$120,000,000 down the drain.<br /><br />It's an action movie that's not exciting, a parody that's not funny, and an adventure that's not adventurous. It is a mystery - a mystery that anyone would like it. It even lack sex appeal.<br /><br />Maybe McG needs to work on TV with a much smaller budget and less famous actors. He clearly can't get anything from the "angels" who seem more interested in laughing than acting. This movie cements their reputations (and Demi Moore's also) as truly bad actors. I don't feel bad for any of them.<br /><br />I don't know about Bernie Mac. Is he that bad, or does he just get horrible roles? The best actors in the first film were Bill Murray and Tom Green. In the second? John Cleese and Matt LeBlanc. This is not what you want.<br /><br />There are several random cameos throughout, not unlike the random plot itself. Much of the movie is a string of T&A, music, pyrotechnics and CG action. It truly is one extremely long music video - like Thriller would look like if created by two monkeys and an ATM machine.<br /><br />I thought the $92 million "original" was bad, but the sequel managed to be about $28 million worse. Maybe someday, someone will make a film about how McG got $200 million to make two movies after directing a couple of popular music videos.<br /><br />It could be worse, though - "Charlie's Angels 3: One Last Job"