Review of Charlie's Angels (2000) by Andrew G — 22 Sep 2010

?Never send a man to do a woman's job.? Vivian Wood ? Kelly Lynch.

Yet another film based on an existing TV property that ended years ago. While I don?t demand that all TV Adaptations be on the same level of excellence of the Fugitive, I at least want something redeemable and a reasonable attempt at remaking a TV series for a new audience. In all honesty, I?ve never watched a single episode of Charlie?s Angels. It looks really dated to me, and really uninteresting. I?ll give it the benefit though that it has a specific audience, and it was probably really good at the time of its release. This film has no excuse... it?s bad because it was lazily made to cash in on the name.

You?ve heard of Charlie?s Angels before: 3 Female Secret Agents who work for a man who we only hear, we never see. Eric Knox of Knox Technologies has revolutionary Voice-Recognition software planned to be released, but it is stolen. The Angels are sent to place a bug in the system of Knox?s rival, Roger Corwin, who is suspected as the thief. The deed completed; the Angels and their assistant Bosley face their home destroyed, and Charlie in danger. The 4 must find and save Charlie. It?s a plot that takes about an afternoon to come up with, but that doesn?t mean it can?t be expanded on. But no, Charlie?s Angels makes no effort to improve on the story at all; it knows that girls are going to like it as their own Bond film; the fans will have a level of nostalgia to it; and the boys aren?t going to pay as much attention to the plot as much as the girls. It?s pathetic that it?s just so lazy with the plot. When I watch a spy film, I don?t necessarily need a superbly written and deep story, but enough so I know it?s not just dumb action scenes with excessive CGI. Charlie?s Angels plot is just stupid. The characters are boring, and the film in my eyes is just really dull. Every aspect of it is taken from a much better spy film. Some may argue that it?s paying homage to them, but it came off to me as cheap imitation. There are also some twists in the film that I found to be incredibly lazy and predictable. The characters that were involved were written so over the top that you?d think that something was up with them in real life. Instead, we have to dumb ourselves down and make sure we are easily impressed. I?d go deeper with the plot, but it?s pretty hard to do so when it?s just so lacking. I?ll say though that I did like the running gag of Charlie never revealing his face; it?s something I?ve heard was present in the show, and I actually did like that aspect to the film, because you genuinely do want to see what he looks like. Also, I didn?t mind the run time. Sure, the film is terrible, but it?s on for just over an hour and a half, so you?re not subjected to it for too long; they could easily have gone too far and made this a full 2 hours long.

When you?re making a film like Charlie?s Angels, the cast isn?t likely to contain much acting talent; they choose women that are big names and the public generally like. Cameron Diaz I feel is a good actress given the right film. Sadly though, this isn?t the sort of film where she can be good. The lines are terrible, so she looks and sounds stupid delivering them. I?ve never liked Drew Barrymore as an actress, and I?ve never understood the popularity she has. This film didn?t change my mind whatsoever; just the way she delivers her lines makes her sound like an airhead and one that can?t act at that. The third Angel was played by Lucy Liu. I?ve not seen her in much before, and while she wasn?t downright terrible, I didn?t think she was decent either. Until I?ve seen her in a lot of films though, I can?t call her that bad of an actress. Bill Murray is an actor I always love, because he brings a level of charm to his character no matter what. He?s good in this film, but that?s more the actor than the script. His lines are terrible, but Bill Murray is just so likeable an actor that you like his presence on screen. There were supporting roles played by talented actors, who are wasted here: Sam Rockwell and Tim Curry in particular.

The action scenes were awful. It?s constant CGI and isn?t too fun to watch. Whenever it isn?t CGI, it?s stunt-women. I love practical effects, but they?re just terrible in this. The fight scenes are the weakest point. The choreography is dull, uninteresting and cliché. When a film lacks in Writing and Acting, you can normally look to the action and say that it?s worth watching because of that, but that?s not the case here.

Charlie?s Angels is just a terrible film. I strongly dislike it, and I?ve got no idea why anyone else would. Call me a snob all you want, but I can be easily entertained by a film. The bottom line is that this just isn?t good in any aspect, and has only minor parts to it that make it somewhat redeemable. It?s put me off watching the classic series, and I don?t think I?ll ever watch this film again.

Andrew?s rating: 2 out of 10.