Let’s start by saying that Charlie’s Angels is a hard movie to defend. The direction is awful; it had bad acting, a substandard script, and the action sequences where a pale imitation of John Woo – the old adage that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery doesn’t hold up here. But somehow this incredible mess of a movie manages to turn into 90-minutes of clean, kitschy, cheesy fun.
Actress and now producer Drew Barrymore (Dylan) has to be admired for taking on the task of creating material that showcase women as strong willed, ass kicking vixens, who don’t need to be rescued by some doped up male action star.She successfully did this in 1998’s “”Ever After””, a film where she managed to turn the beloved Cinderella into a strong willed heroine who wasn’t sitting around singing “”Someday My Prince Will Come””, her Cinderella, was strong in both body, mind and spirit and it was this strength that won her, her Prince Charming. Not the whimpering and simpering found in other versions.In Charlie’s Angels our new Angels are now Natalie (Cameron Diaz) a ditzy/klutzy blond who is really a genius, yeah right. Dylan (Drew Barrymore) a red-haired tough girl from the streets who has a chip on her soldier, and Alex (Lucy Liu) a rich girl with social graces and brains to match, also along for the ride is Bill Murray (who is in this film in Body, but slept walked through it) as Bosley. In homage to the original series, and a nice touch, John Forsythe reprises his role as the voice of Charlie, their mysterious boss whom no one has ever met.Charlie’s Angels doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be, is it a serious update to the 70’s hit television series that made international stars out of Jacqueline Smith, Farrah Fawcett, and Kate Jackson? Or is a parody of a show that itself wasn’t exactly high art? Let’s look at the evidence, without giving away too much of the film, you be the judge.Exhibit one; what the hell was that opening title sequence? It was hysterically funny in its badness; it opened just like the television show did by showcasing our heroines growing up, going through police academy training and highlights of previous missions, including a direct rip off of a jail break clip from the original show, and I think they were being serious. While watching this beginning one is hard pressed to tell what, first time Director McG, was trying to accomplish here. Was he being serious or was he being tongue in cheek, while watching the sequence one gets the sinking suspicion he was trying to set a serious tone but failed miserably. There are many action sequences in this film that where completely hampered by the Director’s fascination with trying to duplicate Hong Kong, action master, John Woo. Woo who is known by his signature slow motion, over the top, high-octane, blood- pumping sequences have nothing to fear from McG. “”McG, I know John Woo, John Woo is a friend of mind, and you sir, are no John Woo.””Instead of letting a fight choreographer do his work, McG seems to interject him into the scene, a director should be “”felt,”” not “”seen””. For instance there’s a moment in the film where one of the Angels does a karate kick where it’s painfully obvious that not only is she on wires, but they suspend her in the air for several seconds before her kick is “”thrust forward”” toward the bad guy (played by creepy Crispin Glover) in slow motion of course, where right before boot kicks face there’s an jarring edit that switches to “”real time”” speed. Normally you can let a slip like this pass, but there are just too many of these badly edited sequences to ignore. After awhile it becomes just too comical to not notice. As far as the story goes, let’s see it has something to do with a billionaire communications baron Roger Corwin (Tim Curry), who kidnaps computer whiz Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell), our super Angels are hired by Knox’s business partner Vivian Wood (Kelly Lynch) to find Knox. As far as the acting goes, it seems like all the actresses (Drew, Cameron, Kelly, and Lucy) had a blast making this film, while all the guys where seemingly sleep walking. There doesn’t seem to be much of an investigation as the case seems to solve itself within the first 1/2 hour of the film then we are left with a bunch of goofy set pieces. The film seems to have been written in three parts by masters of the 1/2 hour television formula, as it seems to tie up story points every 1/2 hour. The producers must realize their audience (which I count myself as one) have very short attention spans and cannot sit through a film if the plot drags out for more than thirty minutes at a time.It’s this frenetic pacing and constant movement is what saves this movie from being a total disaster, the 90-minutes fly by and is genuinely entertaining in spite of itself. Or maybe I was in a good mood when I saw it (not). Final Grade C+