Charlie’s Angels: reviews

It’s bad news for Rachael Taylor, with the Charlie’s Angels reboot being branded as a stinker.

And by 7 minutes into the first episode I have to agree. I haven’t decided if I can be bothered to write a fully fledged review yet.

Nine may have been wise to programme this for next Tuesday (although it’s a little violent for 7:30pm) before word of mouth gets around that it’s a turkey.

Apologies to Farrah Fawcett….

Here is what US critics have had to say:

The Hollywood Reporter :
The writing is atrocious. It’s like a spoof that suddenly took itself seriously. That ABC could have made this on the drama side and the yet-to-air “Work It” on the comedy side – far and away the two worst shows of this new season – says a lot about what it takes to get fired in this town. Listen, to go on any more about Charlie’s Angels – even to the point of talking about who’s in it or who wrote it (why embarrass them any more than necessary?) gives the show more validation than it deserves. Don’t watch this show thinking it’s so awful it could be brilliant. Or that you could make a fantastic drinking game out of it.

The idea of rebooting 1970s series is hardly new, despite an uneven track record, from the short-lived “Bionic Woman” and passed-on “Wonder Woman” to CBS’ more durable “Hawaii Five-O” update. Like those titles, “Charlie’s Angels” — previously revived both in primetime and theatrically — is surely promotable, but also instantly dated. 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.

Entertainment Weekly:
The new version of Charlie’s Angels worked, if you were attuned to its wavelength, as a goof, a spoof, a silly hour of escapism even less believable than Vampire Diaries. If you were looking for something witty or sly, I think you were out of luck.

The only big change to the “Angels” formula – which worked so well in the 1970s and for series executive producer Drew Barrymore – is the casting of Ramon Rodriguez as Bosley. Let’s just say he’s a far cry from David Doyle, Bill Murray or Bernie Mac, and he also gets a lot more involved in the missions. The show is a more high octane, less blatantly exploitative version of the ’70s series. As an action series, it certainly delivers on a surface level, but there’s not much *there* there (the plot/mission of the week couldn’t matter less).

If you feel the need to watch Charlie’s Angels, we suggest finding an old episode of the 1970s classic and enjoying Farrah Fawcett and company toss their hair while solving crime. Should this not work for you, perhaps you could watch the Drew Barrymore film version from 2000. Heck, you could even go crazy and watch the 2003 sequel.

Taylor (who was Karev’s love interest last season on “Grey’s  Anatomy”) comes closest to escaping the various shackles placed on her  by the script, the wardrobe, direction, etc., but even she can’t  overcome a show that wants you to care so much (dammit!) about the  Angels that its sober nature becomes its own form of unintentional  comedy.


  1. FYI if you want to see the original Charlie’s Angels pilot it’s on GO! tomorrow (Tuesday) at 11am so set your PVR!

    It will be a good way to compare, watch both and then complain.

  2. Not going to bother with a review!! Oh!! 🙂

    How is this version any less exploitative than the original? Still got chicks in skimpy clothes in fight scenes with boob close-ups and ubiquitos hair tossing.

    Looks like same old sexism to me!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.