do any of you like or love drew barrymore?

Question

charlies angels uhhmmm she reminds me how beautiful life can be

Answer 1

No. She's too much like a little kid. She's getting too old......being cute at that age just seems scary/retarded.

Answer 2

I'm with Carol Domino on this one. Drew Barrymore has a face like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle. I've seen better heads on a pint of beer. Her films are almost without exception third rate, mainstream t*ts-'n'-*rse Hollywood dross that make money because spotty faced fifteen year old boys pay to sit in the back seats of cinemas where they can have a quiet twang on the one string banjo when Drew gets her jubblies out. Charlies Angels was an abomination - camp as a row of tents and the acting would have disgraced a scount jamboree, but somehoe the godawful sequel managed to plumb even greater depths. It wasn't scraping the bottom of the barrel, it was digging under it. I have never seen her in anything worth watching, and unless she is grabbed by a hungry pit bull terrier I doubt if I ever will.

Answer 3

I have to concur with Carol Domino and Dilb. It is everyone's right to be a fugly pog, but Drew Barrymore abuses the privilege. She would never be able to go to a zoo - they would never let her out again. When she was born, they slapped her Mother. "Charlie's Angels"? I've seen better films on a week old cup of coffee. I can't remember the name of the last piece of cockroach spew she was in but I do remember that the problem with the opening and closing titles was that they were not a lot, lot closer together. She can't act, she looks like a cross between Peter Stringfellow and Andrea Dworkin and her voice could be used as an offensive weapon. Apart from all of this, she's ... she's ... well, she's a really talentless, ugly, overpaid skank.

Answer 4

The only reason Charlie's Angels isn't the worst film ever made is because the sequel was, almost unimaginably, worse. The fact that Barrymore produced both films makes her largely to blame for the foisting of such atrocities upon the world, and that should really answer your question for you. That, and the fact that she looks like someone set fire to her face and then put it out by repeatedly belting it with a shovel. What a swamp donkey!

Answer 5

Drew Freaking Barrymore? She looks like the satanic lovechild of Quentin Tarantino and a bulldog. Have you seen the chin? The resemblence is uncanny! Not to mention that annoying 'lithp'...

Oh and her acting stinks...she wasn't even good as the annoying little sister in 'ET'.

Answer 6

I think she was great in E.T. and the only bad thing about her was that I then had to wait 10 years to see her get her jubblies out in Playboy. The same thing happened with Jodie Foster in Bugsy Malone but I didn't have to wait so long.

I think both Charlie's Angels films kick *** and, despite her protruding chin and squeaky voice, would happily spend time in a jacuzzi with her, Lucy Liu & Cameron Diaz. Hell, throw in Demi Moore (Duh-mee Moor-ray) and we could have a real party! :D

Answer 7

The women is a goddess and should be treated as such. She one of Hollywoods finest assets. She's beautiful and she is curvaceous...How often do you see that prancing along a screen in skimpy atire?? But aside from that she doesn't take herself too seriously, she can laugh at herself...

Plus, Have u seen the black n white pic of her wearing the boxing gloves?????....

I rest my case... :o)

Answer 8

^ couldn't have said it better myself.

She and Tom Green were well matched - both fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. Not to mention neither of them can act.

Answer 9

Love her.. she comes across as a beautiful person inside and out..

Answer 10

Yes but as an actress, she seems very cool and down to earth.