Despite trying to keep his swashbuckling to a minimum, a threat to California's pending statehood causes the adventure-loving Alejandro de la Vega (Banderas) -- and his wife, Elena (Zeta-Jones) -- to take action.
Director:
Martin Campbell
Stars:
Antonio Banderas,
Catherine Zeta-Jones,
Rufus Sewell
Adventurer Lara Croft goes on a quest to save the mythical Pandora's Box, before an evil scientist finds it, and recruits a former Marine turned mercenary to assist her.
Director:
Jan de Bont
Stars:
Angelina Jolie,
Gerard Butler,
Chris Barrie
A lazy, incompetent middle school teacher who hates her job, her students, and her co-workers is forced to return to teaching to make enough money for breast implants after her wealthy fiancé dumps her.
Director:
Jake Kasdan
Stars:
Cameron Diaz,
Jason Segel,
Justin Timberlake
Television series about a wealthy mystery man who runs a detective agency via a speakerphone and his personal assistant, John Bosley. His detectives are three beautiful women, who end up in... See full summary »
The captivating crime-fighting trio who are the masters of disguise, espionage and martial arts. When a devious mastermind embroils them in a plot to destroy individual privacy the Angels, aided by their loyal sidekick Bosley, set out to bring down the bad guys. But when a terrible secret is revealed it makes the Angels targets for assassination.Written by
Anthony Pereyra {hypersonic91@yahoo.com}
The picture of the Creepy Thin Man coming out of the fax in the car is a security camera image, when the Angels look at it in the Drive Thru, it has changed to a mug shot style of picture. See more »
Quotes
[first lines]
Flight Attendant:
I said, "Look, lady, it's not the seats that have gotten smaller, it's your ass that has gotten bigger."
See more »
Crazy Credits
The end of the film features outtakes and scenes that were cut. See more »
Alternate Versions
The UK cinema version is the most complete version of the film to date, featuring additional scenes of violence. Additional footage includes:
louder impact sounds during the fight scenes with added bass, particularly during the alley fight (the impact sounds are much tamer on all video and DVD releases)
the use of nunchaku during the closing fight on the castle (the fight sequence now has no footage of nunchaku)
an elbow-lock move performed during the above fight (this is now cut from all versions) It is assumed that this version is the cut of the film made before trims were made to it for the MPAA to secure a PG-13 rating.
Brandy (You're A Fine Girl)
Written by Elliot Lurie
Performed by Looking Glass
Courtesy of Epic Records
By Arrangement with Sony Music Licensing See more »
My Take: Energetic, mindless summer eye-candy entertainment.
It's easy to smirk or be nit-picky at something quite as silly as a $92 million big-screen version of CHARLIE'S ANGELS. Looking back, its roots date back to a successful yet critically-reviled TV series in the 70's. Bring it here, at our modern period, and be sure to be laughed at. Joel Schumacher did it, in his 1997 mega-expensive bomb (if you call any movie grossing more than a hundred million dollars, a bad as it is, a bomb) BATMAN AND ROBIN, which was immensely hated by everyone (including yours truly). Now comes CHARLIE'S ANGELS, another big-budget comedy action film lifted from some age that probably no longer exists (at least not on our generation). It's director is a former MTV director. And the script, forget it! How could they make a movie like this? Or maybe a more interesting question would be, after watching it, how could I have possibly loved it? Yes! Regardless of having to remind myself that it was meant to be ridiculous, I positively loved CHARLIE'S ANGELS, silliness and all. You can nitpick all the dumbness and stupidity of the script, but here's someone (among a surprisingly high number of others) who are happy to defend its silliness. It's pure style-over-substance matter, and the style really won me over. The stunts are completely unbelievable, the story probably never left the 70's and the script, the whole script, injects enough camp to make this piece sit right there with the original TV show (of which I wasn't exposed to). But the great thing about that is it was thrown in for laughs and a whole lot of fun. The entire piece never took itself seriously, throwing it a lot of brainless fun at every turn. Director McG (born Joseph McGinty Nichol) uses his stylish skills as an MTV director to good use. Every bit feels like an exhilarating no-questions-asked playhouse of brainless style, and I mean that in the nicest of ways.
