Charlie's Angels (2000) User Reviews

Music video entertainment

[tomimt · 6/10 · 12 April 2006]

Charlies Angels was a semi serious, comedic detective series about three girls, who were working with faceless and mysterious Charlie. And this movie is updated version out of the series, now adding goof ball humour, sex and coolness factor in to the mix.

The angels this time are Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore. Their boss still is Charlie and his right man Bosley is played by Bill Murray. The plot line goes in the lines of: important software stolen, get it back, who did it. But that matters very little, as the movie has only one aim: to be as cool as it is humanly possible. And when it get tired of being cool it just starts throwing goof ball humor left and right.

I honestly have trouble of reviewing this film as a real movie, as it obviously doesn't even try to be one, but then again what is a real movie. Charlie's Angels is like one huge music video with action and gimmicks in it. The girls are pretty and do throw a couple of great lines and the action is just fine, but the truth is the movie doesn't hold up for multiple viewings. It is a fast food film.

Eye Candy No-Brainer Fun To Watch

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 29 March 2007]

This is a stylish and entertaining action film, albeit a stupid one mentality-wise. However, there are a lot of movies in that category, so you just put your brain on "hold" and enjoy the ludicrous story. Here, it's three gorgeous babes kicking the tar out of everyone.....which IS ridiculous!

The story may be lame but the visuals are a real treat, and I don't mean just the girls, Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu. The colors in this movie are vivid and fun to view.

The story is cartoon-like in nature and and funny in a number of sots. If you took this story seriously, you'd be insulted. The only warning I would give is for smaller kids because there are a lot of sexual innuendos in here along with a number of closeup shots of cleavage and butts. (Not that I am complaining!)

The Chad

[mitchcrilly · 7/10 · 11 April 2022]

Fun movie. Strange but I liked it. Perfect cast, wouldn't change it. I can make fun of some scenes. Creepy thin man is extremely weird. Great villains. Great movie 8/10.

High-spirited, infectious ridiculousness

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 26 June 2005]

Head-spinning collage of technically marvelous effects in theatrical remake of cult late-'70s TV series. Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Lui are attractive, funny, resourceful, sexy and--most importantly (and surprisingly) quite convincing as super-detectives. Their case (involving rival software companies, a kidnapping, and the planned assassination of boss Charlie) doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and Bill Murray is out-of-it as confidante Bosley, but director McG's modern-comic action is so lightning-fast and silky smooth you may be having too much fun to notice. Some of the satire is actually rather smart, and the girls are game for just about anything. **1/2 from ****

An enjoyable piece of fluff

[Normandie2001 · 14 April 2001]

I went to see 'Charlie's Angels' out of interest after all the interesting coverage from the set.

The laughably complex plot seems to flow along well with the movie. I found it particularly funny, and enjoyed all the fighting scenes and the fabulous soundtrack.

The performances impressed me the most. Everyone looks like they're having fun, but my favourite was Natalie (Cameron Diaz). When she smiles, you can't help but smile along with her. I also admired that the girls also did all their own stunts, something not too common in films. And despite the rumours, Bill Murray and the girls had good chemistry and he proved an able sidekick to the girls.

With that said, I'll say four words: Bring on the sequel!

Golden Turkey awards nomination

[PaulLondon · 1/10 · 1 July 2002]

We have all seen a bad film or two in our time. But, this one....well I practically had a physical reaction to this one. Yes, it bored, then irritated, then angered me and twenty minutes into this puerile mess I was contemplating never watching another movie in my life and taking up a hobby like making corn dollies. From the frantic start it is clear that very little attention was given to writing a decent script and it goes downhill once the scriptwriter decided to inject some "humour" into it. "I like it STRAIGHT" the airplane passenger tells the camp air steward. (ooh ow stop it I nearly bust a gut laughing) Later, poor Cameron Diaz gets to wiggle her ass in her panties and even answer the door to the postman in her scanties - where she hilariously tells him that he can put it in her slot whenever he wants. Hey!! Its called a letterbox! The standard of comic writing is 1000 times below that of the very worst Carry On film. Its as if a particularly stupid idiot college boy thought he'd add a few risque giggles to spice up an already well below par script. And as for the direction! Did anybody actually bother to direct this? Never has a screen been filled with such a mess. Even the potentially exciting fight scenes are so clumsily choreographed as to take away any possible excitement. ("Crouching Tiger" this certainly ain't). The whole thing plods along humourlessly and tediously and perhaps you can waste a few minutes wondering how many good films could have been made with the budget. Or perhaps the money should have been thrown straight into a furnace so that nobody had to suffer this disaster. It is contemptuous of the general public to even release such rubbish and the thought of a sequel makes my blood run cold.

Enjoyable movie that is also a little silly

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 8 February 2009]

This movie is not a favourite, but it is entertaining. It is a bit loud in places, and the script has its ups and downs. The film is about three women who try to find a kidnapped computer boffin, and the prime suspect is a man named roger Corwin. It turns out that the kidnapping was a set up, to kill their boss, so it's up to the girls to stop him. The music does get a bit much, but it is common in films like these. The stunts were actually better than in most Jean Claude Van Damme movies. On the acting front, the acting is a mixed bag. Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore were great fun as the girls, while Bill Murray gives great comic relief as Bosley. Sam Rockwell isn't really up to my liking, but you would disagree. Tim Curry has been better, but in a small role, he was good too, as were Crispin Glover and Kelly Lynch. Worth watching, but avoid the sequel! 6.5/10 Bethany Cox

A 2 hour long music video...

[bzolt · 1/10 · 6 November 2001]

When this movie first came out in theaters, I took one look at the trailer and thought maybe I'd wait until it came out on cable before I'd see it. At the time, it didn't strike me as something worth $10 to go see. Well it finally came out on cable, and having watched the whole thing, I can tell you the most tolerable scenes were in fact in the trailer. In retrospect, I think the best way I could have watched this movie was to have the TV turned off, but kept the sound system and cable left on, so that I could listen to the great soundtrack, without the annoying visuals. But unfortunately, I watched the whole thing from start to finish. The fact that I didn't spend $10 to see it wasn't enough to placate this feeling I had that I had somehow been cheated. Now you might be wondering, if this movie was so bad, why did you watch it until the end? That is a very good question, because I have walked out of bad movies before, or fell asleep half way through them. I guess the reason I watched it until the end, was because I wanted to see how much worse it could get. I think I wanted to establish a new low - a point of reference of how bad a movie could be. The previous title holder was `Howard the Duck', but Charlie's Angels makes that one seem Oscar-worthy. Let me just say, I love spy thriller movies like James Bond and True Lies. I also like funny spy movies like Austin Powers 1&2. I even like movie versions of popular TV series like Mission Impossible 1&2. But this one - I'm not even sure what this one is. The only conclusion I came to, is that Charlie's Angels is a 2 hour long music video.

Entertaining Fluff

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 13 September 2017]

Three women, detectives with a mysterious boss, retrieve stolen voice-ID software, using martial arts, tech skills and sex appeal.

This is not a good movie, but it is a fun, fluffy popcorn movie. The cast is incredible, the soundtrack top notch. I cannot even imagine the budget on this thing. And the inclusion of Bill Murray? That was inspiring.

And then there is Tom Green. Now, I actually like Green in small doses. But he is the odd man out here. The character of "the Chad" just seems wrong on so many levels. He disrupts the flow of the comedy and the gratuitous outfit changes. (Oddly, despite the obvious attempt to push the "sex appeal" angle, I feel like this film probably has more female than male fans.)

Awful, just awful. More like an exercise in product placement!

[simondavies · 1/10 · 9 July 2001]

This film was supposed to be tongue in cheek as I understand it, but it failed to pull this off in an at all amusing way. The whole story appeared to be driven by how much money they could make on product placement - awful. I am pretty sure it need not have been this bad, Bill Murray, and the Girls seemed wasted. Not since Hudson Hawk have I seen a film with a potentially amusing idea go so badly wrong.

Simply brilliantly silly and fun and makes me smile every time I watch it.

[charlesrabone-59949 · 10/10 · 2 August 2020]

It's a little time bubble that unless you grew up with these stars wont give you the impact it has on a certain generation. Best watch first ET, Groundhog day, Rocky Horror Picture Show , Friends, and Something about Mary, Back To Future to name a few. Lucy Liu was pretty much a new entry for me, but they all blended beautifully on top of knowing the original Charlie's Angels. Love the one liners. ' Was it the Chad?' ' No the Chad was great'

Diaz as Natalie has a smile that's wider than the Jokers and its could be the darkest coldest Wettest day of your life and Natalies Character could make you smile and see that there is plenty of sunshine out there. I love tickets too Nat.

It's never going to win a Oscar. But there are plenty of action Comedies that try too hard to be funny and you are finding it hard to find the humour. This one for me is a Oscar winner for popcorn fun and action, with music that works perfectly with each scene. It's a classic now for me, now it's over 20 years old.

Ravishing and lethal detectives rescue stolen software.

[michaelRokeefe · 6/10 · 8 June 2001]

This is a clever big-screen adaption of the popular '70s TV series. A trio of martial arts trained detectives with drop dead gorgeous looks work exclusively for an unseen boss 'Charlie' Townsend(John Forsythe). The angels are played by Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu. With the sometimes inept help of Charlie's assistant Bosley(Bill Murray), the striking detectives investigate a kidnapping and retrieve some highly technical software that could lead to the death of their boss.

Also in the cast of this fun, run and gun romp are:Tim Curry, Matt LeBlanc, Kelly Lynch and a very impressive villain played by Crispin Glover. If you have yet to fall in love with Miss Diaz, you deserve no mercy. She proves again to be charming, sexy and very talented. Miss Barrymore also has that way of being funny while not losing an ounce of sex appeal.

Although contrived and a bit silly this movie is an action filled escape. There is no doubt that this explosive trio of crime-fighters will be back to use their skills and complete their mission. Thank you, Angels!

A really dire film.

[dan-j-rooke · 1/10 · 8 May 2006]

I apologise to the fans of this film - but I really didn't like it.

To me it was typical of the Hollywood conveyor belt film factory.

I'm not too familiar with the TV series - but I had seen a bit. The film wasn't really anywhere near similar. Yes it had feisty lasses taking on the tyranny of the world (kind of) - but that was it.

It took itself far too seriously. In points it looked like it was lampooning itself - but it wasn't.

Twas transparent and lacklustre. The acting was mediocre - but to be honest, I don't blame the actors. I blame the script for being so void of character.

It was obvious that the film was selling on the back of the title. I can imagine a board of men sat round a table with a tick-list of things they want in it : "I want skimpy outfits, fighting which shows off the girl's 'assets', some nice cars, and just wing the rest." Poo, absolute poo.

Silly, but quite enjoyable if you're in the mood.

[bob the moo · 20 June 2002]

Three little girls have become three little ladies who work as special agents for Charlie (via intermediary Bosley). When they are contracted in to get evidence of Roger Corwin stealing the kidnapped Eric Knox's voice recognition device. The agents are successful but Knox turns out to have more sinister motives and the angels find themselves fighting to protect Charlie and Bosley.

Yet another in a line of film remake's of old TV shows, in the words of LL Cool J `yet another remake of an old TV show'. However this just about succeeds for one simple reason – it never tries to take itself seriously. This works because it can be camp, silly and OTT because we know it's meant to be. The plot is OK and has some reasonable twists but really the jokes and action move it along. The silliness can get a bit much at times and is a little tiring.

For example we have far too many shots of the girls tossing their hair, and too many scenes that mean nothing. Eg a high speed car chase ends on a bridge but it has no reason for happening and nothing happens as a result. The fights are very OTT and are very much a matrix rip off – they are only just saved by the tongue in cheek attitude of the film. But even then they still silly.

The cast are OK but really they are just playing daft. Rockwell is really good and Bill Murray saves the whole film by being really funny. Tom Green is in it because his girlfriend felt sorry for him and wanted him to be in a film that got shown in a cinema outside of the US, however his character is stupid and pointless. Wilson is good and LL Cool J makes a good cameo, but Tim Curry has been better.

Overall it's enjoyable if you're in the mood for silly popcorn trash. If you're not in the mood this will only serve to irritate you at how poor Hollywood blockbusters can be.

A slick, enjoyable fast paced and hilarious action movie

[coasterdude44 · 7/10 · 23 November 2019]

One of my childhood favourites, Charlies Angels is an enjoyable, fun and comeidic action movie with heaps of memorable moments and some great action aswell. If you love early 00s action movies, this is for you with Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore all playing good roles an overall just kicking lots of butt and being cool. It's no masterpiece and it's really not anything really that complex or original, but it's a fun and crisp action movie that you can always come back to an be entertained by

It's hard not to like the girls

[rbverhoef · 6/10 · 3 August 2003]

Whether you like 'Charlie's Angels' or not will probably depend on whether you like watching beautiful ladies Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore. Up to a point I liked it, or actually I liked the fun the women were having with their parts. Especially Diaz and her behind and Barrymore in total really show they have a lot of fun. Another part of the fun comes from Bill Murray who has a lot of moments that will make you smile.

What about other things in this film? Story for example. In a film like this that really is the last thing you should worry about. The film is not about story, it is about the three ladies in their action scenes. Admittedly they look great in them, although most of the action scenes were not that great. Again, for watching Diaz, Liu and Barrymore because they are beautiful or to see the fun performers can have 'Charlie's Angels' is worth watching. But for no other reason, I would say.

Possibly the worst movie i've ever had the misfortune to see

[samba4 · 1/10 · 15 November 2001]

This movie has a level of pathetic trash that far surpasses even the Blair Witch Project. This movie insults.(PERIOD). The list of movie mistakes never ends. We are supposed to assume that a 115 pound woman can knock over a room full of grown men. I don't buy it and don't tell me, " well man its supposed to be corny." That is BULL!! And you shouldn't buy into it either, because directing is an art and making a corny movie on purpose is every director or movie makers loop hole. Anytime you hear " well its supposed to be that way," that means that they hired the most mindless, gutless, dumbest cast and crew and just threw millions of dollars at the picture and assumed people would come to see it and judging by its rating, it worked. I still don't buy it and you'll never find me making movies and sticking a horrible set of actresses on screen just so i can push their butts and chest into the camera and possibly capture those in the audience that invest thousands of dollars into radio equipment. This movie is trash and poison with no depth or texture or meat. IT sucks and Larry Flinders cannot be counted as a fan of this trash. I hope everyone that was a part of this movie reads this. Thank you, Goodbye!!

Charlie's Angels

[JoBloTheMovieCritic · 7/10 · 18 October 2019]

7/10 - campy 2000s action flick is a lot of fun for an evening-in

Avoid this movie like the plague.

[Orgazmo · 1/10 · 5 November 2000]

I don't think I've ever seen a worse movie than this. Since when do Charlie's Angels have super-powers? There was NO plot (it was like watching a bunch of bad skits), atrocious acting and extremely annoying special effects. Why is it that every movie fight scene has to be exactly like something like "The Matrix?" This movie sucks, don't see it.

Bears Little resembelence to the TV show and is a bit better then it could have been but not great.

[triple8 · 6/10 · 17 August 2003]

Charlie's Angels the movie bears little if any resemblance to Charlie's Angels the Television Show and it might be good to keep that in mind. That said-turned out better then it could have. Parts of it are funny but you have to keep in mind it's like watching a movie about 3 different women. None of the 3 angels in the movie have any completely developed, distinct personality, their all sort of these spastic women, but the personalities are not developed, they all kind of mirror each other.

This is more a movie to watch for the killer action sequences where Barrymore, Diez and Lu show what they've got with leaps, kicks and other funky action scenes. It's enjoyable in a popcorn sort of way, just don't sit there thinking you'll even get a glimpse of the original Jill, Kelly or Sabrina.

The worst movie ever

[Churu · 1/10 · 4 January 2001]

Ohh God!!.. they finally hit bottom. This is the most stupid film I have ever seen... bad jokes, re-used special effects, silly plot... If you saw Mission Impossible you already know the plot of Charlie's Angels... and if you saw Matrix, you know the visual effects and fight scenes already. When I went to the cinema to watch this movie, I did it because the idea of Charlie's Angels on big screen sounded appealing.. but I must say I regret I paid those $4. Most people at the cinema had to leave before the movie finished... I heard a few people laughing, not at the jokes, but at the silliness of this production... This is not entertainment, it was more like torture

Just Plain Fun !

[namdc · 8/10 · 5 August 2005]

There's no intellectual challenges made in this movie's plot, and that's how it should be; the characters are only slightly more fleshed-out than any of the ones from the TV show, and that's also not a bad thing - if you put too much seriousness into this kind of film, you wind up killing the roaring-good times to be had. What really makes the film work is the charisma ( & physical charms )of the 3 leading ladies, combined with well-choreographed action sequences and the tongue-in-cheek script. If you enjoy Diaz, Barrymore & Liu ( not to mention Bill Murray )when they're on the screen, you'll love this flick.

So much better than that thing made in 2019...

[m-47826 · 6/10 · 17 June 2022]

The movie is fun. It is also about female empowerment, but in a lot less get revenge way. Which makes it more effective and pleasant to watch. The actresses were clearly having a good time, and loved sharing it with the audience. I can get passed the silly action sequences, because it never shied away from making fun of itself and being aware of the series corniness. And it also does it in a respectful way, that is free of today's sarcasm and condescension. The supporting actors and cameos, are great additions (Tom Green is a thing of the past though, and thank god for that...) And the cinematography and music, are perfect for the retro meets modern days feel, the movie was aiming for. It was pure entertainment and done accordingly, with a very uplifting and light approach. It's one of my guilty pleasure movies. The sequel is ok too...

The angels have fallen (big time)

[jamiecostelo58 · 1/10 · 12 December 2006]

I was optimistic about this adaptation of the classic 70s and 80s show, but on first viewing, it did nothing but disappoint. This movie is simply too over the top, and the 'funny' moments are quite laboured.

Great karate moves and special effects are spoilt by the weak storyline and a ridiculous performance from Bill Murray. Nice to hear John Forsythe reprise the role of Charlie though.

A shame that one of the men responsible for the original TV series had a hand in producing a poor adaptation. Why did Leonard Goldberg bother? Original star Kate Jackson also commented on how the film failed to capture the spirit of the TV series: I see her point immensely.

This movie is a poor excuse for something that is supposed to be based on a legendary TV series. It is simply ridiculous and over the top nonsense that is absolutely nothing to get excited about.

Mindless fun that delivers.

[Niceguy · 5 November 2000]

Yet another old television show has been updated for the big screen. The new Charlie's Angels movie is cheesy and comical, and it means to be. What we have here is a mindless but fun outing that will have women cheering and guys laughing. Diaz, Liu and Barrymore portray the extraordinarily skilled team of crime-fighters who seem able to do everything except lead a normal life. Bill Murray plays Bosley, their supervisor, and John Forsythe reprises his role as the voice of the team's boss Charlie. Their latest seemingly routine call involves rescuing and protecting a computer genius whose technology is about to fall into the wrong hands. Of course things wind up to be more complicated than expected, and the Angels must use their "talents" to save the day. They quickly cross paths with a creepy individual played by Crispin Glover, who some of you my remember as the nerdy George McFly from Back To The Future. He's changed his look a bit since then, and ends up being one of the coolest big screen villains since Darth Maul in Star Wars: Episode One, which he was surely patterned after. This film is fun, albeit silly fun, and will entertain you on many levels. First time director McG, pronounced Mick-G, borrows shots and styles from many recent films. The most obvious similarities come from The Matrix, allowing our heroes and villains to defy the laws of physics on numerous occasions. All of the fight scenes are spectacular and nicely choreographed, with the exception of one involving Drew Barrymore towards the end. You would think with all of the fancy wirework and effects capability that they could at least give the illusion of Drew's kicks connecting with the bad guys. Bill Murray adds some nice extra comedy to an already funny film. Don't expect any Academy Award nominations, but definitely expect a sequel. Mind-numbing entertainment can be great if you're in the right mood.