Back when it was a more frequent trend to turn TV shows from 60s-80s into modern, updated films, Charlie's Angels was reborn on the big screen, thanks to producer turned director McG. The ‘hit' show from the 70s/80s featured a trio of private investigators backed by an anonymous millionaire, Charlie. But these investigators weren't just anyone, they were three highly trained, skilled, intelligent and attractive (can't forget that) women. The P.I.s solved cases, beat up the bad guys but still had time to look amazing. The show mixed action and drama, with comedy squeezed in for the film going audiences. The premise seemed perfect for audiences who had been nearly starved of action films with women in the central role. But we all know, the only way to get that much needed female as well as male audience to attend, you have to cast the biggest actresses of the time; Drew Barrymore, Lucy Lui and Cameron Diaz, the latter of which was one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood at the time.

Charlie's Angels (2000) was a klaxon sounding film, ‘women to the front' for the start of the new millennium. Opening with a joke about “Another movie from a TV show” being shown as in-flight entertainment, was telling the audience, they know what they're doing and ready for all the criticism. Introducing each woman, showcasing their very different skills and background; Alex (Lui), Dylan (Barrymore) and Natalie (Diaz) are the Angels. The film's opening sequence not only set the tone but made it very clear what kind of action film were were getting. The kidnapping of a wealthy tech genius, misdirection, revenge, over the top sequences requiring elaborate costumes, all in a day's work for the Townsend Agency. This was a bold way to start a potential franchise and hopefully edging more women to be at the forefront of action films. However, directed through the male gaze, written for the male gaze, costume designed for the male gaze, the film had major catches. Women to the front, but you have to do it in a way to satisfy that male audience. 

Having women at the forefront of action films wasn't common and to be honest, still isn't. These were blockbusters that aimed to show that Hollywood can be inclusive too. But if you strip the film down to the bone, the script was run of the mill, although funny in places, everything comes down to the star power and action sequences. The line Hollywood was spinning was that women in action films, if they are at the centre, they have to look like superstars and dress like models. The Angels regularly dressed in sexy outfits, used their sexuality to distract or tempt guys, spoke in innuendos and were also really clever, however no one cares about the last point. But, despite the overwhelming obvious manipulation of the audience; women you get to see other women kicking ass, men, you get to stare at hot actors, the film (and later the sequel) was really fun to watch. Charlie's Angels was exactly what blockbusters are, entertaining and pure escapism. Plus, the Angels themselves were actually given more development than you may remember. They're fighters, not robots, they feel pain, get emotional and have a life outside their job. The Angels have time to just be normal, talk about life goals, debate who will get married or leave the agency first. They even have time to have romantic relationships yet these are not the focus of the film. But those seeking a ‘feminist' theme would overlook Charlie's Angels and its sequel. 

The poster alone was a huge indicator that this was not the feminist film, Cameron Diaz practically looks like she is dislocating a hip. Throughout the film, the women are always wearing inappropriate outfits for the line of work they're in. All but one of their undercover outfits are revealing or used to distract and seduce. Although these women can defuse bombs mid-falling through the air, decipher a bird call through a broken mic, create secret service level equipment AND defend themselves from multiple attackers, they still have to stoop as low as unzipping their jackets to show their breasts. These are constant reminders that back in the 2000s, if you wanted women as the leads, you had to put with these well worn tropes. Compared to the 2019 film, which could show how times have moved on, slightly, the 2000s films could look like a cheap action comedy, easily buried in the ‘can't believe we watched that' pile of film memories. 

The most recent addition to the Angels cannon tried to back track and negate much of what was created in the 2000s, as if it needed ‘correcting'. Instead of being a bespoke detective agency, Charlie's Angels are a full blown corporate company with several ‘Boseleys' and various teams working across the network. Despite the star power behind and in front of the camera, as well as some decent action sequences, the story was flat, the characters stereotypes and the overwhelming feeling everyone involved wanted to emphasise this was all about the women. This last point is most likely what sunk the film, even having the new ‘Charlie' being an ex-Angel, a cameo from the one of the TV originals, Jaclyn Smith. This was pitched to us all as the all female, all feminist action film, but somewhere along the way, someone forgot what feminism is. It feels strange to compare, what should have been an improvement from the 2000s over the top, leather clad, overtly male gaze action film from McG. But in fact, this ‘over correction' makes you want to look back at Charlie's Angels and Full Throttle with a different view and actually appreciate the ridiculousness of it all. Remembering the most important factor, these films were flaws but they were a hell of a lot of fun!

With a host of supporting characters that add to the forgotten prestige of the film, including Bill Murray, doing what he does best, playing himself as Bosley. But the scene stealers are predominantly the villains, one in particular manages to steal the entire film.. Obviously, it's Sam Rockwell as Eric Knox's dance to THAT music. In fact, it's the moment he is revealed to be the main ‘bad guy'. However, Crispin Glover's beyond weird ‘Creepy Thin Man' assassin came pretty close, only because he's just so odd and unexpected and frustratingly unexplained. Kelly Lynch swanning in and out of the frame, often with a questionable haircut and a welcome appearance of Tim Curry as rival tech company owner, the supporting villains of the film make up for some of those eye rolling moments. 

 Although there are several scenes with the women wearing high heeled boots to scale a rocky wall and in every fight scene, Dylan is the only one who opted for sensible footwear in the final scenes of the film. The one undercover outfit (and best) has to be when the Angels enter Redstar's vault. Alex is dressed in a leather skirt and jacket, its eye-catching, giving off a cold strict vibe, then both Dylan and Natalie are dressed as men and my gad they look good. Why wasn't more made of this? We'll never know.

Rockwell has commented that Charlie's Angels is a great popcorn movie and he's right! The art of great film, that may be problematic but still enjoyable and strangely empowering, Charlie's Angels got the formula almost right and deserves to be rewatched and remembered fondly. 

Podcast