Date: 3rd November 2000
Charlie's Angels is getting much better reviews than you might have thought -- particularly if you had seen the extraordinarily cheesy movie trailers. Jonathan Foreman in the New York Post, for example, writes that the movie "is utterly good-hearted, mildly naughty fun that moves along at a cracking pace to the tune of a trendy pop score." Likewise, Philip Wuntch in the Dallas Morning News comments that "Charlie's Angels proves that being a no-brainer isn't such a bad thing." "Charlie's Angels is indeed another in a long line of boob-tube inspired movies," says Glenn Whipp in the Los Angeles Daily News, "but audiences can take some heart. This is better than The Avengers and a lot more fun than M:I-2." Steve Murray in the Atlanta Journal compares the film with a different set of predecessors: "Loud, fast, over-the-top and gleefully preposterous, Charlie's Angels has the energy of the 007 and Mission: Impossible movies with none of their pretensions." And Jami Bernard in the New York Daily News calls it "an update with a jolt of sheer exuberance." Still the movie evokes plenty of razzes. "Sure, it's easy on the eyes," comments A.O. Scott in the New York Times, "but would a little brains be too much to ask?" And Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal concludes: "The very notion of a well-made Charlie's Angels may seem, well, unseemly. Wasn't the 1970s series famously silly and amusingly tacky? Sure it was, but this feature version comes two decades later to the big screen, which magnifies silliness into stupidity, tackiness into tediousness and profligacy -- the budget soared close to $100 million -- into corporate folly."
Source: Studio Briefing