★★★★★ 0/5

Charlie’s Angels: reviews

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

27
Leave a comment

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.

Variety:
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.

CNN:
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).

BuddyTV:
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.

HitFix:
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.

27 Responses

  1. Right from the start when I first heard of this remake, knew I wasn’t going to watch it, and knew it would prob not last 1 season. If it has stinker written all over it, then I am glad I won’t be wasting my time with it.

  3. @Josh

    Yeah sure Hawaii Five-0 has been one of the exceptions but when it comes to remakes overall more have failed than succeeded. 2 more, Prime Suspect and Charlies Angels look like they will add to the fail list. So i stand behind my statement.

    Also i believe the creators of Grey’s wrote Rachel out how they did so that if this show did fail she could come back. I think her and Alex were great together. Guess we will see what happens.

  4. Not a surprise unfortunately, had fail written all over it from the over-hype to the b grade calibre talent to the facet it is another re-make. Better luck next time Drew and Co.

  7. As soon as the first glimpse of this and seeing how serious it took itself I knew we were in for a disappointment.

    The TV series was long before my time but the films were in my early teens and I loved them for exactly what they were pure entertainment.

    I had hoped Drew would bring the playful, sexy, fun and arguably campy Charlie’s Angels movies style to the series but instead it seems like another NCIS snore or something of that nature. Just another crime show. Drew, Lucy and Cam have personality and charisma for days and none of these three girls have any of the same magnetism.

    It should have been funny and silly and combined that with the action, sex appeal and adreniline of the films.

  8. @Craig
    Yeah mate, they just ran the ad during the Nine ‘News’ here in Brisvegas!
    By ‘ad’ I mean it was a ‘news story’ with an interview with R. Taylor, who said all the right things you should for a puff piece. Sickening. What a joke of a news service.
    BTW I only watched 9 news because I wanted to see their wrap of the Broncos being massacred last night. Honestly! That’s no excuse, I know 🙁

  12. Anyone else see ‘advert’ they had on 9 News tonight (Saturday) for the show, it was at least 2 minutes telling the uninformed masses that the show was watched by 8 million viewers in the US and focused on Rachael Taylor.

    Nothing like a bit of cross promotion to blur the lines between news and entertainment.

    BTW the only reason I was watching 9 News was TENs being delayed because of the AFL, which should have been on ONE in HD, but that’s another topic.

  13. @ Guy – I have to disagree that remakes are a bad thing, as look at Hawaii Five-0 which has been just as, if not more, successful then the original. And your right that Rachel is an amazing actress and she was terrific on Grey’s Anatomy – as was her role in Transformers which was her big movie debut. Hopefully if this doesn’t work out she gets picked up in a more successful series as she is terrific.

  18. Shocking!! Never saw that coming!

    Why can’t the studio’s come up with new idea’s? Not every hit show or movie needs to be remade!

    Can’t think of one remake that has ever been better than the original…..

  19. Now I don’t know whether to give it a chance or not seems though there is a good chance it is only going to get axed. Was really getting excited about it starting but now I’m worried.

  21. From everything I’ve read about this show over the last couple of months, it sounds awful. I won’t be wasting my time on it, not when there are other more interesting shows starting like Terra Nova, Person of Interest and Supernatural.

  23. The perils of fast tracking…

    “The television world is certainly not desperate for campy dramas featuring sexy female leads, but “Charlie’s Angels” at least managed to perform better than NBC’s flop “The Playboy Club” in its debut.”

    headlineplanet.com/home/2011/09/23/charlies-angels-ratings-start-okay-greys-anatomy-way-down/

    So I give it maybe 2 weeks before it’s replace with 2.5 Men re-runs. And I can see know why TPC is airing on Arena.

  24. Urgh…I wasn’t going to watch anyway but that just confirms it. Are there so few new ideas around that TV show makers are reduced to scraping about in the archives?

  25. I’m old enough to remember the original 70’s Charlie’s Angels, which was ridiculous crud, but with big hair and make-up. With very few exceptions, ’70’s crime fighting shows were dreadful, have not stood the test of time and should be left back in the vaults where they belong. They got canned originally for very good reason. Reinventions of old TV series rarely work, so I’m not surprised that this is a turkey.

Leave a Reply