About these ads

Dan the Man's Movie Reviews

All my aimless thoughts, ideas, and ramblings, all packed into one site!

Charlie’s Angels (2000)


Yes guys: Girls this hot can indeed kick your perverted-asses. So watch yourselves!

When danger is looming and the world is on the brink of self-destruction, who is there to save the day? Well, the mysterious and unknown Charlie is, but he isn’t the one doing the action, he’s just simply pulling the strings. Who he has in his place to take over things and make sure that all is fine and right with the world, he has three of his kick-ass, female agents, who he also calls his “Angels”. We have Natalie Thompson (Cameron Diaz), the bookworm who is oblivious to the dudes around her (except for the ones who want to end her life), Dylan Sanders (Drew Barrymore), the tough girl who finds herself in more beds of other men than she probably should be in, and Alex Munday (Lucy Liu), the class-act who longs for a life outside of being a secret-agent with her Hollywood star boyfriend (Matt LeBlanc), but just can’t help but kick some butt when it comes around her way. Together, the ladies, along with John Bosley (Bill Murray), their informant, find out what’s going on with secret weapons and tools that have suddenly go missing, and may just endanger not only themselves, but their beloved-Charlie as well.

I’m pretty sure that, by now, every person on the face of this planet has seen at least one episode of the classic, Charlie’s Angels 1970’s-era TV show, right? Okay, if not everybody, then definitely every man on the face of this planet has. And if they say they haven’t, well then ladies, get a flash-light, shine it in their pupils and question them harder, because they’re lying dogs!

Hate to say it, but if only they were wearing T-shirts. Then maybe, just maybe a "6" would have been handed-out.

Hate to say it, but if only they were wearing T-shirts. Then maybe, just maybe a “6” would have been handed-out.

Anyway, I think what we all have, you know, as a society, garnered from that show was that it doesn’t matter if these women are extremely good-looking, hot and have huge jubblies, give them some corny lines, some action-moves and plenty of cool, unique gadgets, and woolah! All of a sudden, a woman that looks like Farrah Fawcett is able to give Sherlock Holmes a run for his money! And there’s nothing really wrong with that, however, you can’t do that type of story seriously for a single bit, which is probably why it’s a good thing the show only lasted until the early-80’s, once people had about enough of it with their non-stop array of campy-material (okay, maybe the 80’s were even worse, but you get my drift).

Basically though, what I am trying to get across is that it’s extremely hard for a movie to pull-off the same type of charm, magic and fun of the original material, without having it be placed in the same decade of the 70’s, or at least being able to show it all with a wink in the eye, and the tongue, placed firmly in the cheek. And it’s apparently clear that that’s exactly the type of notion this movie is going for: It wants to crack a joke about how goofy these gals look when they get in their kung-fu stances and start whooping the ever-loving crap out of everyone that strikes a danger to them, but at the same time, it also wants to still be able to revel in how awesome these girls look when they’re kicking ass and taking names.

Which, as much as I hate to make it sound like otherwise, I didn’t have a problem with because McG certainly does inject this movie with plenty of energy and style to make this feel like a music-video, done with a lot of fighting, sexy women and explosions. The only problem is that everything else he does with this movie, it not only doesn’t work, but it’s too messy for its own good. Certain scenes just don’t work together, and McG himself, as a director, only seems to feel comfortable with his movie when something is either ripping-off the Matrix and being shown to us entirely in slow-mo, or when he’s giving us a close-up of one of these ladies spreading their legs open. And not in that type of way either, ya pervs!

For awhile, it’s all fun to watch and whatnot, but when the movie wants to try and be a bit goofy and satirical with its material and where it seems to have come from, it doesn’t work and instead, totally misfires. Most of that has a problem to do with the fact that McG himself came from a long, long line of music-videos before he made his film-debut with this, and also, a lot of that has to do with the fact that the writers didn’t know if they wanted to give us anything more than plenty of action, and leave it at that. The plot doesn’t make sense; the jokes don’t quite hit; and the action begins to feel like the same sequence showed to us, over and over again. Needless to say, while it may not be anything to write home about, it definitely isn’t terrible. Just misguided is all.

Who needs that much tail when you're Bill Murray? Serious question...

