Charlie's Angels (2000)'s comments

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

Siskoid

McG's version of Charlie's Angels from 2000 leans so far into camp, it becomes ridiculous, but not so far that I can enjoy it the way one might the 1966 Batman movie or even something like Spice World. When you have supporting players like Bill Murray and Tim Curry, and you only manage silly, not funny, there's a problem. Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore have good characters (I guess the latter is that generation's Kristen Stewart), but Cameron Diaz does not. I'm never sure what she's supposed to be - ditz? nerd? awkward? smooth? - and I'm ready to say she's actively bad in the role, whatever that role is supposed to be. When I compare this to the newest adaptation, the big difference is that this one is male gaze-y AF, to the point where it irked me. Not only is the audience forced to see random butt and cleavage shots (and bad sexual innuendo), but all the guys in the film itself are breast-struck in a caricatured way to heighten the experience. The actresses are obviously having a lot of fun (as per the bloopers in the credits sequence) and almost own it. You can also look forward to McG trademarks. It's a glossy-looking film with a hit-laden soundtrack, which counts for something, but all in all, it doesn't have the heart of something like Chuck, which is McG's actual gift to the super-spy genre.

4 years 5 months ago