 million easily. Which means that the heavy laying heads at Columbia should survive this one...which means that I have been wrong about this being the Sony guillotine. So let them eat cake.

Both of these films are romps by very successful actors who like to hang out with their friends on their sets and have a good time. That has translated to the audience in the past. In these two cases, it doesn't. And that's why I was depressed. It is a rare ting for me to feel, but I want for these two actors what they want. You can save the bitchy e-mails suggesting I should not. I do. And it's no fun to see people who you want to succeed and who had good intentions fail...even if it is artistic failure and not financial. Even though these two make lighter movies, I like the idea of them succeeding in the spirit intended just as I do any indie filmmaker or even a guy like Altman or Scorsese...it's just when the bar is a little lower, it should be even easier to hop over.

But the enthusiasm...especially on Angels...there is part of it that is self-salesmanship, but part of it is real...there is part of these folks that really hope that all that work made magic...there is the memory of the heavy lifting of making a movie and the satisfaction of having survived...there is still possibility. And you wonder when that will be shattered or whether it ever will be. And like a parent watching a child go through the inevitable pain that first love will bring, you stand outside, illusions already shattered and know that you can never explain it away...and probably shouldn't try.

Sigh.

READER OF THE DAY: C3 writes: "What a brilliant smokescreen the theaters are now putting up to claim they are "family safe." They won't show R-rated movie trailers before PG-13 movies. This is all nice and mighty, but what are they going to do about trailers that feature the classic phrase, "This Film Has Yet to Be Rated"? Will they make a judgment call that the film is R or PG-13? Is The Klumps a trailer for a PG-13 or an R rated film? Looked like an R-rated comedy to me. But it wasn't.

This trailer policy will give the studios more of a reason to send their films to the MPAA for the "voluntary rating" at the last minute so they won't have to worry about their movies being banished to the marketing wasteland. If the film isn't rated until a couple weeks before the release date, the studio can their R-rated film during Rugrats. The studos can claim they didn't realize the final cut would be an R-rated film. And the theaters can say that they didn't run the trailer when it became an R-rated film."

E ME: What disappoints you?