"Drew Barrymore told E! Online that she's ready to play Dylan Sanders again in a third installment of the "Charlie's Angels" franchise:

"I'm so into it," Barrymore said while promoting her new star-filled romantic comedy, He's Just Not That Into You. "I'm so into it—Charlie's Angels III!"

"It's percolating up," said Nancy Juvonen, Barrymore's Flower Films producing partner. "It's rising to the surface."

Barrymore added, "They're hard movies to make, but they're fun.""

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=52238

_______________________________________________________________________________

The last one sucked HARD!

Please no! Even McG has to be above this by now, one hopes.

There's always Brett Ratner

And we all know he's never above this, especially when it presents the opportunity to sleep with the cast members

Please no!, two are enough.

I wonder if they bring back Bernie Mac for this.

I wouldn't mind a third installment.

The first was boring, but the second was done right! Real right. Just the perfect mix of comedy and over-the-top action to create the camp masterpiece that it is. Those who dis it, dis-grace themselves - - it will be the one watched in decades to come. There's even a couple of fans already here at KJ...

Bring on #3! (...but only if they can afford McG again...)

I like the camp value of the films. There are bits of both films that worked really well.

I've only watched the first and from what i can remember it was atrocious.

Um, he's dead.. Remember??

Perhaps Herr Doktor was referring to the miracle of cgi celebrity reincarnation...

BKB fell for it.

Was CA 2 the one with that pathetic insult to Indycar?

No, that was Driven!

hehe, well played good sir.

Drew needs to start picking more mature projects. She did a good job playing a grownup in Music and Lyrics, I'd like to see her build on that.

Love the second movie, so I'm down.

What's with all of these unnecessary sequels taking so long to be released? I know that we've had unnecessary sequels before, but they've often been within 4-5 years of the predecessor. Now we have Cats and Dogs (8 years later), Charlie's Angels (earliest would be 7 years later), The Mummy 3 (7 years later), Rush Hour 3 (6 years later). I can understand Rush Hour and the Mummy, as they made a lot of money, and still had quite a bit of goodwill, but it seems like studios are even lower on ideas than usual.

I still think Charlie's Angels will do decent, as with inflation, the last one is at $128 m or so if its released by 2010, so this one could squeak by $100 m.

This would be an unnecessary sequel but it could maybe be fun.

I loved the first movie, the second one...not so much. But if it's anywhere near the "stupid fun" quality of the first one it would be a good time.

I'm just worried the old angels will be introducing a new crop of angels.

Shia LaBeouf, anyone?

I just gotta throw a QFT on that statement - - for future posterity...