Charlie's Angels (2000)

Why so much hype?

Truly Dreadful Film

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

I never saw the original Charlie's Angels TV series, so I don't know how the film version holds up in tone and consistency, but I do know I enjoyed that hell out of it, and that it makes a terrific standalone movie. The tone is pure radical sassiness, mainly from its three hyperactive stars who are equal parts dangerous, cute and fun loving. Lucy Liu is all flippant business as Alex, Drew Barrymore a tough cookie tomboy as Dylan, and Diaz the bubbly, slightly ditzy Natalie, perhaps the most fun out of the trio of performances. They each have their integral qualities as individuals, but it's when the three get together as a group that the film's invigorating sense of fun truly takes hold, whether using teamwork to throw around all kinds of wild karate justice or simply just hanging out in their office chatting, these chicks are no end of a good time. The movie is helmed by McG (before he ruined his street cred with the abysmal Terminator: Salvation) and flies along with frenetic style and a whole bag of shiny filmmaking tricks that look like Oliver Stone made a flick for MTV. Bill Murray plays Bosley, and his chemistry with the gals is flint spark perfection, the scenes with the four of them the crest of the wave that the film let's you ride on. The four of them get entangled in a plot involving several shady characters including Sam Rockwell and a spindly Crispin Glover as a shrieking weirdo with a hair fetish. Other players include Matt Leblanc, Luke Wilson and a certifiable Tom Green as Dylan's extremely strange ex boyfriend. Plot gets left in the dust of the stylistic momentum that hurtles at you like a candy coated lip gloss steam engine of attitude, which is fine by me. It's more of a vehicle for the three gals to have fun, play dress up and kick butt than a serious detective story, which for me was a wise move. John Forsythe is the only character to reprise his role from the show, as the kindly voice of Charlie, ever heard but never seen. The 2003 sequel is the same, but more. More juiced up style, more celebrity cameos, more, more more. While still fun, it's overkill and will leave you nostalgic for this first outing, which got the formula just right.

This is yet another in a long list of movies that Hollywood has put out in the last couple of decades based on old TV series from the 60's and 70's especially (which to me, more than anything else, suggests a lack of creativity on Hollywood's part, since these old shows and premises just keep being recycled one after the other, but that's a whole other story.) Some of these remakes have worked; others haven't. "Charlie's Angels" falls more into the latter category to be honest.The TV show was never one that could be taken especially seriously, but for the most part it did try to be serious. This movie, on the other hand, sets "serious" aside almost from the opening moment. It's heavy on martial arts fight scenes, and is more of an action movie than anything else. The story (about the attempt of a villain to identify and kill Charlie) lacks coherence and isn't especially logical, but on the other hand the story is really just an excuse for everything else that's happening.In fairness, the fight and action scenes are pretty well done, and the "Angels" (played by Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu) are quite lovely, and the movie makes no attempt to hide the fact that it's going for sexiness (all in an acceptable "PG" type manner, of course.) Bill Murray adds no sexiness, but he is along for the ride as Bosley. Charlie, as in the TV series, is never seen but is voiced once again by John Forsythe.Generally speaking, though, the story here is simply weak. I wasn't in the least riveted to the screen while watching this, and it really (to me at least, and I admit that I wasn't a big an of the show but I did see a few episodes) didn't capture the spirit of the original "Charlie's Angels" TV series. (4/10)

Charlie's Angels is an excellent modernization of the old TV series.The good. Beautiful sexy women. Lots of action, fights and wirework. Nice car chases and wrecks. Good funny dialogs. Interesting story. Great score and music.The actors. Cameron Diaz is at her most adorable and charming in a very innocent and clueless way. She's just perfect. Drew Barrymore is obviously living a dream job, and it shows she's having fun. Lucy Liu is more impish than we've ever seen her before, in a very serious manner, which is a strange combination. There's no denying it, all three angels had a blast doing this flick and gave us a excellent performance. Bill Murray is very funny, and a great complement to the girls. Crispin Glover is the star of the villains, we just can't get enough of him. Sam Rockwell over does it a bit, but nicely. Finally, I'll just mention some other good performance in decreasing order of magnitude: Luke Wilson, Kelly Lynch, Tim Curry, Matt LeBlanc, and LL Cool J.The bad. Very simple villain. More over, his awkwardly social cover is creepy.The ugly. The mainframe. If you know anything about computer, and security, this is very lame.The result. Excellent entertainment with fun and action.

Is it a crass rehash of an old TV series that wasn't that great to begin with? Or is it a clever distillation of 1970s entertainment spruced up with a welcome blend of comedy and flash style? I can't really decide, but "Charlie's Angels" manages to earn its wings, if not a halo.Sorry. Be warned, though, there are a lot of bad puns in this movie. "Charlie's Angels" never makes the mistake of taking itself too seriously, and if you don't either, you can have a bit of fun.The set-up is instantly familiar for those of us old enough to remember the ABC-TV series. Three beautiful young women work as private detectives for a mysterious millionaire, who gives them impossible assignments they carry out with ease. The latest job involves a computer tycoon named Knox who is kidnapped, apparently by a rival. The Angels set out to save him, then find out the case is more complicated than it appears.That's not really important, though. The big question: Which Angel does the best hair flip? I have to say its Lucy Liu, though Cameron Diaz's short hair doesn't give her much to work with and Drew Barrymore's Angel with attitude isn't really flipping her hair unless she's in a fight, which kind of buries that bit of business for her. Not much else distracts from the hotitude of the stars, suggesting that the trainers on set were Oscar-worthy even if the cast wasn't.The script is kind of weak, not that the show itself ever was "St. Elsewhere." Caught wearing only a bedsheet in a guy's apartment, Barrymore's character is asked if she's "working undercover."More funny are the exaggerated references to how deadly these pretty ladies really are. "They come on all lovey-dovey, until they find out I can shatter a cinderblock with my forehead," sighs Liu. Here at least the comedy works as a kind of running gag worth pursuing.This silliness is abetted by Bill Murray as Bosley, the Angels' major domo, working his comedy mojo in a lazy but effective way, describing a jail as looking like "Cher's bedroom." Diaz has the most fun with her part, as Natalie the klutzy cutie, showing off a wonderful body as well as some fine comic chops left over from "There's Something About Mary." Whatever happened to her, anyway? I also really like Crispin Glover, as a bad guy who never says a word but steals every scene he's in with creepy gusto. Too bad the film never seems to know what to do with him, though at least he's not wasted like Tim Curry is here.For the most part, director McG and his writing team just use the story as an excuse for action scenes that are often impressive but don't make sense or connect up with anything else. These Angels are hard to distinguish from bad guys, as they crash cars, depressurize airliner cabins, and generally wreak all kinds of havoc on unsuspecting civilians. You aren't supposed to wonder about all this because, well, it's that kind of film.And that's fine, when the film does as much as this one to keep you diverted. That's all you get here, and all you really need. I mean, if you are going to watch a film called "Charlie's Angels," you shouldn't expect tight plotting and stuff. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. I did.