Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
No Angels (2004–2006)
1/10
Dire
11 August 2006
I've tried to watch this series on a number of occasions, but it just grates horribly. The problem isn't the cartoony portrayal of the girls' working lives - that could be quite funny if it was done well. The real hole in the programme is where its heart should be.

These are not only nurses who care nothing for their patients, but "friends" who care nothing for each other. Their interactions are shallow, unpleasant and also pretty unrealistic. As one newspaper reviewer has said, it seems to have been written by someone who not only doesn't understand how women interact, but doesn't understand how human beings relate to each other. And even the most superficial show needs believable characters who the viewer can relate to.
3 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A lot better the second time around
11 August 2006
The first time I saw this movie, I was really disappointed - it just seemed like a frenetic (and incredibly long!) series of action set-pieces, trying too hard to cash in on popular catchphrases from its predecessor, and entirely lacking in the overall direction, coherence and character development which was present in the first film. Probably expecting too much from it, I was bored and unengaged.

Second time around, though, it was actually very enjoyable. Once you know what's going to happen, you can start to see how it all fits together. The plot is still pretty slender, and most of the characters are much more cardboardy and less interesting than the first time round, but if you know that before you go in and don't expect too much, it's good fun. Worth seeing, at least as a precursor to film 3.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed