User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 61 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 61
  2. Negative: 13 out of 61

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jul 13, 2014
    8
    Charlie's Angels: 8 out of 10: Reading the major press reviews I am struck by a time travel quality of their pans. It is as if they are watching another movie entirely. It's as if they were watching the leaden Charlie's Angels sequel Full Throttle.

    The first Angels however is a great movie if you keep three things in mind. It is mindless. It is fun. It is mindless fun. Never has eye
    candy had so many empty calories. As nutritious for your brain as a deep-fried Twinkie and with about as much substance, Charlie's Angels is about as quintessential a summer movie as you can get.

    This is not a bad thing. With a great soundtrack, three hot girls, solid supporting cast and non-stop action even brainless fun can be… well good. It is not easy to make a film this shallow, this entertaining. (As the sequel proved and come to think of it dozens of movies prove every summer.) In reality there is a fine line between fluffy, bubble headed, featherbrained fun and feeble-minded, half-witted, imbecilic drudgery.

    Charlie's Angels stays solidly on the featherbrained, fluffy side. It is that rather rare film that is smart enough to keep it simple and needless to say mindlessly fun.
    Expand
  2. Jul 8, 2014
    10
    This movie has plenty of laughs and stylized action. The movie has a talented cast and whether you've seen the series, it doesn't matter. The movie isn't like the series, there are the angels and Bill Murray. Murray is Charlie's main confidant and the leader of the group. The set up of the crime fighting foursome is the only connection to the show. The movie will entertain you if you let it, the movie has plenty of enjoyment for anyone looking for a clever action-comedy. Expand
  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.
    Expand
  4. 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.
  5. Dec 22, 2012
    7
    Very funny movie with a lot of style.
  6. Sep 20, 2011
    10
    Charlie's Angels ROCKS! I love the original movie, great cast, although Cameron Diaz sure knows how to do the Soul Train line. For some reason, I like the original TV series starring the late Farrah Fawcett is a sure fire classic. I don't know if I'm going to watch the reboot of the series, but I don't like the new cast at all. It's wrong and nobody wants to see a Charlie's Angels reboot. All we want is a third movie. So please, Sony. Make with the third movie, already. Expand
  7. Aug 15, 2011
    10
    I enjoyed this movie recently. I like action movie! This movie makes me want to see next scene. I recommend you to see this movie if you didn't watch this movie.
  8. Apr 16, 2011
    6
    It's obvious that this movie isn't trying to be serious and too many people don't get that. It's a decent enough watch, but it's no Grade A film. 6 from me.
  9. 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.
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. Too bad the action scenes rarely rise above standard kung-fu comedy, diluting the film's otherwise considerable entertainment value.
  2. 30
    Of course, it's terrible -- but did it have to be this bad?
  3. 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.