Retrospective: Charlie's Angels (2000)

'Charlie's Angels
2000
89 min.
PG-13 - oodles of kung fu (but an admirable lack of killing or gore),
sexual innuendos, mild profanity

Directed by McG

Starring:
Cameron Diaz
Drew Barrymore
Lucy Liu
Bill Murray
Tim Curry
Sam Rockwell

Note: I'm assuming you already know the general concept of Charlie's
Angels, in terms of the original show as well as this adaptation. If
you don't the basics, ask your parents.

Well, what do you know? After over a year of bad buzz, gossip about
brutal feuding on the set, a poorly received first teaser, and alleged
heavy editing, this movie actually turned out to be... good? It's
silly, cheesy, overdone, undercooked, and goofy as all hell. It
doesn't take itself the least bit seriously. But, it is rather fun.
The plot you ask? Uh... does it really matter? Well, for the record,
a computer genius/billionaire tycoon (Sam Rockwell) has apparently
been kidnapped by another tycoon (Tim Curry) who wants his high tech-
tracing software. Thus, the three superheroes must do their usual
shtick (going undercover in various costumes that highlight their
respective physical assets while performing high-tech wizardry and
kung fu) to prevent this foul deed from coming to a head.
One of the surprising things about the film is that all the
characters, angels and villains, are allowed to have at least 2.5
dimensions (Liu's inability to cook representing her search for a life
outside of her work, Barrymore's search for a father figure, etc).
Only Bill Murray and Tim Curry are given the short shift (which may
explain Murray's alleged qualms on the set). Diaz, Barrymore, and
Liu, and all the villains are all given distinct body language,
character quirks, strengths and (surprisingly) flaws. Granted, we are
not talking deep Freudian subtexts here, but the effort is
appreciated. Also, for all the qualms about whether the film is
sexist and a male fantasy, it is worth noting that the overall tone of
the film is one that is, if anything, insulting to men. Throughout
the film, nearly every male extra gives into his loins at key moments,
which allows them to be distracted by their weenies which in turn
allows our Angels to complete some part of their mission. While I
personally find it a nice sign of the times, it is amusing in light of
several articles criticizing the alleged misogyny. Fear not, mothers,
daughters, and feminist scholars, it is also worth noting that the
Angels use their brains twice as much as they use their looks or kung
fu.
Speaking of kung fu, the fight scenes present a problem. Due to the
over reliance of "flying wire" fighting techniques (a Hong Kong staple
introduced to the US by The Matrix) for the fight scenes, the lack of
any semblance of realism undermines our enjoyment of the action
scenes. The action scenes work best when we are not merely watching a
fight scene, such as when Diaz duels with a villain while trying to
maintain a conversation with her new boyfriend on a cell phone.
Despite my overall enjoyment with the film, I am disturbed by
what the film's tone seems to say. From the time the project was
announced two years ago, constant reassurances were uttered to assure
all those who cared that this would in fact be an extravagance in
camp. The infamous teaser, which elicited boos and hisses from
audiences, dared to hide the completely campy aspect of the film.
Only when the full trailer was released, which displayed the film as a
near spoof of the old show, did audience begin to take notice. In
this day and age, a film about female action heroes must refuse to
take itself even remotely seriously in order to be accepted by the
masses. American audiences can accept Tom Cruise breaking into a
highly secured vault, but Cameron Diaz doing the same thing must be
presented as a campy joke. America can handle female self-sufficiency
and action heroics, but only when it's a cheesy joke.

Grade: B-