After scoring a $40.13 million opening weekend on its way to a total of $125.31 million at the box office (not to mention over $60 million in rental earnings), it was a virtual certainty that the first Charlie's Angels film would be followed up with a sequel. What was initially less certain was that any of the three Angels from the original would return. After a period of several months, where rumors swirled about who might fill the spandex of the actresses from the first film, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu all agreed to reprise their roles. For Diaz, coming back to play Natalie means a $20 million paycheck, making her only the second actress (after Julia Roberts) to receive that amount for a film.
Among those not returning are Bill Murray and Tom Green, neither of which is particularly surprising, given Murray's rumored tension with Lucy Liu and Green's recent divorce from Barrymore. Taking over the Bosley role (as Son of Bosley) is Jamie Foxx, while Crispin Glover will play the menacing Thin Man again. Director McG and screenwriter John August, who both worked on the original, are also back for the sequel. Look for McG to direct the eventually-upcoming Superman as well.
No plot details have been released at this time, but McG has said in interviews that the action scenes will be more intricate. Additionally, it's a slim possibility that some of the original TV cast members, such as Farrah Fawcett and Kate Jackson, could make cameo appearances. One character from the series who absolutely will "appear" is John Forsythe, who provides the voice of Charlie.
The original 2000 release had a budget of $92 million, and given Diaz's paycheck, it's probably reasonable to expect the sequel to cost more to produce. Barrymore's production company will again be involved, with Sony (Columbia) taking charge of distribution. Currently scheduled for release in June of 2003, our bikini-clad heroines should provide the perfect summer popcorn entertainment. (Kim Hollis/BOP)
Download Link: Charlies Angels provided by Gingle
No comments:
Post a Comment