On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 09:01:41AM -0700, Dave Cross wrote:
>
> From: "David H. Adler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 9/25/01 4:26:44 PM
>
> >On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:22:09AM -0700, Dave Cross wrote:
>
> [about Charlie's Angels]
>
> >> Greg recently persuaded me that this wasn't as bad as I
> >> thought it would be, so I watched it. He was _so_ wrong.
> >> Personally I need a bit more than 90 minutes of vaguely
> >> attractive young women doing kung fu in order to enjoy a
> >> film :)
> >
> > See, now, I happen to think there's more to it than
> > that. It's got a sense of humor about itself, if nothing
> > else. It's also possible that I got exposed to the
> > original series more than those of you over the other
> > side of the pond, so may have some odd kind of
> > appreciation for it.
>
> WARNING - The following is getting dangerously close to being
> a rant :)
>
> I saw _plenty_ of the series as I was growing up.
Ok. Wasn't sure if it really played over there. Of course, I'm still
smarting from skud's comment of "Oh, my grandfather watched that..." :-/
> I still enjoy it today. But only because it's an artifact of it's
> time. 25 years ago the majority of people _did_ think of women as
> clothes horses. I just get depressed that in the year 2000 we're
> making films that still perpertuate those ideas. There _are_ people
> who will argue that it's some kind of "post-feminist", "girl power"
> story when, in fact, it's the kind of thing that puts back the women's
> movement by a good fifteen years. Here's Joe Queenan writing on that
> very subject at the time the film came out:
[snip]
Although I like Joe's writing a lot, I don't always agree with him. I
think this may be one of those times. On the other hand, I don't really
have the time or urge to really think this all through to the extent I
would have to to actually argue it, so I'm happy to agree to disagree.
:-)
> > Besides, Cameron Diaz has *such* a lovely smile...
>
> She's a very talented comic actor and aftr seeing "Being John
> Malchovich[sp?]" I have great hopes for her. This doesn't, of
> course, mean that every film she's in will be worth watching.
True. And I agree that she's *very* good. I don't think she gets to do
enough really good stuff.
dha
--
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
* Nathan_Roberts screams out loud, "IS THIS ENTIRE CHANNEL COMPOSED
OF BOTS?!?!?"
<TheProf> Kill the human. - from the #drwhochat Quotefile
<http://www.crl.com/~nathanr/quote.html>
