Hollywood Hell’s Angels! (Charlie's Angels (DVD))

Member Name: Rumblefish

Product:	Charlie's Angels (DVD)
Date:	07/12/00 (34 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Exciting action sequences

Disadvantages: Dumber than dumb plot, no depth of character whatsoever, annoying direction

Hollywood’s recent obsession with recycling kitsch ‘60s and ‘70s television into movie blockbusters (personally I’m still holding out for a big screen BANANA SPLITS) resurfaces once again with the silly action series that was CHARLIE’S ANGELS made into an even sillier film.

As in the series, the Angels are three beautiful and multi-talented young ladies - Natalie (Cameron Diaz), Alex (Lucy Liu), and Dylan (Drew Barrymore). They work for faceless millionaire Charlie (voiced by John Forsythe from the original series) and his intermediary Bosley (Bill Murray). What little there is in the way of plot involves the kidnapping of a computer software genius (Sam Rockwell) by an evil business tycoon (Tim Curry).

What is undoubtedly impressive about this film is the speed and precision of the action set pieces, from the Bond-esque opening sequence to the frequent kung-fu punch-ups. Although owing a great deal (in fact almost everything) to THE MATRIX and MI2, it makes for exciting and crowd-pleasing entertainment when it hits top gear.

What is not so impressive is almost everything else about this supremely stupid film – not least the entire plot. The cliched insult would be that it has more holes than a Swiss cheese, but CHARLIE’S ANGELS has so many holes that there is no cheese left. The flaws in the background story are compounded by visual absurdities so persistent and blatant as to be insulting, and more in keeping with a ROADRUNNER cartoon than a live-action feature film. The Angels, for example, are not just invincible but apparently literally indestructible (will the sequel reveal them to be robots?) They are left unscathed by missiles, bombs, and falls from great heights, and are even invulnerable (in the most ludicrous sequence of all) to bullets shot at them from point blank range by master criminals. Even Bruce Willis ends the DIE HARD movies with a limp and a few scratches, but the Angels don
217;t even get their lipstick smeared. Expecting the audience to suspend disbelief a few times is one thing; expecting them to cast aside all logic over a continuous 98-minute period is lazy and offensive.

The cardboard characterisation is even worse, inviting absolutely no emotional investment whatsoever on the part of the viewer. What little we learn about the Angels beyond the fact that they are useful in a fight is woefully inadequate and barely flattering (Natalie likes dancing, Alex lies to her boyfriend, and Dylan had an unhappy childhood), while Bill Murray’s comic timing is totally wasted in Bosley. Indeed, this being a ham-fisted attempt at a girl power movie, all the men in the film are either obnoxious (Curry), vengeful (Rockwell), stupid (Matt LeBlanc), egocentric (Tom Green), or else simply slobbering putty in the Angels’ manicured hands. Even Charlie and Bosley end up in need of rescue by our three heroines. This could have been a smart and refreshing twist if executed with sharp, witty dialogue and interesting characters, but nobody of either gender is given that luxury. Perhaps not surprisingly the most intriguing character is the most underwritten one of all - the slimy but lethal henchman played by Crispin Glover (BACK TO THE FUTURE).

CHARLIE’S ANGELS is directed by a pop video - and absurd name - specialist called McG, and it will probably have you looking for the MTV symbol in the corner of the screen. The film is wallpapered with pounding music, and all sorts of tricks and gimmicks (split-screens, rewinds, slow-mo’s etc.) are employed to distract you from the film’s numerous deficiencies.

Doing big business at the box office on both sides of the Atlantic, this piece of celluloid amphetamine will doubtless be broadly judged a success by both Hollywood and filmgoers alike. However, it sets its sights so very low – even for a film that you are doubtless “not supposed to take seri
ously” - that success in this instance must count for very little. Lobotomising your audience with sound and visuals is one way of keeping them entertained, but surely the worst way. Perhaps other big budget actioners also don’t hold up to similar scrutiny, but whether they use vague mysticism (THE MATRIX, STAR WARS), sledgehammer politics (Bond, BRAVEHEART), clumsy sentimentality (TITANIC, THE PERFECT STORM), or paperback sci-fi (INDEPENDENCE DAY, X-MEN), at least others have the courtesy to allow for scrutiny at all. For all its bloody battles and expensive CGI, even GLADIATOR has a story and some characters and some scope for acting. CHARLIE’S ANGELS is not only stupid, but assumes that every single member of its audience is even stupider. It is a thrilling film at times, but it is also utterly soulless from beginning to end.

Summary: