In a sentenceCameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu deserve enough time between cuts to finish a kick
Natalie Cook (Cameron Diaz), Dylan Sanders (Drew Barrymore) and Alex Munday (Lucy Liu) are the central trio in McG’s action-comedy. Bill Murray plays John Bosley, Sam Rockwell plays Eric Knox, and Tim Curry appears as Roger Corwin. Kelly Lynch is Vivian Wood, Crispin Glover is Thin Man, and John Forsythe supplies the voice of Charlie. Mixing action, comedy and adventure across 98 minutes, Charlie’s Angels has a screenplay by Ed Solomon, John August and Ryan Rowe, with Drew Barrymore also serving as a producer.
Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.
McG’s action-comedy gets by on the company of Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu. Their shared silliness is fun, but thin writing and impatient cutting keep interrupting it.
Charlie’s Angels is a likeable, untidy action-comedy that keeps getting in its own way. McG wants the fighting and the jokes to arrive with equal force, preferably before we have recovered from the last lot. At 98 minutes, the film ought to be a brisk evening’s entertainment, and stretches of it are. But the restless cutting and thin writing make it feel more effortful than its cheerful stars deserve.
Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu give Natalie Cook, Dylan Sanders and Alex Munday enough shared comic confidence to make the flimsy story temporarily irrelevant. They can be ridiculous without seeming embarrassed, which matters in a film so dependent on our willingness to enjoy the silliness. We laughed more than the dialogue deserved because the three make that silliness feel like something they enjoy together. Their company is the strongest reason to stay, though the script too often relies on it instead of supplying a better joke.
Bill Murray, as John Bosley, helps by making less effort to advertise the comedy. His drollness is welcome when almost everything around him is insisting on how much fun it is. The contrast exposes the film’s chief miscalculation: energy alone cannot keep a comic scene alive. There is pleasure in the juvenile humour, but it needs a little more variation than McG seems prepared to allow.
The screenplay by Ed Solomon, John August and Ryan Rowe gives the cast plenty of activity and too little to make that activity matter. A light plot is perfectly adequate for this sort of adventure, provided the jokes and action carry us between its turns. Here, the dialogue is too uneven to do that reliably, and the frantic presentation makes a modest story seem unnecessarily cluttered. We need no solemn character histories, but clearer reasons to care about the next burst of action would help.
Russell Carpenter’s cinematography and J. Michael Riva’s production design serve McG’s appetite for spectacle, but the emphasis on the women’s sex appeal grows repetitive. The performers are already holding our attention through their comic assurance. The framing keeps insisting on another reason to watch them, and it becomes a distraction from what they do well. Edward Shearmur’s score adds to the forward push, though this is a film that could use more pauses, especially when somebody has a joke to deliver.
Wayne Wahrman and Peter Teschner’s editing is the more serious obstacle to the action. The martial-arts sequences promise the pleasure of watching bodies move with skill, then keep breaking that movement into pieces. We were frustrated by the interruptions, particularly because the physical performances offer something worth watching. Fast cutting can sharpen a fight, but here it too often asks the cuts to provide excitement that the movement could have supplied.
An action-comedy has good reason to keep its story simple when that leaves room for physical wit: we need to see the mistake, the recovery and the next attempt. McG is too impatient for that kind of pleasure, even with performers who could sustain it. Anyone hoping chiefly for an easy evening with this cast will have more luck. Go for their company, and expect the action to be harder work than it needs to be.
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.
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 full review →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 full review →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 full review →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 full review →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 full review →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 full review →
The Heroic Trio · not reviewed yetAnother female action trio, with stranger adventures and more unruly fantasy.
D.E.B.S. · not reviewed yetA lighter spy comedy that gives its heroines more room for romance.
Police Story · not reviewed yetFor martial arts allowed to unfold clearly, with comedy built into the movement.
The Long Kiss Goodnight · not reviewed yetSharper dialogue and nastier action, with a capable woman driving the chaos.
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. · not reviewed yetMore spy games played for glamour, with a calmer eye for comic timing.
Free account
Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.
