• Network: ABC
  • Series Premiere Date: Sep 22, 2011
  • Season #: 1
Metascore
30

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 22 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 22
  2. Negative: 13 out of 22
  1. Reviewed by: Chris Conaton
    Sep 22, 2011
    50
    Here everyone, even Bosley, seems interchangeable.
  2. Reviewed by: Mark A. Perigard
    Sep 22, 2011
    50
    Whoever reads those stilted lines, it won't make a difference. These angels never take flight.
  3. Unfortunately, no one pops off the screen the way Farrah once did.
  4. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    Sep 19, 2011
    50
    Despite cosmetic flourishes (this time even Bosley has six-pack abs) and a few modest wrinkles, it's hard to escape feeling this is the same old excuse to put "babes" in skimpy outfits, both to thwart evil and inspire swearing off fatty foods.
  5. Reviewed by: Matthew Gilbert
    Sep 12, 2011
    50
    The underwhelming cast brings nothing to the boilerplate action. Kelly is miscast as a biker chick, and making Bosley a hunk with computer skills fails to add life.
  6. Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    Sep 21, 2011
    42
    Reboots can work ("Hawaii Five-0"), but they haven't got a prayer if they lavishly, ludicrously, embrace all the hooey and hokum of the original. Welcome to the new Angels.
  7. Reviewed by: Mary McNamara
    Sep 21, 2011
    40
    The writing is glib (the term "cat fight" is actually used) and the action relies more on gadgetry than "Mission Impossible." However, the women all look great.
  8. Reviewed by: Alessandra Stanley
    Sep 21, 2011
    40
    They are your grandmother's Angels, throwbacks to an era when there was something contrary and cute about a woman with flowing hair and a lethal karate chop.
  9. Reviewed by: Andrea Reiher
    Sep 21, 2011
    40
    From shows like "Alias" to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to "Nikita," it has become commonplace to see hot chicks action stars. So a "Charlie's Angels" reboot has to offer something else in order to work. And it doesn't.
  10. Reviewed by: Rob Owen
    Sep 21, 2011
    30
    Hey, with a name like Charlie's Angels, at least viewers have a pretty good idea of what they're going to get: action, attractive women and gorgeous locations--but not much else.
  11. Reviewed by: Tom Gliatto
    Oct 7, 2011
    25
    Done without any of the smart silliness that made Drew Barrymore's 2000 movie reboot so much fun, the show is just vixen nostalgia. [17 Oct 2011, p.42]
  12. Reviewed by: Curt Wagner
    Sep 22, 2011
    25
    Charlie's Angels is as absurd as the original 1976-81 series that launched the careers of Jaclyn Smith, Kate Jackson and Farrah Fawcett (and her hair).
  13. Reviewed by: Alan Sepinwall
    Sep 22, 2011
    25
    It's a much bigger mess than '70s critics ever accused the original of being.
  14. Reviewed by: Ed Bark
    Sep 22, 2011
    25
    It leads off the network's Thursday prime-time schedule, with the action originating in Miami and the scripts apparently bought from Godawful, Inc.
  15. Reviewed by: Robert Bianco
    Sep 22, 2011
    25
    [The original series] had energy and glamour and a self-aware sense of frothy fun, all of which are missing from this lugubrious update.
  16. Reviewed by: Lori Rackl
    Sep 22, 2011
    25
    Charlie's Angels is proof that angels exist in hell, because that's where it felt like I was during most of this hourlong drivel.
  17. Reviewed by: Ellen Gray
    Sep 22, 2011
    20
    I found the pilot for this reboot of that Aaron Spelling '70s show about "three little girls"--now played by Minka Kelly, Rachael Taylor and Annie Ilonzeh--who work for a disembodied voice named Charlie to be pretty much unwatchable.
  18. Reviewed by: David Hinckley
    Sep 22, 2011
    20
    If you like smart women who hide the iron fist under the velvet glove, you'll get more satisfaction elsewhere--like from, oh, say, Nikita over on the CW, who is better drama all by herself than this ill-served new trio of Angels.
  19. Reviewed by: Glenn Garvin
    Sep 22, 2011
    10
    Stripped of the novelty and the jiggle factor--these Angels are fully equipped with functioning underwear--the remake is reduced to its essential self, which is a comic book for the slow-witted.
  20. Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    Sep 22, 2011
    10
    It's not just a lazy idea, it's atrociously executed, pathetically acted and cynically conceived.
  21. Reviewed by: Tim Goodman
    Sep 22, 2011
    0
    ABC's new drama Charlie's Angels seem to want to go back to the '70s to rustle up some girl power, but it fails miserably and offensively.
  22. Reviewed by: Hank Stuever
    Sep 16, 2011
    0
    They come off as interchangeable affirmative-action figures who make Farrah and company look like early suffragettes who fought for the jiggle rights we now take for granted.
User Score
2.9

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 59 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 22
  2. Negative: 14 out of 22
  1. Sep 25, 2011
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view. The trailer gave me high hopes but in the end, only disappointment lasted. Acting isn't best in the business to say the least but the biggest fail is when Bosley "tracks" a hotel room with a "satellite camera" and a camera view filmed TOWARDS THE WINDOW appears on his tablet. Not to mention cheesy lines like "I never knew my hard could hurt this much". Overall, if you want a retro show done good, switch to Hawaii-Five-O. Full Review »
  2. Sep 22, 2011
    0
    Wow. This was one of the worst TV shows I've seen in a long time. Painful, overacted dialogue, ridiculous plot, uninteresting characters...Wow. This was one of the worst TV shows I've seen in a long time. Painful, overacted dialogue, ridiculous plot, uninteresting characters... I don't think they could have made this show more terrible if they tried. Honestly, it was all I could do to force myself to watch the whole thing. It was truly painful to watch. Full Review »
  3. Sep 24, 2011
    2
    I gave it an hour and I was done. I thought to myself, "Can I watch 15 - 20 hours of this over the course of a fall season?" The answer wasI gave it an hour and I was done. I thought to myself, "Can I watch 15 - 20 hours of this over the course of a fall season?" The answer was - hell no. There's a lot of good TV on these days - too much to spend time on this stuff. Even though the leading ladies are beautiful - it's not enough to offset the blank stares, tired writing, and general blah. Full Review »