Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

kuarinofu The first time I've seen this I was like 13 y.o. and as far as I remember, it was a lot of fun. I've never seen the show though. Re-watched the movie today when I'm almost 30 and guess what? It still is. It's very infectious with fun and positive attitude. This one movie has everything: 1. Ridiculous but competently shot action and stunts (some really good ones) 2. Beautiful ladies (yet a little oversexualized and objectified) 3. Tons of early 2000's cultural references. I mean, I felt like a kid again. Korn, Prodigy, Nokia, Tom Green, The Matrix, Mission Impossible, "cool computer stuff", you name it. This movie is so 2000s. 4. 90% of the dialogue was just funny nonsense. Almost every line makes you say "what?". It gets a little boring closer to the end, but it never gets too long anyway. Leaves you on a positive note though. They knew what they were doing and it surely represents the idea behind it. Can't really rate this higher than 5, but it's sure is great for what it is.

DogFilmCritic There is no exact word that can describe the absurdity of this film, the estimated Budget of $92,000,000 could have saved a lot of lives, yet it was used to create this Schlup fest of a movie,this movie is a tease we are constantly teased with the idea that this movie some how is going to entertain us, one good example is making any excuse to put the angels in all sorts of fetish outfits threw out the movie,you know sex sells right,so this movie is full of T&A The most astonishing feature is the personalities of the characters, Natalie(Cameron Diaz)is supposed to be the smartest of the 3...or more intuitive yet she is portrait like she is in special needs, like Tara Reid in Josie and the pussycats,Dylan(Drew Barrymore)is the bad girl why because in the beginning of the movie the montages told us so like smoking in a high school bathroom dressed like a punk,yeah thats a bad-girl alright, Alex(Lucy Lu)well you have to figure it out for yourself honestly i couldn't find anything of a character in her.The action in this movie is retarded these women can do stunts that could put the matrix movies into shame,I was hoping that they were bulletproof that could explain a lot of the action scenes, there was nothing redeemable in this movie its stupid and dull this movie could be used to drain brain cells honestly i cant find any other use to this film tan that.

The_Film_Cricket Charlie's Angels is a Happy Meal with the box but not the meal. It comes with three pretty packages – Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore who do nothing of importance in the film besides pose, spout sexual innuendo and stand in front of over-cooked special effects (which, come to think of it aren't that special). This is grating to the film lover because these three actresses have done some really good work in the past, they are charming, intelligent and talented so why, oh why, would they choose such a hollow log of a project? I detect a problem when every single scene in the movie that I am watching feels like it would be more at home in a commercial for McDonalds, Mentos, Nike or Lite FM. Charlie's Angels contains not one single scene that breaks that movie out of its Happy Meal packaging or tries to manner anything resembling a story. It is an advertisement for itself, an over-edited revamp of the popular 70s television series but beyond the title you wouldn't know that since none of the actresses playing the Angels are playing the characters from the show. Maybe that's because the movie isn't really a movie, it's a collection of scenes left over from the music video – any wonder that it's directed by a director of music videos? He directs the film like a fast food commercial (he comes credited as McG!!) The movie's intentions fold back on themselves. The director seems to want to make a movie satire about movies based on television shows but ends up with a movie that is just as empty, tired and frivolous as any that have come before. Therefore, the movie's joke is really on itself.The movie strings a story somewhere as connecting tissue to get the actresses to strike a pose, wiggle their behinds and tease the males. Diaz, Liu and Barrymore play three, uh, detectives I guess who are sent on missions given to them by their boss who is heard but never seen (even by them). He instructs them on the case and they follow it through. What's the case? Does it matter? I mention that the movie is a tease and that's correct, starting from it's tagline 'Get Some Action'. The basic shot in the film consists of 'almost, but not quite'. A shot involves the Angels emerging from the water and Diaz walking up to the camera pulling off a wet suit (topless underneath) and having the scene fade within centimeters of the movie maintaining an PG rating.In a movie containing a lot of sexual innuendo I found that the biggest tease isn't even sexual. At one point Barrymore finds herself at gunpoint in her lover's apartment. He has her at bay by a 40th floor patio window, he shoots and she appears to have been shot because she falls backwards through the window. I perked up because I wondered how she would have ever survived, then I started to work it out in my head. Three seconds after the moment the director shows us in slow-motion how she got out of it – the bullet whizzed past her ear, shattered the glass and she fell backwards hanging by her fingernails over the balcony. Only moment before, I thought that the director was allowing me to think – Now that is a tease and a cruel one at that.

BA_Harrison When Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell), head of a successful software company, is kidnapped, Charlie and his 'angels', Natalie (Cameron Diaz), Dylan (Drew Barrymore) and Alex (Lucy Liu), are hired to rescue the missing man, unaware that they are merely pawns in a complex revenge plot.No matter how dumb this big-screen adaptation of the '70s TV series gets (and it gets REALLY dumb in places), I find it hard to hate too much on any film that steadfastly refuses to take itself seriously, exploits every opportunity to squeeze its babelicious trio of stars into sexy attire, delivers several truly ridiculous action scenes, and features Crispin Glover as a creepy kung-fu kicking villain with a unique way of smoking a cigarette.Some of the silliness can start to grate (yes, Tom Green, I'm talking about you!), but the gratuitous eye-candy and excessive scenes of mayhem more than make up for any cringe-worthy moments, best bits being the OTT opening that quickly establishes the 'anything goes' comic-book tone, Crispin Glover's alleyway brawl with the girls, Diaz dancing in her pants, and the sexy trio dressed as German milkmaids (patting each others' heinies to an Oompah tune).6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.