Charlie's Angels - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Charlie's Angels Reviews

Page 1 of 627
January 27, 2018
Honestly, the best movie ever!
½ December 29, 2017
Pretty good cheesy new take on Charlie's angels but that's wha Charlie's Angels is all about, cheesy and dumb. I had a good time but in the end it's dumb but pretty entertaining.
½ November 17, 2017
The original series was much better than this movie. I can see they may have attempted to recreate the alluring concept of the original but it fails.
October 21, 2017
This film is wildly 1990s hip and very of it's time, which is probably indicatives of how vapid the late 90s were, lacking in a clear identity of it's own, instead relying on retro nostalgia. Sure there was grunge, "Friends," and the Spice Girls, but those were really all just throwback as well and I'm not sure that's much of a cultural identity. But enough about 1990s being a cultural wasteland when compared to the 60s, 70s, or 80s. As vapid and lightweight of a film as "Charlie's Angels" is, it's also a whole lot of fun. Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu play the super spy/detective angels, with the help of Bosley, a always great Bill Murray, have to foil a plot to steal software or something. The plot here really doesn't matter because the film is basically a series of barely connected but funny scenes/vignettes consisting of comedy, sexiness, or well done fight sequences (choreographed by Cheung-Yan Yuen, the fight choreographer from my favorite Jet Li movie "Fist of Legend"). The fun does feel forced at times, but it's an extremely likable cast, which include a ton of familiar faces in supporting roles (Sam Rockwell, Tim Curry, LL Cool J, Luke Wilson, Matt LeBlanc, and Tom Green (there's a 90s wasteland figure I'd forgotten about!). Crispin Glover is the biggest standout of the supporting cast as the deadly mute assassin know as "Thin Man" who dresses like he's stepped off the set of "The Avengers." Overall, "Charlie's Angels" is the epitome of fluff, but it's enjoyable fluff and not all that dissimilar from a 1960s Flint or Matt Helm movie.
September 3, 2017
A decent action film.
½ May 25, 2017
Really stupid. I can't stand how dumbed-down it is. (First viewing - Teen years)
April 17, 2017
It was so cool to watch it when I was a kid. Now, I must admit that characters in the movie r a little dumb.excessive use of slow motion just makes it worse
½ March 10, 2017
Half a star is too good for this pile of steaming turd.
January 5, 2017
It's good movie to watch
December 25, 2016
Better than the TV Show as far as I'm concerned. On Blu-Ray and followed by a sequel.
November 2, 2016
Great and don't recall where I seen it.
October 1, 2016
Idiotic sure, but nice to look at, and seems like they would have had fun making it...and heck it can't always be about us ;p
September 23, 2016
Drew Barrymore's ass,Sam Rockwell's showboating and Crispin Glover being creepy.....those are the best parts of a good movie based on a tepid TV show
August 4, 2016
I'd like to resubmit Charlie's Angels for review: We've got all 3 Angels just looking smoking hot (Cameron was especially on point in this one), Matrix-esque fight sequences, a strong soundtrack, Rockwell as a solid villain, McFly eating cigarettes, likable Luke, a Tom Green cameo before we all hated him, and the genius of Bill Murray fake sumo costume wrestling Tim Curry. A great way to spend 90 minutes of your day.
½ June 14, 2016
Now this film has no shot but since it is a old film the film had its moments but overall I think it just ok
½ April 6, 2016
I'm really amazed this movie got as much hype and following as it did. Maybe it's because we hadn't really seen something like this before? Like, this was before 21 Jump Street came and did basically the same sort of thing but a million times better. I'm not sure, whatever it is, I don't really get it. The movies harmless enough I guess. All the actors are good, there's a couple laughs to be had (mostly courtesy of Bill Murray) and it's got a goofy charm to it I guess. However it's also very dated and sometimes kind of obnoxious. I bought the three leads as friends, sure, but there girl-time felt a little over-the-top cliché of female friendships. The action scenes are also not very good, using dated CGI and wire techniques that look pretty bad now. But I didn't hate the movie, and I don't really regret seeing it. It was moderately charming and a fun little distraction.
½ March 29, 2016
My sister and I grew up on classic television. Sure, we liked "Spongebob Squarepants" and "Hannah Montana," but we preferred"Get Smart," "What's New, Scooby Doo?, and "The Avengers." It wasn't so much that we sought them all out as much as our father wanted us to taste the television-based joys he did during his own childhood. I remember fussing about his notions of generational consumerism sometime after he made our family sit down and watch the first few episodes of "The Brady Bunch" one sleepy Sunday night. But not long after did I start to fall for the dopiness of vintage TV.
With technology at our fingertips, unlike his four-channel, 1970s upbringing, we could seek out the best of the best on Netflix, where we (and sometimes still) would order individual discs that comprised a given season of a given series. As we had a designated television watching time (from 8-9 pm on school nights), we would, most of the time, wait until Friday for bingeing, as it was a day in which we could stay up late and do our viewing in the company of pizza, pop, and little disturbance. Some of my greatest childhood memories revolve around watching TV of the yesteryear - call me crazy, but I was more inclined to keep up with Pamela Sue Martin's "Nancy Drew Mysteries" than go out and do reckless things. Granted, I was in elementary school, and the most reckless thing I was capable of doing was sneaking a cookie before dessert. But if only I, now in college, weren't still that way.