The film is one-part MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (and in one instance, after the Angels have described their plan to break in to a room, like that in the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE movie, one of their superiors tells them "That's impossible", followed by a "Sounds like fun" response of excitement from the crime-fighting Angels), another-part John Woo action flick, one-part pure 70's camp and another part spoof of it all, and thrown in, for good measure, some MATRIX-inspired slow-mo stunts. After opening with one of its first few outrageous stunt sequences, the story proceeds, concerning a new set of Angels, including smart and uber-sexy Natalie (Cameron Diaz), tough-cookie but never-not-attractive Dylan (Drew Barrymore) and no-nonsense and no-less sex-appeal Alex (Lucy Liu), as always taking orders from unseen voice-in-a-speakerphone Charlie (voiced by John Fosythe, returning to his voice-acting role form the TV show). Their new mission: Retrieve a stolen voice-recognition software from wealthy programmer Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell). They suspect it may be the owner of a rival company (Tim Curry), but the plot thickens. But what plot? This is all but a clothesline for a series of gravity-defying (or at least every form of science imaginable) stunts (an extremely enjoyable array of fight sequences and a slam-bang helicopter finale). There's humor too, provided by the always reliable Bill Murray as Bosley, Charlie's liaison and the Angels' reliable comic-relief sidekick. Bonus points go to the oddball Crispin Glover as the "Creepy Thin Man" for providing the finest silent villain since Jaws in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.
CHARLIE'S ANGELS is still bound to create a sort of love-hate relationship amongst its viewers. Some will probably hate it for its total disregard of logic and sense. Others will embrace it for what it is: A good, fluffy entertainment (a guilty pleasure if you will). I'm joining that club!
Rating: **** out of 5.
16 of 26 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this
My Take: Energetic, mindless summer eye-candy entertainment.
It's easy to smirk or be nit-picky at something quite as silly as a $92 million big-screen version of CHARLIE'S ANGELS. Looking back, its roots date back to a successful yet critically-reviled TV series in the 70's. Bring it here, at our modern period, and be sure to be laughed at. Joel Schumacher did it, in his 1997 mega-expensive bomb (if you call any movie grossing more than a hundred million dollars, a bad as it is, a bomb) BATMAN AND ROBIN, which was immensely hated by everyone (including yours truly). Now comes CHARLIE'S ANGELS, another big-budget comedy action film lifted from some age that probably no longer exists (at least not on our generation). It's director is a former MTV director. And the script, forget it! How could they make a movie like this? Or maybe a more interesting question would be, after watching it, how could I have possibly loved it? Yes! Regardless of having to remind myself that it was meant to be ridiculous, I positively loved CHARLIE'S ANGELS, silliness and all. You can nitpick all the dumbness and stupidity of the script, but here's someone (among a surprisingly high number of others) who are happy to defend its silliness. It's pure style-over-substance matter, and the style really won me over. The stunts are completely unbelievable, the story probably never left the 70's and the script, the whole script, injects enough camp to make this piece sit right there with the original TV show (of which I wasn't exposed to). But the great thing about that is it was thrown in for laughs and a whole lot of fun. The entire piece never took itself seriously, throwing it a lot of brainless fun at every turn. Director McG (born Joseph McGinty Nichol) uses his stylish skills as an MTV director to good use. Every bit feels like an exhilarating no-questions-asked playhouse of brainless style, and I mean that in the nicest of ways.
The film is one-part MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (and in one instance, after the Angels have described their plan to break in to a room, like that in the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE movie, one of their superiors tells them "That's impossible", followed by a "Sounds like fun" response of excitement from the crime-fighting Angels), another-part John Woo action flick, one-part pure 70's camp and another part spoof of it all, and thrown in, for good measure, some MATRIX-inspired slow-mo stunts. After opening with one of its first few outrageous stunt sequences, the story proceeds, concerning a new set of Angels, including smart and uber-sexy Natalie (Cameron Diaz), tough-cookie but never-not-attractive Dylan (Drew Barrymore) and no-nonsense and no-less sex-appeal Alex (Lucy Liu), as always taking orders from unseen voice-in-a-speakerphone Charlie (voiced by John Fosythe, returning to his voice-acting role form the TV show). Their new mission: Retrieve a stolen voice-recognition software from wealthy programmer Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell). They suspect it may be the owner of a rival company (Tim Curry), but the plot thickens. But what plot? This is all but a clothesline for a series of gravity-defying (or at least every form of science imaginable) stunts (an extremely enjoyable array of fight sequences and a slam-bang helicopter finale). There's humor too, provided by the always reliable Bill Murray as Bosley, Charlie's liaison and the Angels' reliable comic-relief sidekick. Bonus points go to the oddball Crispin Glover as the "Creepy Thin Man" for providing the finest silent villain since Jaws in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.
CHARLIE'S ANGELS is still bound to create a sort of love-hate relationship amongst its viewers. Some will probably hate it for its total disregard of logic and sense. Others will embrace it for what it is: A good, fluffy entertainment (a guilty pleasure if you will). I'm joining that club!
Rating: **** out of 5.