Charlie's Angels - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Charlie's Angels Reviews

Page 1 of 626
Super Reviewer
½ January 18, 2010
Fun, cheesy, and helming some very dumb moments, "Charlie's Angel's" is a throwback to 90's action films, making this a very fun film to watch, even though it's completely ridiculous in almost every aspect. I must say that, growing up when I was younger, this was a movie I always watched, and recited almost every scene word for word, but I can't say I like this film even remotely as much now. It's farfetched, but in the best way possible. The dialogue is weak, the action is kind of lame sometimes, and the acting is quirky, but all of this mixed into one, with the premise it has, is good old fashioned fun. McG solidly directs this film, which has a weak script, which is kind of his forte. It's kind of annoying that he picks weak scripts really, but he makes this one work. "Charlie's Angels" is a lot of fun, not matter how stupid it really is!
Super Reviewer
February 10, 2012
You know what is a bad movie?.... well.... this is a bad movie...
The only thing that a REALLY like was Bill Murray and Tim Curry.
Directors Cat
Super Reviewer
½ November 26, 2011
Although the story isn't that engaging nor does it have any brains involved but the captivating cast members and action sequences are both very very thrilling.
Super Reviewer
½ February 19, 2007
Charlie's Angels has a sense of humour and a splashy style not present in the original 1970s TV series. Chock full of cool, it's a top piece of fluff that delivers great action, stunts, kung-fu and sex appeal.
Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu get the star treatment and are looking damn fine. Bill Murray as Bosley is the sort of casting that reveals much about the film - dry sarcasm and satire being the order of the day - this isn't a serious action piece - you won't see people die in a hail of bullets, you won't see splashes of blood or heroes saving the world with deep meaningful glances - what you will see is a great deal of MTV editing and shooting, Matrix-quality special effects and a tongue in cheek performance from every single actor.
Super Reviewer
½ November 16, 2010
Super Reviewer
August 3, 2010
"Charlie's Angels" is pure lunacy, but it's a hell of a lot of fun. Here is a movie that never, ever, takes itself seriously and it's all the better for it. The tone is hyper and rambunctious, the performances are a riot and the action is physics defying and eye popping. Total nonsense but the satire works wonders for entertainment value.
Super Reviewer
½ July 14, 2010
Charlie's Angel's is a bad film with terrible actresses who can't act worth a damn. over the top action is suposed to be very awesome, but it isn't. Just a bad film with nothing entertaining about it. You are left to cringe after wasting your watching this shit. If you want something thats overexagerrated and good, give Shoot Emè Up and Crank a view, not this.
Super Reviewer
June 24, 2010
it's okay. C
Super Reviewer
June 21, 2007
Charlie's Angels is the kind of fun, escapist fare that doesn't come along as often as it should. Sure, it's silly and over-the-top in every way possible, but it never aspires to be anything more than it is. As re-imaginations of old tv shows go, Charlie's Angels is one of the more enjoyable attempts.
Super Reviewer
December 6, 2009
I think Charlie's Angels works so well because it is purely made to entertain. It doesn't seek any answers to life's mystery or anything like that, it's just the adventures of three women spies. It's extremely fun and worthwhile. I actually really enjoyed all of the action sequences and seductive humor, neither came off as corny. It was rather appropriate. All the acting is perfect for what this was going for, all the jokes work and make sense in their world.
Super Reviewer
½ February 24, 2010
I watched this on a bus once. A little bit more clever than its sequel. I guess not being a 18- 25 year old white male, I don't exactly LOVE this film....
Super Reviewer
½ July 31, 2009
great take on a classic
Super Reviewer
May 3, 2009
The angels are eye candy that can supposedly fight their way out of any problem. There is not much point to this movie.
Super Reviewer
September 9, 2007
i like these movies there funny, sexy and exciting wqith some good action sequences and fight scenes!
and the producers picked the three correct women to play the three sexy angels !!
Super Reviewer
March 24, 2008
the most cliched perception on charlie's angels would be feminism or girl-power (why not "WOMAN" power? is it an suggestion of eternal puberty?) generally speaking, the movie has nothing tasteful, compounded by a bunch of highly blatant cgi effects and cheesy jokes. no need to criticize it further since it's so obviously depthless. here i am to tackle it from an ideological perspective.

recently i've researched upon a subject on american anarchism in film noir and superhero comics (both started in 1930s), the idea of anarchistic vigilante is largely welcomed fad since the good old days. a vigilante hero would be performing justice on his own like batman, so by principle he's no part of the governmental police-force but lonewolf without group-label, but ironically he obeys the laws and risks his life for the system despite he's an anarchist outside of it, the famous example would be clint eastwood's dirty harry, the brave copper who serves the justice by ignoring the proper procedure to man-hunt scorpian on his own(and he even goes to level of executing the criminal himself, is it lawful?)

"charlie's angels" arised within the 70s when women began to demand equal pay and work in the construction to demonstrate they could be as capable as men. so some producer came up with a whim like why don't we also make female version of indepedent vigilante anarchist heroism by having three chics dressed hot and kick ass? so here they are created. BUT most people neglect a fact that they're not all alone like clint eastwood but three chics together to advocate a sort of "sisterhood" idea populated by feminists then, so women cannot fight aloofly like those male super-coppers? and also, charlie's angels are not individualistic even they claim they're, they take orders from charlie who symbolizes an abstract idealized incarnation of endearing father as sheer spiritual guidance without a bit of rebellion or dispute. but somehow those chics do work UNDER A MAN, right? they cannot escape the dominion of patriachal attachement as well....and women cheer over it without the awareness that charlie's angels are just a bunch of female thugs who put themselves into danger over an invisible man who has never been there to help, an abscent father figure who only offers you monthly allowance without actual involvement in your life but a few words of encouragements which could be done by a kind-hearted pen pal as well.

so by 2001, hollywood decided to revitalize it, blending an aisan minority(lucy liu) and a former hippie-chic who cannot grow up and always digs the bad boys as if it's shouting outloud that the third-world woman, reformed hippie and goofy bubble-blonde united together as new sort of sisterhood, working under a non-existent imaginary father, striving for a patriachal system without man's contribution so men could prosper by we women even without being there. wouldn't be a disservice to deepen social inequality? and it's welcomed by women! besides, no real woman can single-handedly fly skyhigh fighting off a group of men without being beaten up or possibly raped and still looking fashionable, that only exists in video games. woman's prior asset is their WITS instead of their FISTS.

satirically they cannot be angels on their own without being charlie's.
Super Reviewer
½ October 16, 2007
A few moments. Bill Murray & SAM ROCKWELL
Super Reviewer
½ February 3, 2009
"Get Some Action"

They're beautiful, they're brilliant, and they can kick your butt -- the most glamorous private eyes in the world are back in action in this big-screen adaptation of the popular '70s television series. Natalie (Cameron Diaz) is the smart but silly one, Dylan (Drew Barrymore) is the tough but fun-loving one, and Alex (Lucy Liu) is the classy but hard-as-nails one, and they work for a man named Charlie (voice of John Forsythe), who never meets his employees face to face. Along with their helper Bosley (Bill Murray), the Angels are sent into action when electronics genius Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell) is kidnapped, with the nefarious Roger Corwin (Tim Curry) as the prime suspect. But they soon learn even bigger danger is afoot -- the kidnappers have gotten their hands on Knox's latest invention, a system that can monitor voice communication from anywhere in the world, virtually ending the notion of private conversation.

If it wasn't for Crispin Glover and Sam Rockwell this movie would have been beyond horrible. I expected the cheesiness and it being unrealistic (plenty of that). Glover did an excellent job as the Thin Man, they should have had more of him in the movie. Actually in my opinion he should have killed them all. This movie was trying too hard to be something else. This movie is worth seeing maybe once if there is absolutely nothing else to do. The soundtrack is not that bad, at least it fit the movie. Rockwell and Glover did their best with the given material other than that it is pretty horrible.
Super Reviewer
March 26, 2008
Super Reviewer
July 13, 2007
I love this fun loving girl power movie. It's a cross between the Matrix and Austin Powers. Brilliant cast, fab costumes and visual effects. I love Cameron's character.
Super Reviewer
May 29, 2006
very very funny and entertaining.... i watched it pretty much but never get boring...
Page 1 of 626