Who needs that much hot tail when you’re Bill Murray? Serious question…

However, as misguided as the rest of the material they’re working with may in fact be, the cast still seems to prevail and make ends meet with whatever it is that they have to work with. The three, leading ladies are all fun to watch, but it’s really Cameron Diaz who gets to walk away with the spotlight placed firmly in her hand as she always seemed to make everything better for herself and for the movie, whenever she decided to give us a glimpse of that beautiful, lovely, cheek-to-cheek smile of hers. Along with her sweet-ass, white girl dance moves, Diaz is very charming to watch here and definitely comes across as the most distinguishable Angel of the three, if only because she seems to actually show some personality. That’s not to discredit Barrymore or Liu or anything, but it’s Diaz who reminds us why she was so young, hot and promising at one time in her life, where now, all she is, is another botox-surgery away from being a parody of herself, much like Ms. Farrah Fawcett ended-up becoming in her later-life as well.

It’s a shame to see a movie in which not only does Sam Rockwell and Crispin Glover get wasted as villains, but so does Tim Curry. Rockwell has a bit more to work with here than the other two, but he still doesn’t seem like he was given much at all to work with, other than a bunch of cocky-lines to sound intimidating with and a random back-story that would, for some reason or another, make sense as to why the plot is so convoluted and nonsensical to begin with. But, to look on the bright side, at least THE Bill Murray wasn’t wasted here, and for that, I have to thank the movie. Then again though, it’d be pretty hard to waste Bill Murray to begin with. He just doesn’t allow for such a wrong-doing to happen.

Consensus: You could definitely place Charlie’s Angels into the “late-night rental” category because while it’s not memorable, it’s still fun, but still seems like a waste of mostly everybody involved, as well as some funny material that never seems to materialize into being anything more than just a bunch of hot ladies, running around, kicking ass and using a lame-pun every now and then.

5.5 / 10 = Rental!!

Ouch.

With legs wide open…

Photo’s Credit to: IMDBCollider

About these ads

24 responses to “Charlie’s Angels (2000)

  1. thycriticman February 19, 2014 at 5:40 am

    I remember watching this in my youth. At that point in my life, I loved it. Three smoking hot chicks running around beating up baddies was nothing short of a good time. Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Xena, Charlies Angel’s, all that cheese was wonderful! Well written review!

  2. Writer Loves Movies February 19, 2014 at 8:00 am

    Nice write up. I remember enjoying this one when I saw it 14 years ago. Not so sure I would enjoy it quite so much now…

  3. Terry Malloy's Pigeon Coop February 19, 2014 at 9:06 am

    Think I actually went to the cinema to see this, such is the ignorance of youth! Nicely done Dan.

  4. jjames36 February 19, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    Good review. I never did see this, but as tepid as your review is, you actually make it sound better than I expected.

    Of course, you don’t make it seem good enough that I’m in any hurry to see it. :-)

  5. cindybruchman February 19, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    Great review! I was a pre-teen when the original series came out. I pretended I was the smart one, ‎Kate Jackson, so when the new version came out, it mildly piqued my interest. I like strong, kick-ass, independent roles for women on film. This version was a silly, fun film and the misfires you mentioned were totally correct. I also agree that Diaz was utterly charming, and they only needed one and that was stretching it a bit.

    • CMrok93 February 22, 2014 at 9:02 pm

      I liked that it gave us some kick-ass women who did their own bootie-bopping, but I wanted the movie to say a bit more and just be, in general, more funny.

  6. jacksonmark7 February 19, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    I’ve actually never seen this, but I went with my sister in 2003 to watch Full Throttle. Not the best of times to say the least, but maybe I’ll give the first a watch if it’s ever on TV.

    Do you actually own this movie or watch it on TV lol?

  7. Georges Fadel February 19, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    Nice review. I remember enjoying the series of the 1970s better than the movie. For info, a remake of the series was made in 2011 and was cancelled just after 8 episodes.

    • CMrok93 February 22, 2014 at 9:03 pm

      Yeah, I actually watched a couple of those episodes and it was pretty terrible. Minka Kelly was the only reason to watch it, and even then, her acting-skills were being a bit stretched.

  8. sundaydumbday February 19, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    Great review Dan! I loved this movie when it came out with all the cheesy comedy and awesome stunts but sadly it doesn’t hold up for me anymore.

  9. Zoë February 20, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    Damn, haven’t seen this in years! Great review as always Dan!

  10. Jim Turnbull February 20, 2014 at 5:09 pm

    Great review mate! Pretty bad movie but always been a guilty pleasure. Agree with how they wasted Rockwell and Curry though. Could have made a lot more of them.

  11. stephen1001 February 21, 2014 at 2:41 am

    Is this the one where Tom Green appears as “The Chad”? If so, that might be his best role – nice and restrained!

  12. Dan February 24, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Pretty much agree Dan! Charlie’s Angels was forgettable enough entertainment when it was released that I’ve avoided it ever since.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,572 other followers

%d bloggers like this: