The Politics from the Stars of the "Charlie's Angels" Movie & the Upcoming Sequel

Lets put it this way, if Drew wants to be a veggie or Cameron wants to drive electric powered cars and be a devoted environmentlist and what not then so be (more power time). The main concern that I have is when celebrities seriously feel the need to impose their beliefs upon all of us. It's almost as if they're on the verge of risking alienation towards half of their fan base and the paying public. A perfect example of this is when Lucy, Drew, and Cameron went on MTV's "TRL" and tried to hype up the importance of voting. No big deal right!? Well they were doing it while wearing matching t-shirts that read "I Won't Vote for a Son of a Bush!" Frankly, that act was purely hypocritical, selfish, and maybe even a bit childish. I would've had far more respect for them if they simply said "I believe that Al Gore or vice-versa is the right man for the job!" and left it like that rather than make such a pretentious show (while likely abusing their powers as de-facto role models) about what we should do during the election.

Personally, I almost want to get a little bit offended when I see people like Drew & "Miss Environment" Cameron Diaz rant about various social issues that you've read about in the opening as if they're much worldly than all of us since they're in the public eye. Frankly, it's almost asinine for Drew to force her political beliefs or what not and/or the importance of certain issues upon all of us when she herself can't be the most righteous person in the around! Lets put it this way, she maybe a big movie star and have more money than I can ever dream of. But I might as well surpass her in the I have a bigger conscious. Lets put it this way, while Drew wants to be self-righteous about guns and the importance of voting, unlike her, I never did drugs (especially before I hit the age of 13), I never had two failed marriages before I hit the age of 30, I never dropped out of grade school, and I ever had to get a legal separation from my parents. Even if she did change her act for the better, that still doesn't mean that I at the very least can trust her. What seriously bothers me was that there was a period of time in which Drew acted as if she was trying to pander and show examples of responsilibity young people as if to reach a greater audience (particularly pre-teens). So she shows up on Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards shows (Drew even won the award for Favorite Actress for "Charlie's Angels"), she makes the family friendly "Olive, the Other Raindeer" TV special, when she hosts "SNL" she talks about the variety of dumb things that she did since the first time that she hosted 15 or so years before during the monologue etc., etc., etc.

But then comes the following year as we get towards the main subject of the conversation (which was a movie that Drew *produced*). Lets look at the stats for Drew's character shall we:

*We see brief flashback footage of Dylan as a recruit and she punches her "drill sergeant" instructor in the face (after tiring of him badgering her).

*Knox turns out to be a bad guy who tries to kill Dylan (and

*We see Dylan at a younger age and she gives "the finger" to the camera. thinks he's succeeded), and Vivian turns out to be his criminal accomplice who fights the Angels. Meanwhile, the mute Thin Man works for them and fights/tries to harm/kill the Angels.

*We see part of Dylan's bare hip (as well as lipstick smeared across her face) as she sleeps in Chad's bed (suggesting they slept together). When she gets up, he states that they can have breakfast and then maybe "a little Chad."

*Dylan shows a great deal of cleavage while dressed in an auto racing jump suit that's zipped down quite a ways in the front (she isn't wearing a shirt). She then tries to distract a limo driver by stating that it's "hot" and then suggestively licking his steering wheel

*We see Dylan get out of Knox's bed with just a sheet wrapped around her, suggesting that they had sex. When Vivian later spots her that way and comments on working undercover, Dylan snidely remarks that hers is a "full service job." Later, Knox states that Dylan was (what sounded like) "a tomcat in the sack."
*Moments later, Dylan hangs from that sheet and then falls to the ground below and rolls down a hill completely nude (seen from a distance and without any detail, but you can tell she's nude). She then picks up an inflatable, donut shaped pool tool that she holds up to her body (thus covering her breasts and crotch, but we see her bare belly and the sides of her bare hips from a frontal view) while knocking on a sliding glass door to ask two boys for help.

*Dylan does so once in a flashback to her rebellious years

*Drew Barrymore's character sleeping with two different men over the course of the film.

First and foremost, whenever you hear about somebody crying about how dangerous firearms are to our society and how we desperately need strong gun control laws, I would suggest to tell them that guns don't have minds of their own. A gun is an inanimate object that can't do any harm as long as it isn't in the hands of anybody. It takes the conscious of a man or woman to decide whether or not they're going to pick up a gun, load it, aim, and pull the trigger.

It's extremely hypocritical for those people to front like they're doing all of us a great service by boasting about how they toned down the level of gun-play in an action movie. Liu packed heat in "Payback", Diaz was seen holding a gun (it's even on the poster) in "A Life Less Oridnary", and the ringleader in the form of Barrymore not only made a movie called Guncrazy but was (if I remember correctly) carrying around those pesky guns in "Bad Girls" and "Mad Love" (going back to the smoking isssue, I tuned into this dreck a few weeks ago on WGN and she's, a supposed one time drug abuser turned strict vegetarian, smoking up a storm).

As for the smoking in the first "Charlie's Angels" movie:
SMOKING
The Thin Man smokes more than 5 times, Knox smokes a few times, Dylan
does so once in a flashback to her rebellious years, some
miscellaneous/background characters smoke (one uses a cigar), and we
see a still smoking cigar in an ashtray (that belongs to Charlie).

I remember watching the trio on Rosie O'Donnell's (another person who will hit us over the head w/ her "I don't like guns" stance any chance that she can get) show when the first Charlie's Angels movie came out.

It seemed as if Drew, who produced movie, was putting some spin in response. So she was talking about how it was intended to give the characters an added sense of "power" while referencing Indiana Jones and Superman. Hey Drew, Indiana Jones did pack heat in the now famous scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in which Harrison Ford causally blows away a show-boating swordsman. As for Superman, he's the "Man of Steel" for a reason! Heck, I'm willing to bet that she served to be a big time influence on "enhanced speical effects" for the 20th anniversery re-release of "ET" in which Steven Speilberg & company decided to digitally change the guns that the feds who were chasing Elliott, ET, and their bike riding posse to walkie-talkies.

I'm just like Drew, who seems to purpose that we all learn kung-fu in order to protect ourselves, in terms of wondering what exactly would it be like if there was no such thing as a Second Amendment as we would live in a purposed radical utopia that she seems to yearn so much for. I guess if there wasn't such a thing as guns then cops and robbers (not to mention the armed forces) would be stabbing each other to death with as many sharp objects as we can find. If not that then we all would be hitting each other over the heads w/ blunt objects sort of like cavemen. Are these alternatives less violent and savage than gunshot wounds...you be the judges?

Personally, I would prefer to see a movie so that I can be entertained without having to worry about having one of the star's politicial agendas thrown in as a tie-in. I seriously would like to know this question in terms of the double-standard point-of-view. Why is it wrong to put some sort of strong emphasis on guns yet it's okay to glamourize smoking, use the Lord's name in vain at one point, and shamelessly show disrespect towards women by using a term to describe female dogs all the while using various sexual motives (i.e. skimpy outfits) in order to get the job done!? If Drew Barrymore was really doing our children a favor, then she would also condemn the rest of the stuff that I just mentioned besides the drug issue, rather than using her producer's credits to shove a one-sided liberal agenda down all of our throats.

I almost have to get an absolute kick towards how absolutely
hypocritical Drew can get! It's funny how she rants and raves about
how "cowardly" folks (is she saying that the police and military are
"cowards" too just like your average, run of the mill thug) who use
guns are. This is the same Drew Barrymore, who was extremely going
neurotic over the idea of having to travel to New York via the
airplane (even if it was a month after the 9/11 terrorist attacks) in
order to host "Saturday Night Live." Then, when she finally gets to
New York, Drew runs scared from the studio after reports of there
being anthrax started to spread (who's the coward now Drew).

Here's her monologue by the way:
Drew Barrymore's Monologue

.....Drew Barrymore



Drew Barrymore: Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I am so excited to be back hosting
"Saturday Night Live". But I was so afraid to fly here - so I canceled my trip. And then I
saw Guiliani on television saying to be brave. So, the next day I got on an airplane. Then
we started rehearsing, and I got calm, I got really excited. And then, yesterday, they
discovered anthrax in the building! So, I immediately left. I went back to the hotel, and I
thought again about being brave. So I came back, and I'm here, and you're here, and
you're being brave, too! And I thank you for it! And I want to thank my husband, because
he's here and he's supporting me - Tom, thank you!

[ Tom Green is seen sitting in the audience, wearing a gas mask over his face ]

It's okay, you can take off the mask, be brave, it's okay, go ahead. Take it off, honey!

[ Tom removes the gas mask from his face ]

I love him! I love you guys! We have put together a great show for you - Macy Gray is
here, it's gonna rock! Stick around! Alright!


Personally, it's rather interesting how Drew seems to be *so*
concerned about the level of violence in her movies like "Charlie's
Angels" that she vowed and even boasted about her having such a
disdain for firearms, that she decided to use her power as a producer
to keep them out of the hands of the main characters unlike in the old
TV show. Now, lets get back to the subject of violence in Drew
Barrymore's movies. Isn't this the same Drew Barrymore who agreed to
appear in an extremely violent (and not in the cartoonish fashion that
"Charlie's Angels" was) movie like "Scream!?" As an interesting
tidbit, Barrymore's character gets stabbed to death in like the first
10 minutes of "Scream." Hey Drew, I don't know about you, but I
certainly would have gotten my pistol in order to do away w/ a
psycopathic serial killer rather than stand around and cry while
hoping that the cops will make it on time!

Personally, it seems a bit ironic to see Cameron talk about environmental issues like electric cars instead of the typical fuel powered ones, drilling in Alaska, and signing Leo DiCaprio's petition to pursuade the president to attend an environmental summit in Sweeden or whatever the hell that Euro country was that I saw on the news the other day. But If you look at her quote from up above on this smoking issue. Lets put things in perspective, doesn't the chemicals inside of stuff cigarettes greatly pollute the air!? And it seems a bit funny for her to talk about the right to "protect your body" in the past article when smoking sure as hell doesn't benefit your body's well being. The article down below sets a much better example of this particular point:
Statement of Cameron Diaz

This election is the most important election that has come upon our nation in recent history and will effect not only our current economics but the planet we live on. I'm talking about the actual soil from which we take our food, the water that gives every organism its gift of life, the air that we...well, I am sure I don't have to tell everyone how important oxygen is to our existence. But wouldn't it be nice to have someone who actually cares about the quality of our one intangible lifesource. We need someone who will not be swayed by big business into compromising our environmental integrity. We cannot ignore this issue. Nor can we ignore the fact that we are dangerously close to losing the basis of our nation's greatness. The right to choose. The right to have a choice. Having a choice is something we cannot take for granted. This country was built on the fundamental idea that all humans should have a right to choose. Our history shows that it has been a great struggle to make that statement true. Why do we want to move backwards? If we take away a woman's right to have safe abortion, we are doing every American a disservice. If that right can be taken away, what other rights are we endangering? We must trust that the decision not to have a child is not a thoughtless one. That the women and men who are faced with the decision will make the right choice. It is our right inherently, the government protects that right and I think it is insulting, degrading and violating for anyone to tell a woman what she can do with her body. If there is any one reason why a woman should vote, it should be to protect her body.

And for the future of our children, the only way to ensure that not only our country, but our planet will be able to sustain their lives and the lives of their children, is to educate. Why not strive to be not just the strongest country, but the smartest? We must give every child an education that they can use. One that equips them not only academically, but gives them the ability to function as productive members of society. Taking the federal government out of education leaves education up to local means. Meaning the wealthy can take care of the wealthy and the poor are still left without resources. It is important that no child is left to fend for him or herself just because they are not privileged enough to live in an affluent area. We cannot make the quality of education an issue of class.

It is very difficult to state every concern in such a minimal amount of space and time, but as election day is literally upon us, it is clear that something must be done. I can only hope that by stating these few concerns, I will reach others who care about these issues and help them realize the importance of their vote. You absolutely make a difference. You must find a way to go out and vote on Tuesday. No matter what it takes. Vice President Al Gore has been an integral part of the success of our nation for the past eight years. He has proven himself on these issues. The environment has always been a priority, he vows to defend the rights of women, and his concerns for a valuable education are shown in his persistence to build and to nurture our public schools. We need an experienced leader. We must vote for the most qualified candidate, not for the guy you want to have a beer with.

To be fair, I don't know Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, or Lucy Liu personally. I just go by what I see on TV, the movies, and read in newspapers, magazines, and on the internet. But with that being said, I seriously bothers me whenever somebody famous, who essentially, are simply entertainers, have to force their opinions concerning world affairs and social issues upon all of us (especially if it's in such a paranoid and/or alarmist fashion like the aford-mentioned anti-Bush shirt stunt on MTV). I almost what to believe that there are still folks out their who take all of the freedoms and liberties that the United States of America for granted. Lets put it this way, what other place can you think of in which Drew would be able to get away w/ flashing David Letterman on his birthday other than the USA. Besides that, I'm almost dumbfounded to read about how Diaz is very, very concerned about the "rights of women" in America when the women have just about little if any rights in the Middle East (especially when the Taliban was in power).

Frankly, when Diaz & Liu appeared on that telethon to raise money after the September 11th terrorist attacks, it just didn't ring true enough (as did was the case for just about everybody else who showed up) if you ask me (simply reading off of a teleprompter didn't help much). The most agonizing part of this was that I at the very least doubt that millionaires like this even bothered to contribute their own sums of cash (keep in mind that Diaz is reportedly making $20 million for the "Charlie's Angels") sequel while pleading to the average American. Hell I was even a bit skeptical when Drew, a seemingly wannabe peacenik and/or hippie, cut a promo (incidentially w/ Liu by her side) for "Access Hollywood" for the armed forces roughly a month after 9/11 and right around the same period that the bombing in Afghanistan began:
NY POST/MICHAEL STARR...
--"Access Hollywood" will begin airing a new segment tonight called "Messages
To The Troops," in which celebrities including Heather Graham, Patrick Swayze,
James Caan, Johnny Depp and others are sending messages to our troops via the
Armed Forces TV Network. "Thank you for protecting us. I wish that I could find
all the most beautiful words and feelings and hearts and souls to offer my
absolute gratitude," says Drew Barrymore in her message. "I feel like such a
small person saying this but if it would make any difference to have one more
person saying 'Thank You' and have my utter beliefs then I would like to be
that person."






And if you're not convinced that this movie as marketed very hard to a swarm of young crowds then think again (as the sequel is likely to also) as this article below would like to suggest:
Teen 'Angels'
How ''Charlie's Angels'' scored with young ticket buyers -- Columbia's savvy marketing focused on comedy, sex appeal, and the MTV audience


GIRL POWER ''Charlie's Angels'' courted teens at the box office
by Lori Reese

''Charlie's Angels'' soared last week to a record breaking $40.1 million debut, with help from ticket buyers way too young to have known the feathered, hairsprayed 'dos of the original TV series. Thus far, teens have comprised about 35 percent of ''Charlie's Angels'' audience, says a spokesperson for the film's distributor, Columbia. But according to industry watchers, the kids will have to keep coming back if the $92 million budgeted film is going earn its keep.

Selling a movie based on a '70s show appealing to the Clearasil set is no easy task, says Robert Bucksbaum of the box office tracking firm Reel Source. Take MGM- UA's woeful 1999 feature adaptation of ''The Mod Squad.'' Despite prerelease hype, it grossed only $13.3 million. ''It's so hard, because a lot of people want to forget the '70s. I mean, platform shoes and polyester, who wants to remember that?'' says Bucksbaum. ''Kids don't want to see because they have nothing to identify with.''

Moreover, the teen market has been especially fickle this year. ''Two years ago, anything you released to that crowd would be a hit,'' says Bucksbaum. ''But now, it's very hard to target and find out what they're interested in seeing.'' That may be why Columbia Pictures, in particular, has been hit hard this year. The studio's would be summer smash, ''The Patriot'' -- featuring hunky newcomer Heath Ledger and hunk emeritus Mel Gibson -- earned a respectable $113 million in the U.S. But ''The Patriot's" reported budget was nearly that much -- and the movie's R rating (for its stirring but savage action sequences) may have kept away younger audiences. Meanwhile, the studio's $20 million budgeted ''Loser'' seemed to have everything in its favor: a PG-13 rating, a hip director (Amy Heckerling of ''Clueless''), and two hot young actors, ''American Pie's" Jason Biggs and ''American Beauty's" Mena Suvari. But it too fell short of expectations with a $15 million domestic gross.

This trail of bombs has helped put Sony (Columbia's parent) in last place for market share among major Hollywood studios. But, says Bucksbaum, that could all change with a successful run for ''Angels.'' Despite competition this weekend in the younger market from movies like Adam Sandler's ''Little Nicky'' and the sci fi action movie ''Red Planet,'' Bucksbaum predicts that teens will continue going to see ''Angels.'' ''It will definitely do $100 million plus,'' he says. ''It'll have enough legs -- legs, that's a good word for it -- to sustain itself.''

So what makes ''Angels'' so appealing to the 'N Sync crowd? Here's what Columbia Pictures has done right:

UPDATING Kids might have been turned off if they thought the new ''Angels'' was a period film, says Bucksbaum. The hiring of an MTV trained director -- McG -- ensured that the babe flick would get a millennial look. The movie is not only fast paced, it's buzzing with contemporary gadgetry -- cell phones and inflight TV sets -- that would have made the original Bosley's head spin.

THE BIG TEASE TV commercials and theatrical trailers made it clear that the movie is geared toward younger crowds instead of their baby boomer parents. ''They had those built in teasers in the trailer, the 'Matrix' martial arts, Cameron Diaz dancing in her underwear,'' says Bucksbaum. ''Almost every big teen movie of the last 20 years has featured a star dancing in their underwear. It's always a good selling point.''

COMIC RELIEF The self parodying feature not only spoofs its inspiration but other spy/ action movies, including ''Mission: Impossible'' and James Bond flicks.

THE MTV FACTOR Destiny's Child, the red hot girl group that performs the lead song for the film's soundtrack, did press for the movie alongside stars Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Drew Barrymore. Ads for the movie also highlighted blurbs from shows like ''Total Request Live'' instead of the usual Roger Ebert quotes. Hey, who says Carson Daly can't be an influential film critic?