IMDb > Charlie's Angels (2000) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Charlie's Angels
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Charlie's Angels More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 10 of 65: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [Next]
Index 641 reviews in total 

fun and chicks

Author: sgurgolo
10 May 2001

Ok this movie is totally nonsense, and ok this ain't a movie at all, but this film is not pretentious, doesn't want to be seen as a classic. And most of all is really fast and funny. And who could resist to those three chicks in action? I cant. I give this movie 6 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

Annoying Cameramen...

Author: ( from Washington, USA
9 May 2001

Story's fine but this one gets thumbs down for the truly irritating camera work, FX and technical details. Impromptu but predictable slow motion, restarting, reslowing, in EVERY single action sequence.. it gets very distracting and takes away any sense of reality. (Angels have to sneak into a room with a floor alarm that will go off if pressure is exerted for more than 3/5ths of a second. Angel gets in by doing backflips, and they indicate the "speed" of this, with slow motion all the way? That's just idiotic abuse of the technology...) Obvious use of flying wires in several scenes, and let's not forget that we MUST have repetitive, raucous music start up EVERY time the angels engage an enemy. (How many times must the American public be subjected to "Woo Hoo" during an action sequence? That was old three years ago.) The soundtrack gets on your nerves.. "Charlie's Angels" is more like an MTV medley than a film. Add to this a completely pointless spot by Tom Green, a waste of Bill Murray's talent, and dumb closeups of Angel butts the whole way through..... If That's Entertainment, we're in trouble.

Was the above review useful to you?

Messy, Incoherent, and Occasionally Fun (But Not Often)

Author: MadReviewer from Oldwick, NJ
8 May 2001

`Charlie's Angels', for the uninitiated, is about the mysterious, unseen Charlie (voice by John Forsythe) and his band of three glamorous private investigators: Dylan (Drew Barrymore), Natalie (Cameron Diaz), and Alex (Lucy Liu). The Angels, under the occasional direction of the bumbling Bosley (Bill Murray), solve mysteries and kick the crap out of villains. In this particular film (probably the first of many . . . shudder), the mystery involves computers and some high-tech voice recognition software. The story never gets much more complicated than that, as the entire plot is simply a MacGuffin to link the comedy scenes and action scenes together into a reasonable facsimile of an actual film.

The saving graces of `Charlie's Angels' are Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu. As Natalie, Diaz exudes the right amounts of bubbly, air-headed charm and toughness to make her genuinely funny – and genuinely appealing. Diaz is clearly the star of `Charlie's Angels', and she makes the most of what she's given. Lucy Liu's portrayal of Alex is also dead-on great; she's hell on wheels with a sharp tongue and deadly wit. (The scene where she impersonates a leather-clad corporate trainer is possibly the best in the film). Once you get past Diaz and Liu, though, there's not much left worth watching. Drew Barrymore is horrible as the supposedly street-tough Dylan; she's not sexy, she's not sympathetic, and she certainly doesn't come across as tough. Barrymore would be doing herself a huge favor as producer if she bowed out of the film and let somebody else take her place (my replacement vote is for Eliza Dushku of `Buffy' and `Bring It On' fame). Crispin `McFly' Glover is a waste as one of the main villains, Bill Murray doesn't do anything but mug for the cameras, Tom Green is simply annoying . . . the list of bad performances goes on and on. Toss that in with the witless plot and the action sequences stolen straight out of `The Matrix' and the entire Jet Li film catalog, and the result is a whole exciting lot of nothing.

If you're truly compelled to watch this movie, just rent (not buy) the DVD, so you can shoot straight to the few good scenes prominently featuring Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu. The rest of the movie's not worth watching. It's sad when it seems like a film is dragging . . . and it's only 98 minutes long. Grade: D

Was the above review useful to you?

You gotta be kidding me!

Author: Starguy2000 from Indiana
7 May 2001

I have trouble believing that Big name talents such as Bill Murray, Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu, not to mention some of the rest of the cast could make such a horribly, unfunny picture. This has got to be the dumbest movie I have ever seen, notice I said DUMB, not funny and whats with the "villian", Crispin Glover rubbing a piece of one of the "angels" hair all over his face? This dvd wouldnt even make a good Frizbee. AVOID AT ALL COSTS.

Was the above review useful to you?

Just Fun!!!

Author: Patricia Dantas da Silva from Brasília, Brasil
6 May 2001

Charlie's Angels is purposely one of those popcorn Hollywood films. It's only intention is to entertain us. Since that's why it was made, there's no reason for us to criticize its not so creative script. It only aims to make us have fun. And it definetaly succeeds.

Drew Barrymore, Cameron Dias and Lucy Liu are absolutely great as Dylan, Natalie and Alex. They are funny, beautiful and charmed, great blend to action characters, specially if they can also use those qualities to capture the bad guys.

There isn't much similarity with the original show, except for Charlie's voice that continues to put the girls in all kinds of trouble while he has fun surrounded by women. Bosley now is played by Bill Murray, and they are also hired to solve a crime, like it used to happened in every episode. The difference is that it doesn't take itself seriously like the show. The mystery is replaced by the action and every scene seems to be a joke. The scenes in the beginning reminding us of the series doesn't seems to be a homage, but a satire. It's all the time laughing at the series and the own movie. It starts with Dylan dressed as black fat guy in an airplane complaining about the movie that was about to pass because it was another 70's series adaptation...

Some people didn't like the joke, but I think it's exactly why this movie is great and why it's better than others alike, such as Mission Impossible 2, because it has a lot of implausible scenes, pointless action and meanless drama, but it's like they are saying: "that's okay, we know how ridiculous it is, the only reason it is here is to make you laugh at it, as we also do".

So, forget the bad reviews, get your popcorn bag and get ready to the next angel's mission: make us all have a great time. Believe me, they've never failed.

Was the above review useful to you?

morning charlie!

Author: P Adkins from Long Beach
3 May 2001

i have every charlies angels episode on tape. when i was in high school in 1992 they played the show every day at lunch time. i went home every single day to tape it & would go back to school at the end! now years later, the movie! i can't handle all this!! the movie was incredible! i can now add alex, nat, & dylan to my list of the MOST beautiful women in the world. thanks charlie! 1-10 (10+) Z.

Was the above review useful to you?

It's okay, but not that great. You know what I mean? You don't? Just read the review.

Author: DancingPotato from Jonquiere, Canada
30 April 2001

I never saw the original Charlie's Angels TV show, and I probably never will. I have heard about it, and when I learned they were making a movie, I was curious but cautious, too.

The movie begins inside a plane. A large black man in one of those weird African pattern dresses walks through the coach section and into first class. He sits down next to a dishiveled man. They speak in code and the man opens his shirt to reveal a timer. He says he's a bomb. Suddenly, the black man grabs the bomb man and pushes him off the plane. They fall into the air , battling. Another figure, clad in black, comes down and fights. Down in the sea, a boat speeds. The battling opponents fall into the boat as the bomb explodes in the air. The man yells `Who ARE you?'. The black man pulls off his face to reveal a young woman. The black clad figure takes off her hood. And the driver of the boat laughs.

All this takes place in about 2 minutes. We are then treated to a montage of stupid scenes to a rock soundtrack. Then the story begins. The three angels (Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu) are given a mission by Bosley (Bill Murray). The mission consists of getting a computer expert and his program back because he got kidnapped. All in all, this is a pretty freakin' lame plot. I knew exactly how this was going to end.

You're probably going `But, man, who cares, man. It's hot chicks, man. And they kick stuff. Tell us about that, man.' Yes, Charlie's Angels is packed with beautiful women in revealing clothes and of fight scenes. There are plenty of scenes in which the girls get to strut their stuff, but I found many of them to be silly and misplaced. (Not to say that I didn't enjoy them. I am, after all, still a human male.) The acting n this movie goes from pretty good to stupid. The best actress of the three girls is probably Cameron Diaz and the worst is Drew Barrymore, who turns in an uneven and annoying performance. Bill Murray is funny, but he's still only Bill Murray. The villains are possibly the worst offenders. Crispin Glover plays The Thin Man, who is one of the lamest villains ever. He pulls out hair and smells it. That's all he does. No speaking, only smelling. Tim Curry plays the evil magnate that could've kidnapped the guy. Now, if you know Tim Curry, you know he's not the greatest actor in the world. Well, Chalie's Angels doesn't save him. Also, Tom Green and Matt LeBlanc show up in small roles as the boyfriends of Barrymore and Liu, respectively.

The most evident problem comes from McG's directing. A former music video director, McG uses every trick in the book to make this look good. However, those are MUSIC VIDEO tricks. The movie is edited in a haphazard way, with stuff flying all over the place and big music pumping. You will either get a headache or get dizzy. The fight scenes rip off The Matrix, but I have no problem with that, I'm not one of those Matrix worshipers.

Charlie's Angels is at its best when nothing is serious about it. And yet, for a movie that parodies itself, it sometimes becomes way too serious. I wanted it to be tongue-in-cheek and instead it was almost melodramatic at times. The script is packed with jokes that could, in theory, work, but as Homer Simpson says, `Communism works, in theory. IN THEORY.' The sexual innuendo that worked in 1976 doesn't work now.

Charlie's Angels is the cinematic equivalent of bubble gum. It's good in your mouth, it's fun at first, but it makes you hungry and doesn't feed you. 6/10

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: twanurit from United States
29 April 2001

This is not a dull picture, by any means. It moves along quickly, lasting a brief 99 minutes. The problems: bad direction, silly script, and indifferent casting. The original angels from the late 1970s television series were all the same body type, in their late 20s and strikingly beautiful: tall-ish, shapely, classic features, globs of feathered hair, etc. Top-billed Cameron Diaz comes close to this description, albeit a tad skinny. The other 2 are woefully out of place: Drew Barrymore, a co-producer, is chubby, bloated in the face, and un-pretty. Lucy Liu, older than the other two by at least 5 years, is too petite and looks un-comfortable in the part. Bill Murray hasn't much to play against as Bosley, and fades into the background. John Forsythevocalizes Charlie again, now with a creaky-sounding 80-year-old voice. The villains are inconsequential, paving the path for routine multiple explosions. And what happened to 2 of the Angels boyfriends at the end? An unfinished plot thread, all directed by an music video's "expert." They should have set it in the 1970s, with a much better cast and script. What a dud.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: hickey_d from Dublin, Ohio
27 April 2001

This was a stupid really had no plot. Three ditsy girls have to retrieve some gadget that, if put into the wrong hands, would be used to track Charlie (the guy that we NEVER see, portrayed by an 80-year-old actor...), and then kill him. It doesn't happen, of course... incoherently put together into scenes, kinda like the Power Puff Girls cartoon show, if any of you have seen that... 4/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

Maybe I was missing something....

Author: Jim Longo from New York City
27 April 2001

I didn't actually see the whole movie, and what I did see had the sound muted. But I can't imagine that hearing the dialogue would have made this any better. I've heard tons of comparisons (mostly unflattering) to "The Matrix," but there was more than a little "True Lies" (particularly the dangling-from-a-helicopter bit) for bad measure. Hell, to be blunt, some of the action sequences looked like they belonged on the old "Batman" tv show. They just didn't get my blood racing; if an action movie can't accomplish that, it ain't got much going for it.

And as much as I love Cameron Diaz, it's getting a little old seeing her play against type (she did it better in "Being John Malkovich", anyway). She's gorgeous, we all know it, she presumably knows it, so let her be gorgeous already!!!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 10 of 65: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history