Charlie's Angels

Columbia Pictures | Release Date: November 3, 2000

8.4	USER SCORE Universal acclaim based on 436 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

FJFASANOJul 2, 2020

What can one say about a movie where the Writer/Director has to try to Man-Shame people to watch it. I am trying to take this with a grain of salt giving credit to her past body of work as an Actress. This is really hard considering the factWhat can one say about a movie where the Writer/Director has to try to Man-Shame people to watch it. I am trying to take this with a grain of salt giving credit to her past body of work as an Actress. This is really hard considering the fact that most of Hollywood has lost the point of Movies. We give our hard earned money to be entertained, I think that we need to start calling the The Ghost Buster Reboot Phenomenon or (TGBRP) for short. Are we now expected to rate movie on a Cinematic Bell Curve. So will I have to rate the Departed an amazing film from Martin Scorsese the same as Independent film of a Transsexual, Bi-polar, half Nigerian half Burmese midget Muslim atheist walking in circles in a mind field for 90 minutes just as highly as the former. Should we do this because of the adversity that was over come by the film maker in their life. Nope, I am stopping this here, Charlie's had problems from start to finish, weak to nonexistent plot, bad writing, no real driving force behind any part of it. The acting was okay to good at times however this is not an issue of a Blind Watchmaker more of a case of a Un-Edited writer a near sighted Director and an innate ability to blame others for personal inability. I am done. If you want to show people how good women can be put good actresses in good movies.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

CritiqueGirlMar 2, 2011

This is the type of movie I rent to see with my friends and family so we can make fun of it. Its so bad...its good.

2 of 8 users found this helpful26

All this user's reviews

StevenFJul 21, 2013

This was one of the first DVDs I owned, when I first watched it I was overwhelmed by the fast-paced action, the energetic characters and so on, but here I sit with a feeling of mind-numbing insecurity, it's a truly terrible film, but I stillThis was one of the first DVDs I owned, when I first watched it I was overwhelmed by the fast-paced action, the energetic characters and so on, but here I sit with a feeling of mind-numbing insecurity, it's a truly terrible film, but I still find it watchable.
The film is one long advert, it promotes all sorts of sexualised comedy, with almost every scene consisting of a slow-motion clip of one these tightly clad Angels flipping their hair, carefully flexing behind or running from an impending explosion, it's big, dumb, sometimes fun but certainly not serious.
Our three Angels are Natalie (Cameron Diaz), Dylan (Drew Barrymore) and Alex (Lucy Liu). They are tasked with retrieving the creator of expensive technology and the tech itself, but as the plot thickens, so does the script, with a soundtrack that you would work out to, perhaps that is the point of the film, an expensive workout routine, with many scenes present that you start to question why you are watching it, but then laugh about it at a later time.
The angels on show are obviously pretty, they flaunt, flex and frolic across the screen, the film does no justice to the these three talented actresses, but the movie is tolerable for its sometimes comedic moments, particularly the use of sex appeal for the three stars, and the presence of Bill Murray, who really seems to be acting as himself in the picture, so no complaint necessary.
While the action sequences are dramatic and over zealous, some of them work in an effective way
The films many faults outweigh its better attributes, the talented cast, which also includes Sam Rockwell and Tim Curry, the chemistry between the three leads is also a highlight, but these aside, it's a one explosion at every corner flick, high on adrenaline and dumb fun, but low on everything else. McG has an eye for the glitz and exaggeration, but this mess of a film may truly be down to this approach. Its loud, silly and is easily forgettable, but at least it never took itself too seriously throughout, that would have been truly awkward indeed.… Expand

1 of 9 users found this helpful18

All this user's reviews

kublay0880Jan 2, 2013

What a bad production, the story is so lame and pointless, the acting performances are a shame, it was disappointing to see Lucy Liu in that stupid character she's better than that. No need to talk about Diaz and Barrymore it is known thatWhat a bad production, the story is so lame and pointless, the acting performances are a shame, it was disappointing to see Lucy Liu in that stupid character she's better than that. No need to talk about Diaz and Barrymore it is known that they are not good actresses any way. If you want to see what were the real Charley's angels you need to watch the T.V. series.… Expand

2 of 29 users found this helpful227

All this user's reviews