Both Charlie's Angels films are filled with a tumble of pop cultural references. But one of the frequent criticisms is that such an approach tells us nothing about the human condition. How would you respond to that viewpoint?

When I was younger and I was in school, I wanted to be a psychiatrist and I was studying philosophy very deeply and I found myself becoming increasingly unhappy. And just as I was getting into sort of Locke and Hume and I was studying Nietzsche to a degree, the more I said, look, I'm really passionate about music, I like the way it makes me feel, I'm very passionate about film, I like how I can lose myself and become immersed in a picture when I go to the theater for two hours. I got more and more excited about that and let go of some of my philosophical dwellings and I've strangely become a happier person for it. And I mean it is just an approach to living, because I'm very cognizant of different philosophical takes on the life experience, but I've been unsuccessful in trying to unravel the mystery of life. So I try to press the pleasure buttons in what I'm doing in my day-to-day life.

You mention in your commentary something to the effect of, “If you hate yourself, then you'll hate Charlie's Angels.”

I just think it is a film that requires some sort of inner acceptance to know what we're actually going for, to take a deep breath and let go of sort of cinephile attitudes and just enjoy it for what it is. And strangely, I've found there's a direct correlation between the more intense the film fan, the more likely he or she is to actually embrace the picture.
I've heard from Martin Scorsese to Terrence Malick to just fabulous filmmakers that I respect and they've shared their enthusiasm for the picture because these guys, they understand what it is, and naturally they know I'm not trying to threaten or challenge or in any disrespect what they're the masters of, so they take it for what it is and they enjoy themselves and they have fun with the performances.

This summer a lot of analysts like to talk about the declining box office for big event movies like Charlie's Angels.

I think that's very fair. It is always tricky to make a sequel that ignites the passion of the public. And we worked really hard to make it happen...look, the truth is we feel like our film was a big success because a $100 million domestic box office, that doesn't grow on trees. And we're over $250 worldwide. However, I've got to be honest with you, we're all disappointed, because we wanted it to have even more of an impact on the public.

And who knows? Maybe it was because the public felt like they could participate in the franchise with all the coverage the girls were getting and just what a high profile we had going in that they felt that they didn't necessarily even need to get off the couch and go see the movie. But I don't know, that's just the mystery of the movie business. Sometimes you capture lightning in a bottle and sometimes it eludes you, and you know, this is one has just been a little bit of a bittersweet symphony.

What do you think is the future of big event movies?

Oh, I think that there will always be the tent pole movies, the event movies, but you can't just jam the public with Oh, here is a giant idea, or this is a video game that sold X amount of copies, or this is a best-selling book, or this is a fantastic comic character. I think that it's got to be more than that. I think that the bullshit detector of the public is more finally honed than it ever has been with so many outlets for media, with 1000 satellite channels and every mall in America looks like Disneyland, and you know, there's just so much going on that you can't just release a movie, put a star in it, and expect everybody to come out in throngs.

You have to be very clever and you have to make films that people care about and people react to. And I think you see stuff like My Big Greek Wedding that just captured the imagination of the public and went crazy, and then you see something like Spiderman that is a film very much designed to come in above the radar, but satisfied on an emotional level and therefore was very, very big. Same with Lord of the Rings pictures.

Do you think that's what happened with your movie, that there was a little too much bullshit as you say?

Well I don't know if there was too much bullshit, but there was a great deal of exposure, and maybe people just sort of felt satiated when the picture came out. You know what I mean? And it's not like the picture fell on its ass, we're pleased with what it did, but naturally we were hoping to do a little bit better. And who knows, it's very difficult to quantify. If we had the answers then boy, would we be a valuable marketing research team.

One of the accusations leveled at Full Throttle was that it might have been that you tried to do too much bigger, louder and better.

That's an excellent point. Maybe we did. Maybe we pushed too hard in that respect. But you know, I think you have an obligation to your audience to try to improve upon the original in any respect. I think that's successfully done in Godfather II. I think it's very successfully done in Terminator 2. And we used those two models as our examples and we did the best we could. And you know, I think the girls are proud of it, and I'm proud of it, and you know, like I said, we're it's hard to hang your head on if you make two pictures and you're north of $550 million in box office. I mean that's not a bummer, but I'm also honest in saying that we were hoping it reacted even more at the box office this go round.