--- title: "Charlie's Angels: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/charlies-angels/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/charlies-angels" critics_score: 55 critics_reviews: 10 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Charlie's Angels (2000): what the critics said Critics' score 55 from 10 reviews: 2 positive, 5 mixed, 3 negative. The consensus on Charlie’s Angels is mixed, with praise clustering around the cast’s comic energy and the film’s willingness to be silly. Several reviews find the leads’ high spirits enough to make a thin story entertaining, at least in bursts. The action also earns approval for its pace and exuberance, although enthusiasm for the spectacle does not always extend to how it is assembled. The main divide is over how much fun compensates for the weak plotting and frantic style. Reservations range from choppy fight editing to poor dialogue and sexualised framing. Eye for Film is the clear enthusiast, praising a consistently witty script where others find little substance. The New Yorker sits at the opposite end, finding the film juvenile and dramatically inert, though it singles out Cameron Diaz’s comic performance for praise. Even the harsher reviews tend to find something to enjoy. ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 29 October 2000. McCarthy finds the film an entertaining, broadly appealing action romp, though its material is thin. He praises McG’s energetic direction and the cast’s buoyant performances, while faulting the action editing for breaking up the martial-arts flow. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2000/film/reviews/charlie-s-angels-3-1200464547/) ## The New York Times — Stephen Holden Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 3 November 2000. The URL identifies this as a review of the 2000 film, but the page content is inaccessible. I can’t verify the critic’s verdict or what the review singles out. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/03/movies/film-review-sleek-tough-frosted-must-be-empowerment.html) ## Time Out — NF Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). The available description suggests a mixed verdict on the film. It praises Bill Murray’s droll Bosley for adding comic class to a nominal plot. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/charlies-angels-1) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 2.5/4. 3 November 2000. Ebert finds it a lively, knowingly silly action-comedy rather than a serious story. He praises the stars’ comic chemistry and the film’s energetic style. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/charlies-angels-2000) ## Total Film — Total Film Rating 3/5. 24 November 2000. The review finds the film silly and narratively weak but entertaining. It praises the leads’ high-spirited antics and the film’s exuberant, kitschy fun. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/charlies-angels-review/) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 3 November 2000. Turan finds the film entertaining in short bursts but too frenetic and lightweight to sustain its brief running time. He praises its humor and energetic martial-arts action, while criticizing the dialogue and overstuffed style. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-nov-03-ca-46133-story.html) ## Radio Times — Alan Jones Rating 2/5. Jones finds the film a shallow, self-referential patchwork rather than a substantial take on the series. He particularly faults its reheated plot and campy emphasis on the stars’ sex appeal. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-izxwvf/charlies-angels/) ## Empire — Caroline Westbrook Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. The critic finds the film muddled and frequently painful, though it has occasional entertaining moments. The fast, furious fight set-pieces and its final half-hour earn praise, while gratuitous sexualized framing draws criticism. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/charlie-angels-review/) ## The New Yorker — Anthony Lane Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 5 November 2000. Lane finds the film flimsy, juvenile, and dramatically inert, with its spectacle and sexual playfulness offering little substance. He singles out Cameron Diaz’s exuberant comic performance and her flirtation with Luke Wilson as the film’s rare source of freshness. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2000/11/13/dolls-before-guys) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 19 January 2001. The critic finds the film enormously enjoyable, fast, funny, and sexy. They praise its consistently witty script and energetic, startling stunts. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/charlies-angels-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/charlies-angels.md