- Network: ABC
- Series Premiere Date: Sep 22, 2011
Watch Now
Where To Watch
| Stream On |
|
| Stream On |
|
Critic Reviews
- Critic score
- Publication
- By date
-
Here everyone, even Bosley, seems interchangeable.
-
Whoever reads those stilted lines, it won't make a difference. These angels never take flight.
-
Unfortunately, no one pops off the screen the way Farrah once did.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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).
-
It's a much bigger mess than '70s critics ever accused the original of being.
-
It leads off the network's Thursday prime-time schedule, with the action originating in Miami and the scripts apparently bought from Godawful, Inc.
-
[The original series] had energy and glamour and a self-aware sense of frothy fun, all of which are missing from this lugubrious update.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It's not just a lazy idea, it's atrociously executed, pathetically acted and cynically conceived.
-
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.
-
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.
Awards & Rankings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 12 out of 60
-
Mixed: 8 out of 60
-
Negative: 40 out of 60
-
Sep 25, 2011This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view.
-
Sep 22, 2011
-
Sep 24, 2011