Charlie's Angels Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Get Some Action
Action Doesn't Get Any Hotter Than This.
Based on the popular 70's TV show, three cute chicks work for the mysterious "Charlie". They are the female 'James Bonds'' of our time. They get to blow stuff up, kick the cr*p out of people, and wear really tight clothing, all whilst trying to retrieve stolen software and balance in high heels.
| Drew Barrymore | Dylan Sanders |
| Tim Curry | Roger Corwin |
| Bill Murray | John Bosley |
| Crispin Glover | Thin Man |
| Kelly Lynch | Vivian Wood |
| Sam Rockwell | Eric Knox |
| Cameron Diaz | Natalie Cook |
| Lucy Liu | Alex Munday |
| Luke Wilson | Pete Komisky |
| John Forsythe | Charles Townsend |
| Matt LeBlanc | Jason Gibbons |
| Tom Green | Chad |
| LL Cool J | Mr. Jones |
| Sean Whalen | Pasqual |
| Faye Dunaway | Flight Attendant |
| McG |
5.60 out of 10 (36866 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Hip and action-packed!
posted on 12 Aug 2009Charlie's Angels is hip, eclectic, and exciting. It is one of those films you would go to see on a Saturday afternoon when you're bored. Kudos to Barrymore for producing and co-starring in this, as well as the cast and the director. From his experience of directing music videos, McG brings his style of intense action and coolness to the film. The action sequences, though, were reminiscent of "The Matrix" and the recent "James Bond" films, but with sexy fighting women. Overall, this is fun, escapist entertainment!!
The Angels were suppose to be BEAUTIFUL weren't they?
posted on 06 Aug 2009The thing I enjoyed about the TV series was that the gorgeous women paraded around in sexy clothes that showed off their assets. A real eye candy sort of thing. Loved it. This film took 3 women that I have seen appear to be beautiful in other films and made them look awful. Carmen Diaz looked like a scarecrow she was so thin and her hair was so stringy and no makeup. Whoa - can't say I enjoyed going there. Every now and then Drew Barrymore looked attractive, but not often enough to make a real show of it. And I don't get the popularity of that third angel. Her hair is nice I guess. Bill Murray looked like a derelict. Then there was the stunts. REALLY BAD. At least I wasn't expecting much of a story and wasn't disappointed there. Had to turn it off about 45 minutes into it. There had to be something else better on TV.
Nice, very nice
posted on 02 Aug 2009First of all I must say that I enjoyed this movie a lot. Ok you might think it is cheesy when you see the commercials, but it is not. It is just a whacky comedy that really sucks you into the story without ever letting go. This is due to a lot of fun, action, comedy, good actors and actresses (except for one) and the fact that the jokes never are too cheesy or outrageously stupid. It just sets the tone of comedy immediately in the first few seconds and from there on, the makers stick with that kind of humor.The best things about this movie, besides the fact that it is fast paced and that the length is just perfect, are probably, that there are a lot of action, a lot of jokes and three women who tease the male audience. First of all I must say here that the action scenes are really great (à la The Matrix). The stunts and the kicks are mostly shown in slow-motion, until somebody actually gets hit. Then it's: Wham! and off he goes with tremendous speed. That is really well done and cool and you actually believe that those Angels can do all that stuff.Secondary these babes are high class spies, which work with every weapon they got (the strongest of which are their appearances). Therefore they often dress up in different styles throughout this movie, which I must say fits Drew Barrymore perfectly I must say (blonde, redhead, black hair, she is just HOT). Lucy Lui is OK in all of her outfits and the only one who is kind of a setback is actually Cameron Diaz, whose natural color of hair seems to be the only one that suits her. Talking about appearances, there are many beautiful things for the male eye in this film and some things for comparison for females.Well about the jokes. Some are a bit far out maybe, like when the Angels dress up as German Fräuleins and hop around in traditional clothes they bought in the Alps. But I was not too bothered by them as I was in some other films, although I felt it really showed us, what the best weapon these babes had were, their appearances. I mean, when a guy is confronted with such beauty, his brain is immediately sucked dry of all available blood (which goes elsewhere) and therefore cannot think clearly anymore.Well I really liked this film a lot. Good script, director, actors, actresses, good score, good soundtrack, good camerawork, good producing (keep on going like that Mrs. Barrymore) and good effects. So there I said it all. No wait, there is something wrong here. Oh yes, good actors. All of them? NO. So who is that sucker? Well simple, it is Tom Green, who was also my least favorite character in Road Trip. So, in the end I am really looking forward to seeing a sequel to this film and if Tom Green is not in it, I cannot even wait to see it! 8 out of 10
Good movie but the show will always be better
posted on 29 Jul 2009First off, let me start by saying, if you've watched the movie and liked it, you should go back and watch the show which is not on Youtube.We start by comparing the beauty of the Angels from here and then. Obviously Barrymore, Liu and Diaz cannot begin to compete with Farrah Fawcett, Jaclyn Smith, Kate Jackson or Cheryl Ladd and don't kid yourself by thinking they can.Now, the movie begins with an allusion to Angels in Chains, an episode from the 70's show (won't spoil what it is). I respect that. All in all, to make it short, it's a fun movie that pays homage to a revolutionary series and if you watched the movie, do yourself a favor and go on to Youtube or get the DVD's and watch the original series as well.7/10.
*SPOILERS* People were begging me never to see this movie...
posted on 27 Jul 2009But I did anyway. And those people were wrong. Charlie's Angels, while not showing up at any awards ceremony (although the people who run those might be wrong, too), is quite a good action flick. In fact, I don't often like action movies, but this one turned out to be special.I'll go through a few cons first before I get to what I did like: the script is the biggest problem of the film. The action sequences almost always work, if not for the adrenaline rush then for the giddiness of them. It is the exposition that hardly ever works. The introductory vignettes give the film an immediate sour flavor, and, for a long time, the movie heads downhill. Don't worry, though. As soon as the next action scene starts, you'll forget about anything excessively crappy that came before. The humor of the script often worked, but not always. They went a bit too far with the tongue-in-cheek shtick. Wink wink nudge nudge. The only technical thing I can complain about is the constant desire to Matrixify the action sequences. I despised the Matrix, and I'll quickly tell you why: it is NOTHING but an action flick with a script no deeper than Charlie's Angels YET it believed that it was speaking grand profundities. What's worse, audiences bought the pseudo-philosophic mumbo jumbo it was spitting out. As for that film's action, the first slo-mo scene is neat, but it is used so poorly throughout the rest of the film that it renders itself ineffective YET people still ate it up. Films that The Matrix influenced have sort of made better use of the technique, but, really, you can only go so far with it. Charlie's Angles does some pretty neat stuff with it. The bullet scene in Charlie's Angels, stolen directly from The Matrix, is put to decent use here, showing us the truth of a situation where in regular speed the truth would have escaped the audience (as it does the characters).Pros: well, the action, dummy. This film has some of the most beautiful action sequences this side of Die Hard.Also, something that is never noticed with action movies, usually because they are so schlocky, but Charlie's Angels has some of the most beautiful cinematography I've seen in recent years. And that's not just because the frames enclose beautiful women or scenery. The DP and director know how to use the camera, especially how to move it. There is a long, unbroken shot in Knox's apartment that is truly awesome. A cinematography award would not be out of place here. It's techniques are often innovative, too, even if it does also steal a lot. The scene where Drew Barrymore gets shot out the window is amazing in the way it rewinds the scene to show us what actually happened. The use of split screen is also good. It is not new, perhaps, but I haven't seen it done in this way. I hope the director, credited as McG, directs even better action films in the future. All he needs is a great script and, bam, you may just have an action masterpiece, something that is rarer than the dodo.One actor has to be singled out, and it is not one of the angels: Crispin Glover. He's always been sort of an odd fellow in his films, but it was impossible to predict him as a James Bond's-adversary's-main-henchman type, sort of like Jaws from Moonraker. He says not a word, but he's just so good at what he does in this movie. It would be kind of sad if he were from now on terminally type cast as that character, but I'd love to see him in another similar role.As for the Angels themselves, well, they are gorgeous. I'm not a Drew Barrymore fan, usually, but she's pretty hot here. Lucy Liu is also good, and Cameron Diaz is a goddess.
Brain-less but fun
posted on 17 Jul 2009There are 2 ways of adapting TV show to the big screen. The 1st is the serious approach the 2nd is the fun approach.This film take the 2nd
approach and succeed. The makers of the film seem to realize that with such a camp and trashy source they will kill themselves if they try to be serious. The result is a brain-less fun that mange to be entertaining while saluting the TV series. Part of the fun is the in jokes that the film has. The other part is the feeling that the everyone involved in the film had so much fun that it reflects on screen.The fight scene are good though I too had problems with Drew Barrymore's fight scene, however that didn't affect my enjoyment.Sometime we need some mindless fun.So if you look for a film with serious messages or meanings look somewhere else. If you can sometime give your brain a rest,go and enjoy,by the end of the film you will forget it and will remain with the feeling that you had fun.Not a bad feeling at all.
I LURVE it!
posted on 13 Jul 2009If I had to sum up this movie in one sentence, it would be: never a dull moment! I always loved the three actresses: Drew in Ever After, Cameron in in Mary and Lucy in Ally McBeal. I've been waiting for this movie since I first heard about it, plus one of my favorite band has a song in it: what more could I ask? A lot! Great costumes, groovy dance moves, cool fight sequences, car chases, big explosions and last but not least, GIRL POWER!With fight moves borrowed from The Matrix-which, is my favorite movie of all time-these Angels make skimpy tops and belly-baring pants as cool as head to toe black leather. It is so refreshimg to see women to be strong and be able to fight and protect themselves instead of hiding behind their boyfriends, while still got to be unashamedly gorgeous and sexy.It is not an all-out comedy but the jokes all worked pretty well. Most memorably the Japanese massage and the bad lighter, in my opinion. The moviemakers obviously didn't try to put in smart jokes but hell, it's enough to keep you entertained.Sure, Lucy has the best clothes, Cameron has the best dance moves and Drew has the most (embarrasingly) hilarious scenes, but it was Tom Green's 'Chad' who stole the show. I don't even know how to describe 'The Chad', but I enjoyed every scene he was in and the way he calls Drew's Dylan 'starfish'.I enjoyed this movie very much; it really doesn't have any substance, to be honest, but it's great popcorn entertainment and it shouldn't let you down, either. So girls, put on your highest and shiniest heels and rush to the cinema to see Charlie's Angels!
"Oh, another movie from an old TV show."
posted on 13 Jul 2009I guess the best joke could be found at the beginning of the movie. In the airplane a black gentleman, played by Drew Barrymore, says to the passenger next to him (her): "Oh, another movie from an old TV show." when the movie T.J. Hooker, the movie is shown. I couldn't phrase it in a better way. Hollywood seems to think that we all have been waiting for movies based on comic books (Hellboy, Spiderman, ...) or old TV series, most of the time from the seventies (Charlie's Angels, Starsky and Hutch, ...). Perhaps other people have, but I certainly haven't. That doesn't mean that the original series weren't any good, but they were created for an audience in the seventies, with ideas and techniques from the seventies. As a kid I loved "The Dukes of Hazzard" and "The A-Team", but that doesn't mean that I want to see them in a new movie.I really don't like all those remakes, yet I watched Charlie's Angels anyway. I did so, only because a friend recommended it to me. He said it was one of his favorite movies, so I gave it a chance... but it didn't convince me at all. It's just not my kind of movie, it feels too much like James Bond, with the only difference that this time the action hero isn't a man, but three completely different ladies. Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu are very nice eye candy (I'm only a man of flesh and blood), but their performances in this movie haven't convinced me to watch other movies in which they play. The story is unbelievably thin and shallow and the main concerns clearly were about the gadgets, the explosions and about how to show the girls in the best way possible (without showing any full frontal nudity). But I have to be honest, I didn't think everything was bad. The fight sequences are well choreographed, but are clearly inspired on the "The Matrix" trilogy (including the "bullet time" effect, for which the Matrix films are famous), which hasn't got to be a bad thing of course.As a conclusion I would like to say that I guess that I belong to the wrong demographic to fully appreciate this movie. I think this movie will be loved most by young males in their puberty. Another possibility is of course that I ask too much of a movie. Up to you to decide which of the two is true... I gave it a 5/10 (only because of the ladies, LOL)
This movie is really really boring
posted on 07 Jul 2009Oh, come on, people. This movie, even if it's not to take it seriously, it fails even to be stupid! It's not funny, it has no plot, the action scenes leave you with the feeling that you've already seen them somewhere else and the acting is below average. Thanks god that I rented the DVD, so I lost only $3.
Formula for film money making
posted on 27 Jun 2009Films like this are guaranteed money makers - the formula is easy:1. Get a budget of $100m or over 2. Recruit a couple of famous actors/actresses 3. Come up with a simple story (even stupid such that it wont challenge the mind) 4. Come up with lots of action and fight scenes. Most of these you can copy from previous films and simple improve a bit 5. Hype the film up with a large marketing campaign 6. Launch the film on a strategic date 7. Make money and relaxIN MY OPINION THERE SHOULD BE REFUNDS FOR FILMS SO BAD!
Amusing theatrical release of old television
posted on 19 Jun 2009Considering the volume of user comments posted, and the likelihood of more to come, I will keep my opinion brief. Never a fan or much of a viewer of the original television program, I found the film version of "Charlie's Angels" wildly entertaining and sufficiently campy. By no means, does the picture take itself seriously or indulge the
audience with heavy-handed plot elements. Liberally assuming segments from "The Matrix", Bond pictures, the "Mission Impossible" series, and the old show itself, director McG exerts a fashionable, kinetic style. The overtly sexual trio is serviceable and Bill Murray is pleasantly silly. It was a surprise to see Crispin Glover. He has secured a place in the henchmen's hall of fame. Also, the movie has an enjoyable, diverse soundtrack that includes 'The Flying Lizards', Sir Mix-a-lot, 'Blink 182', and Rod Stewart. 2.5 out of 4 stars.
Cool movie. Non-stop action!
posted on 17 Jun 2009Man! I went to this movie with some low expectations, but I was presently suprised. This movie was actually good. All I expected to see was three hot girls in skimpy clothing. Well, I got taht and a whole lot more. The action scenes in theis movie are really great! They are just like the ones in the Matrix. Tthis was one movie that left me watching from the beggining to the end without ckecking my watch or moving around in my seat. This is one movie that I wouldn't mind seeing again. I can't wait for the DVD! 9/10
A harmless hour and a half of fun!
posted on 17 Jun 2009Charlie's Angels (2000) Rating: 8/10Man, this movie is fun! People will tell you it's an overblown T&A flick, a popcorn movie with way too much topping, basically, trash. Well, of course it's trash! This is Charlie's Angels, not Schindler's List! You can just see the studio executives sitting in their offices, and figuring they could score with a big screen remake of Aaron Spelling's late 70s, early 80s female spy show. So they brought in 14 writers to cook up something resembling a script, hired a music video director and cast three hot Hollywood stars. Okay, this all sounds like a pretty dreadful, shamelessly commercial dud, but somehow this ends up being one of the most mindlessly fun Hollywood pictures I've seen in a long time.It probably has a lot to do with the three leads and the way they really seem to be having a great time being in this movie and playing the boys' game. First there's the rebellious, spunky Dylan, portrayed by Drew Barrymore (who's also one of the movie's producers), who seems to always be perfecting her flirtatious ways more with every movie. She's got that special something that makes her unique, a balance of childish enthusiasm and very womanly sexuality. Like, she's not a conventional beauty, you know, she's often kinda geeky and all, but that's part of her charm. Next up is hard-boiled Alex, played by Lucy Liu. She's doing something along the lines of her dominatrix role in Payback, you know, the gorgeous bitch who uses her sexuality to manipulate men. Last but not least is Natalie, brought to jolly life by the adorable Cameron Diaz.So there, you've got this three-babe crime-fighting elite team, and this movie is like a $100 million amusement park for them to have fun a' plenty, entertaining us with good humor, wild action and sexy titillation. There's a plot somewhere in there, but obviously it isn't the main attraction and we're spared any tedious exposition. All we need to know is transmitted to us and the Angels at the same time when they're given instructions by Charlie (voiced by John Forsythe), the mysterious millionaire who employs them and only speaks to them through a tacky speaker phone, and through his right hand man Bosley (Bill Murray). The girls' task this time around is to retrieve Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell), a computer crack who's been kidnapped along with the voice identification software he created, possibly by an arrogant competitor (Tim Curry). Other possible suspects include Knox' sassy business partner Vivian (Kelly Lynch) and a "creepy thin man" (Crispin Glover) with a sword cane and a fetish for woman hair.That's it, and that's enough, As I said, the plot is just an excuse for the rest. Like the numerous scenes in which the Angels go undercover as, say masseuses, or belly dancers, or as a scantily clad trio of telegram yodeling German nymphs -- anything so they can dress up sexy and goof around. There's also a great deal of kung fu action in the movie, and even though it's all ripped right off of The Matrix, this isn't necessarily a bad thing; after all, the Wachowski's cult classic does feature the most exciting action sequences this side of Hong Kong. Hence you can expect a lot of unbelievable flip, kick, jump, jive and wails, with nifty camera tricks and even a little "bullet time". Oh, and if you liked Schwarzenegger and Cameron's True Lies, this is another movie that's been robbed blindly here, most visibly in Barrymore's escape from the baddies and in the helicopter scene. Then again, despite that it's all been done before, it's still a riot to see these kick ass, macho things done by Diaz, Barrymore and Liu. Girl Power!As directed by newcomer McG, Charlie's Angels is a real mess, but that's somehow what makes it so damn fun: you never know what's coming next. It might be race cars playing chicken on a bridge, or a cameo by Tom Green as "the Chad", an insecure dude who lives on a boat, or Luke Wilson taking Cameron Diaz out to Soul Train so she can get funky or whatnot. And throughout, McG keeps it fast, funny and explosive, all eye candy and awesome music (everything from Korn's Blind to Prodigy's Smack My Bitch Up to various 80s pop and just any song with 'angel' in the title). So see this movie. You know you want to.
Eye candy but fun
posted on 17 Jun 2009Simple fun.Often movies with a simple and low brow approach fall on their face but this one pokes fun at itself for it so it's not necessarily a requirement.Drew Barrymore was the only mis-cast person I can recall. I appreciate her as an actress but she hardly seems fit enough for the physicality of the part.Largely eye candy, it's worth a watch.
Nice breasts, shame about the film.
posted on 13 Jun 2009OK, a quick one from me. The girls were sexy as hell! The film was as poor as p*ss, and just as weak was the script.The stunts were not unlike something from an episode of Monty Python's flying circus. The plot could have been told in a short script, a fraction of the size of the final version.Now I hear there is to be a sequel!!! Why not just take several million dollars and set them alight! At least a bonfire is entertaining!
Huh?????
posted on 09 Jun 2009I really cannot see anyone giving this movie a good reveiw. Sure I am a fan of excess cleavage like the next guy, but .. huh???I am still trying to figure out the direction of this movie, was it action, was it suppose to be a spoof? a comedy? If they were trying to pull all of the above off at once, than they did a very sorry job. My expectations for movies are low, and I am entertained by just about anything, I loved all the naked gun movies, and watched the Army Of Darkness 53 times (yes 53). But there is two movies in a long history of movie watching I walked out of the theatre from, One was the batman and robin movie (George Clooney as batman) and the second was this garbage, Charlies Angels.I wasn't a fan of the original series, but I feel for those who were, I cannot say enough to express my sorrow of the monstrosity they call a movie.
Another event movie that clearly isn't
posted on 07 Jun 2009This film is clearly a pi** take, and one needs to put his or her brain in neutral before seeing it - and to understand its joking fun.In fact this film seems to enjoy the fact its campy and such a joke, that all the actors seem in on the joke - so much so, half way through the film your thinking "why is this funny again?"This film tries to be a parody on action films, and in some sequences, yes it is successful but it struggles in the formulaic comedy and sketches that are tied up together.This film, obviousily targeted at the adosolent male audience plays its sexuality and titalation to the full with sexy Diaz clearly having fun expressing her dream of being an angel with Liu and Barrymore showing their bodies - who said you needed a plot when you have sexy girls?I did feel the kung fu sequences were okay and so obviously over the top, I mean Barrymore (who struggles later on in the film to do the moonwalk - something which I thought every 9 year old could to) happilesly performs her fly-by-wire kung fu in a way that just screams "look, I can do kung fu"...I simply rolled my eyes...Well I am not impressed with this film, maybe because the one-word joke that this film was clearly sold on ran out within the first half an hour, maybe because it clearly had no script or any comedy writers contributing to an entertaining film - maybe because actors such as Bill Murray have nothing to do and struggles with the empty script he has.Actors such as Tim Curry should have been better done in this film. Curry always plays good over the top villains, and at last he gets a chance at being the bond bad guy he played so venomously well in The Three Musketeers (1993) - however he, like Murray, isn't given much to work with and struggles to give half the character of his Cardinal Richelieu.The only actor to come out of this film unscathed is Crispin Glover, he plays the thin man and is utterly cool and the embodiment of evil, every shot he's in he simply steals - his menacing broodish looks of a troubled mute henchman are well executed and Glover seemed to handle the martial arts more so than the girls.Anyway, this film is yet another example of an event movie that clearly isn't. It isn't worth watching, well maybe to watch three sexy girls play up their sexuality to an all male auidence - the jokes aren't as crisp or as fast as I'd expect them to be.Overall this film is mindless fun, for some it will deliver, for me - I it didn't.Overall: 3/10
total crap (except for Crispin Glover)
posted on 20 Aug 2009This movie was soooo painful to watch. If Crispin Glover's character (The only thing in the movie with an iota of substance)could have just killed the three main characters twenty minutes into the film thus giving me the pleasure of watching Crispin kick the crap out of three of the most one-dimensional actresses in Hollywood, and saving me from the agony of the last hour of the film, then the film might have been saved. Instead it is an hour and a half of cutesy filler, and cheesy fight scenes.