Anyone agree or disagree?

[fgadmin]

ShepherdSpy — 16 years ago(January 06, 2010 08:56 PM)

Fun Movie,beep Oirish Accents,tho..
If Book was in Intelligence B4 finding God,does that mean He's a Shepherd Spy? (Thank You,Spike..)

[fgadmin]

moviestar26 — 16 years ago(January 07, 2010 07:52 AM)

This movie was better than the original. The only element lacking however was Bill Murray.
Anyway what was with the irish accent ?. It was making Justin appear pathetic. What was the need for it ?.

[fgadmin]

ShepherdSpy — 16 years ago(January 07, 2010 02:18 PM)

Only that He and his Gang represented the "Oirish Mob"
If Book was in Intelligence B4 finding God,does that mean He's a Shepherd Spy? (Thank You,Spike..)

[fgadmin]

moviestar26 — 16 years ago(January 08, 2010 08:03 AM)

That was a bad idea.

[fgadmin]

Global_Warming_is_a_Hoax — 16 years ago(March 16, 2010 12:46 PM)

I happen to agree with the OP. I had to watch the two films plus a few episodes of the series for an extra credit project for one of my classes and I found that the sequel was much better than the original 2000 film in so many ways! One of the problems for me was Bill Murray. He is much too dry. He's more funny if he's given a role to be funny in (if that makes sense). Seems like the directors wanted him to be funny in a "hey, it's Bill Murray" way. And it just didn't connect right. Bernie Mac was much better for the role in my opinion.
The second one also involved their personal lives more, so we get to know the characters a lot better. The first one seemed like it was focused a lot on the crime and fight scenes and was a bit too intense.
But over everything, the series was much better than the movies!

[fgadmin]

moviestar26 — 16 years ago(March 18, 2010 08:38 AM)

This movie was more high on the style elements. However I would still had prefered Bill Murray to Bernie Mac.

[fgadmin]

Desertman84 — 15 years ago(April 09, 2010 07:45 PM)

The first movie was a lot better compared to this movie. But overall, the Charlie's Angels TV series was a lot better as compared to both movies.

[fgadmin]

moviestar26 — 15 years ago(April 13, 2010 08:05 AM)

This was more high in terms of style and action rather than on the plot.

[fgadmin]

IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

[fgadmin]

IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

[fgadmin]

Rena_Mahone — 11 years ago(October 09, 2014 04:25 PM)

I kind of agree. It was rougher than the first, I enjoyed it even more.
Boycott movies that involve real animal violence (& their directors)

[fgadmin]

IMDB_Vits — 11 years ago(December 30, 2014 03:53 PM)

CHARLIE
'S ANGELS: 7/10
CHARLIE
'S ANGELS 2: 4/10

[fgadmin]

Seth_Rogue_One — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 04:39 AM)

I rated them exactly the same as you
Check out Fresh Nugs, wheezin' the juice

[fgadmin]

Seth_Rogue_One — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 04:40 AM)

Disagree the original had a somehwat coherent plot this is just all over the place, I guess if you got ADD you might appreciate it more tho But others will find it ridicolous
Check out Fresh Nugs, wheezin' the juice