Needless to say, I wasn't the only one sucked in by the Charlie's Angels marketing campaign. With an estimated $40 million opening, the chick action flick surpassed even studio expectations. We'll start off today's edition of Civilian Voices with some mini-reviews from our readers, who also have a few things to say about great performances, worst films, and the potentially big box office for Unbreakable. First up, John H...

"Charlie's Angels... where to begin. Yes, it's mind-numbingly stupid. Yes, it has way too much wire fu. Yes, its main attraction is Cameron Diaz's shaking a**. But I'll be damned if I wasn't smiling the whole way through. "A friend and I continually debate about whether film should simply entertain or reach for something more than that. He stands in the corner asking for films to entertain him, to give him a break and have a good time. Usually I'm in the other corner, but I do see the merits of mindless entertainment sometimes. My friend would love Charlie's Angels. "I feel like, given an ample forum, I could spend hours ripping this movie to shreds. But I had too much fun watching it to subject it to that. Almost everything surprised me here. Who would have expected Crispin Glover (aka George McFly) to be one of the cooler villains of the year? Who would have expected Tom Green to make me belly laugh every time he said "the Chad"? Who would have expected that two grown men in rubber sumo suits nonsensically knocking into each other would make the whole audience cry out in laughter? Not me. "Yes, it has corny lines. Yes, it felt like a bunch of sequences just thrown together to look cool. But if anyone walks out giving this film a hard time, throw one of Lucy Liu's blueberry muffins at them and tell them to lighten up."  --John Haubrich

Shawn F., who is starting to become a familiar voice here at CV, has a similar point of view about the Angels, as well as a few picks for best performances and worst movies ever..

"We can sit here all day and pick apart everything that’s wrong with Charlie’s Angels (the script; the overkill on the high-tech martial arts; the cumbersome, music-video style direction, etc.), but in the end, two things are known: it's useless to pick apart something like this (we're not talking Schindler’s List here kids) and, overall, it's a harmless piece of $92 million fluff. Cameron Diaz is great; Bill Murray (while sadly underused) is hilarious as always; and it's great to see Crispin Glover back on screen, looking evil and kicking up a storm. In short: turn brain off and laugh while you are there. "As for top performances of the year, we should look to another trio of thespian angels: Ellen Burstyn (Requiem for a Dream), Julia Roberts (Erin Brockovich), and Bjork (Dancer in the Dark). Each of these actresses brings depth and dignity to her performance with the greatest of ease. As for actors? Hmmmm. Russell Crowe brought quite a bit to his "Mad Maximus" role in Gladiator; Albert Finney offered superb support to Ms. Roberts in Erin Brockovich; and Willem Dafoe is award-worthy as Max Schreck in Shadow of the Vampire. "As for the worst film of all time; boy, that is really hard to say. There have been so many terrible films, it would be hard to choose one. Sure, you could go with Plan 9 from Outer Space, but that is too easy. How about something like The Avengers? Or Inchon? Or even my pick for the worst film of the 1990s, The Bonfire of the Vanities? Those are three turkeys that always bring pain to my soul when I think of them." --Shawn Fitzgerald

Paul D. didn't find Charlie's Angels quite as much fun. But he does think the upcoming Unbreakable has what it takes to be big at the box office..

"I want to comment on two movies. First, Charlie's Angels. What a waste of time and money. It ranks right up there with Mission: Impossible 2 and Gone in 60 Seconds as the year’s worst big-budget action movie. It blatantly ripped off The Matrix for its entire running time. There was enough slow motion for 20 Van Damme movies. Add to that a pathetic story, an even worse script, and horrible, way-over-the-top acting, and you've got yourself an awful movie. (By the way, why wasn't it released during the summer?) And speaking of Mission: Impossible 2, both it and Charlie's Angels received positive reviews from Owen Gleiberman in Entertainment Weekly. Is he on the studio payroll? "As for Unbreakable, it will be big for a few reasons. Number one is that the trailer grabs your attention and still gives away nothing. Number two, saying 'from the writer and director of The Sixth Sense' is a huge deal. People didn't see that movie for the kid. They saw it for the ending. That is obvious. The kid was just an added bonus. Number three, the combination of Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson. In case anyone hasn't noticed, that is a lot of star power. The two of them will be able to open a movie together, and it comes out on a long weekend. Repeat business will depend on whether or not it's good, and that's up to M. Night Shyamalan. But it will at least open big and will probably make a ton of money." --Paul Doro

And finally, Jeff responds to Joe Lieberman's recent letter to the entertainment industry. (You can read the letter at hollywoodreporter.com.) ...

"Dear Sen. Joe Lieberman, I am writing to you and other morally judgmental public servants appealing for your cooperation in allowing good old-fashioned democracy to prevail over your own self-imposed, subjective standards of decency. As you well know, music, movies, and video games are no more prone to result in moral delinquency than are books. Yet I cannot recall you ever advocating a ratings system for literature. Might this artistic-medium favoritism have anything to do with your fear and embarrassment over potentially being forced to rate the Bible's more gruesome chapters anything other than 'General Admission'? 'The Good Book' is, after all, mass marketed to children like nobody's business and filled with more dead bodies than The Sixth Sense. Why the dual standard, Joe? Do you not just choke on your own hypocrisy while teenagers, prevented from seeing American Psycho at the theaters, are fully capable of buying Bret Easton Ellis's novel at local bookstores or even checking it out from the library? Then again, perhaps I am failing to give your bureaucratic predisposition to abuse power enough credit. Maybe it is your every intention to legislate and bully ratings systems into effect for everything from books to Websites to paintings, sculptures, operas, plays, and puppet shows. We don't want some kid running off half-cocked, going on a murder spree after catching an unrated "Punch and Judy" show now do we? We must protect the children. Yes. Must protect the children... Legislative nannying is good work if you can get it, huh Joe? In your open letter to Hollywood, you request 'lower levels of glorified violence and crude sexuality.' Now, who precisely determines what qualifies as 'crude' and what passes for 'glorified'? Is bloodless violence okay, such as in Mission: Impossible 2? Or do we go by a straight body count, hence restricting most of Ishiro Honda’s Godzilla films? And while I would make the argument that the sexuality in Coyote Ugly is cruder than in Romance, somehow I strongly suspect you would disagree. Unlike you and your parental crusade, I do not feign to speak for anyone but myself. Often Hollywood disappoints my values and intelligence, but not nearly as frequently as those in your profession. Sincerely, Jeff"

Anyone else care to respond to Lieberman's letter? Have a mini-review of Charlie's Angels you'd like to share with your fellow readers? Additional nominees for best performances of the year or worst movies ever? And how do you feel about this weekend's movie choices? Will you be seeing Charlie's Angels or Meet the Parents again, or will you be headed to Little Nicky, Men of Honor, or Red Planet? Let us know what your weekend pick is going to be.

Pop Quiz: What's the one thing more important than making your voice heard here at Civilian Voices? Making your voice heard at the polls. Don't forget to vote!

 

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.