I have no doubt that my sister can relate to the same nostalgia I'm so unabashedly spewing out, which is why, a year or so ago, we began watching "Charlie's Angels," which was an act of spontaneity that also represented an attempt to harken back to the days of our childhood. I suppose she loves '70s junk more than I do - she's a ninth grader drawing a "The Partridge Family" era Susan Dey for crying out loud - but most of our after school free time during my senior year was spent with Farrah Fawcett, Jaclyn Smith, and Kate Jackson, and, when Farrah left, Cheryl Ladd. We stopped around the time Shelley Hack came around, but the show was a terrific one for our relationship; as we were both old enough to recognize its many ridiculous instances of acting, dialogue, and plot points, laughs would abound between us like some sort of riled up sitcom audience. In everyday conversation, we still reference an episode in which Jaclyn got shot in the head and woke up the next day only with a minor bandage, her makeup, hair, and mental state, intact.
So maybe that's why I like 2000's "Charlie's Angels," a love-it-or-hate-it action movie, with such vigor. It captures the sheer buffooneries and implausibilities of the TV series and modernizes them, with golden era MTV swank, a giddy sense of humor, and enough kung-fu style battles to make it worthy of praise and not just a couple of giggles. For some, its hyperactive energy and resembling of a music video might cause it to come across as shallow filmmaking suffering from the ever familiar disorder of liking style over substance. But its director, McG (if you can believe it), is able to bridge the gap between extreme style (think Baz Luhrmann Meets "Miami Vice") and a bubbly personality - the film is so in love with itself and its goofiness that we're taken aback how much we come to like it, too.
Because who can resist a film in which its ensemble appears to be having the time of their lives, in which farce is let so loose? Its titular Angels are Dylan (Drew Barrymore), Natalie (Cameron Diaz), and Alex (Lucy Liu), who, if you don't already know by now, are crimefighters that work for an anonymous millionaire named Charlie (voiced by John Forsythe), who remains unseen by them and us but serves as the coordinator of their investigations. With his assistant Bosley (Bill Murray) prepared to work with them in times of crisis, the girls are free-spirited but efficient detectives able to utilize their versatile talents and merge them when danger arises.
Their latest assignment involves Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell), a software mastermind who has recently been kidnapped by ominous figures. The creator of a potentially globe shattering technological creation that employs an impressive voice-activation system, his disappearance could spell disaster for his company and the population as a whole. Who knows what his work could be capable of when thrown into the wrong hands?
With brains to match their beauty, it doesn't take the Angels long to get to the bottom of the case and figure out what's really going on, which is, expectedly, a hell of a lot more elaborate than what they're first presented with. But fear not; intrigue is their middle name, and Dylan, Natalie, and Alex aren't ace investigators at the top of their respective pay scales for nothing.
Whether "Charlie's Angels" is a satire of its source material, though, is a proclamation I'm not so certain of. It, really, seems to make a mockery of anything Hollywood: it's a mockery of the chick flick, the action movie, the kung-fu razzler dazzler, the romantic drama, the buddy cop comedy, the arthouse thriller your friend dragged you to and you only vaguely enjoyed (I'm looking at you "Run Lola Run"). And, being wrapped in its breathy package of candy colors and illimitable vibrations, I'm disposed to consider it to be something better than your average escapist fantasy, something of the time, and something I could watch repeatedly (which I have) and still like as much as my first viewing.
Because "Charlie's Angels," like the TV show, doesn't make for anything necessarily nutritious or even that great - it, plain and simply, is a blockbuster so high in its artistic ambition, performative likability (Barrymore, Diaz, and Liu are all kick-ass hoots), and overall stamina that defying its cheery fun is akin to eating a bowl of ice cream and then asking your server for a refund for supposed bad taste. If you know you liked it, there's no shame in consuming cinematic junk food once in a while. "Charlie's Angels" just happens to be particularly tasty.
February 20, 2016
Charlie's Angels is another TV to film adaptation where I have never seen the series. From its blatantly modern touches to the 70s TV classic, I only presume it doesn't hold up so well. Charlie's Angels is, in a word, corny. It's filled with bad one liners, terrible characters, a poor story, and the acting is wretched.
Three super intelligent and super skilled spies who work under a mysterious unseen millionaire named Charlie attempt to solve a kidnapping scheme of a tech giant, only to find out that looks are very deceiving. There's not so much of a big plot here, it's basically thrown into the middle of a deep friendship between the main characters and their unimportant love lives.
Charlie's Angels seems to me like it was a very overhyped film pre-release and, like it did for me, disappointed viewers, only I had a sense of what I was in for. Despite its all star cast, ranging from Drew Barrymore to Tim Curry to Bill Murray, the film fails the most in actually telling a consistent, real story. The characters, who are almost all the same - bland and girly - are more important and more focused on than the weak story. Their friendship, Bill Murray's wacky escapades (which, by the way, as much as I love Murray, his character is completely and utterly unneeded), and their dull, lifeless new relationships make Charlie's Angels more of a soap opera than a supposedly action packed femme fatale. When it does get into the action, it is fast paced and to the point. The super sleuth aspect of cracking who's behind what is effortless to say the least. Get used to the feel of the film, because it constantly stays overly fast paced and especially corny. I think maybe the one thing I did enjoy about Charlie's Angels is how hilariously terrible it is at holding up today - it's the epitome of 2000, with outdated technology, late 90s alt hits, etc. Charlie's Angels is nothing special - don't let its cast deceive you.
December 26, 2015
12/26/2015: An entertaining movie with a great beautiful cast.
Page 1 of 627