Metascore
52

Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 34
  2. Negative: 5 out of 34
  1. 12
    It's a movie without a brain. Charlie's Angels is like the trailer for a video game movie, lacking only the video game, and the movie.
  2. Charlie's Angels is finally Cameron Diaz's movie. Her Natalie has a heart as insecure as her body is smokin'.
  3. 80
    These kickass Barbies bring heart to a machine tooled genre.
  4. 40
    So inconsequential that it starts evaporating from memory the minute it's over.
  5. Too bad the action scenes rarely rise above standard kung-fu comedy, diluting the film's otherwise considerable entertainment value.
  6. A potato chip of a movie. Tasty and lightweight, it's fine for a cinematic snack, if that's what you're looking for. Making it an entire meal, however, really isn't advisable.
  7. 78
    A simply flat-out fun film.
  8. The gals are fab. And so's the movie.
  9. 63
    The most charming bad movie ever spun off a hit TV show.
  10. The first third or so offers all the dominatrix fantasies one might wish for, but then fantasy gives way to the aggressiveness of the special effects and optical effects.
  11. The dialogue includes double entendres that are rather clever, if you're mentally at the age of 11.
  12. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    60
    This entertaining confection possesses the substance of the TV show, the pacing of a Hong Kong actioner and the production values of a James Bond thriller.
  13. What's on screen is a hash, though it may very well be the most comprehensive catalog of male erotic fantasies in one single film.
  14. It's hard to believe how bad this movie is.
  15. An update with a jolt of sheer exuberance.
  16. 70
    Who cares about the fate of privacy, of all things, when you can watch three sexy babes stamp out crime in zip-off suits and high-heeled boots?
  17. 50
    The cheesy disco action scenes are topped only by the movie's ripe double entendres and continual cheesecake.
  18. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    63
    It's to these Angels' credit that they, like the movie, are at least intermittent fun.
  19. At its best, it is self-effacing fun.But the cartoonish approach takes its toll: The random twists and contrived showdowns devolve into just so much abstract business, too silly to take seriously and too unmotivated to make sense.
  20. It never pretends that it's anything more than trashy, cheesy fun. But even trash -- especially trash this expensive -- should at least be well made. Sure, it's easy on the eyes, but would a little brains be too much to ask?
  21. Reviewed by: Jay Carr
    75
    A babe-athon, pure and simple.
  22. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    80
    A charming, hyper-energetic, and wittily self-aware action comedy about gorgeous girls.
  23. The film's tongue is so firmly in cheek that, without being a spoof like "Dragnet" or "The Brady Bunch Movie," it has more in common with the "Austin Powers" films.
  24. 30
    A tarted-up but tedious reprise of the '70s TV series.
  25. Reviewed by: Richard Schickel
    50
    The best you can say for this version of Charlie's Angels is that it retains a sort of chipper, eerie good nature as it wastes the studio's money and our time.
  26. 50
    The movie's still thinner than a supermodel's waist. It's not just that the results are less than heavenly; it's that we don't know what the hell they are.
  27. It tries to be both camp and action film--send-up and kick-ass. But it delivers so little on both fronts.
  28. So phenomenal that Bill Murray can't even steal it. And he tries. So excellent that Murray's MTV progeny Tom Green can't sink it.
  29. 67
    A big, loud, sometimes clever, often dumb behemoth of a movie.
  30. 30
    Of course, it's terrible -- but did it have to be this bad?
  31. Reviewed by: Robert Horton
    70
    Something rare: a mess of a movie that is somehow infectious, and infectious not despite the mess, but because of it.
  32. Reviewed by: Cheryl Lu-Lien Tan
    75
    Irresistible, campy fun.
  33. Reviewed by: Moira Macdonald
    50
    While it's not exactly the complete bomb that some were predicting, Charlie's Angels is ultimately just an amiable mess.
User Score
6.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 56 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 21
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 21
  3. Negative: 8 out of 21
  1. Jan 2, 2013
    1
    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 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. Full Review »
  2. Mar 2, 2011
    2
    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.
  3. Jul 21, 2013
    3
    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 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.
    Full Review »