Charlies Angels
!!!WARNING!!! Do NOT go into this movie with a remotely serious mindset, anyone that does will be walking right back out of it within fifteen minutes. If you are unable to flip that switch in your head marked "common sense" to an "off" position, avoid Charlie's Angels like the plague. Now, of course Hollywood have never exactly been known for cerebral, realistic film-making but this movie takes the concept of "popcorn flick" to its zenith, dismissing all form of logic with a flip of the lead actress' hair and has a helluva time doing it.

Natalie, Dylan and Alex are three young, attractive, energetic women who also happen to be a trio of crime-fighting detectives under the employ of the mysterious Charlie. Their latest assignment is to solve the kidnapping of Eric Knox, a multi-millionaire programmer who has invented voice recognition software that could revolutionise global communications. They soon come to suspect Roger Corwin, a creepy businessman but it quickly becomes clear that everything is not so clean-cut.

If you have an inkling of fun in your body, you should love Charlie's Angels for what it is: horrendously cheesy, relentlessly dumb big-screen nonsense. The movie speeds along from the dizzying mid-air opening, through other similarly energetic action scenes and romantic sub-plots, never once removing tongue from cheek like a cute little puppy, eager to please. At times, the sheer cheese-factor does threaten to overwhelm, especially in the first forty minutes but thankfully everything is levelled out as what little plot there is begins to develop, making way for yet more outlandish action sequences. Unfortunately, director McG has seemingly over-dosed on The Matrix, going supremely OTT on the wire-fu, with the girls flying through the air, showing no end to their agility. Although these scenes certainly look impressive and fit quite nicely within the film’s already crazed world, there is something distinctly second-hand about them, the wire-fu involved no longer as impressive as it was when used in the Wachowski brother’s sci-fi epic. The violence itself is thankfully not shied away from, but does retain a cartoon-ish quality, while surprisingly lacking in PC values; the “angels” can certainly kick some ass but they do take quite a beating at times.

The three leads all seem to be having a fun-filled time, using their generous curves to maximum effect, basically compounding the general eye candy feel of the movie itself. If one were to actually think about the movie afterward, a disturbing vacuity would become quickly apparent. There really is a lack of anything remotely resembling substance on display. The slim revenge plot would be fine for a fifty-minute weekly dose of the original TV series but when laid out on a feature-length canvas is revealed for the insubstantial gimmick it truly is. The girls are very cute and easy on the eye, but each is given two personality traits and left to exist on the actress’ on-screen presence. While these are certainly faults and would severely stunt any other movie, Charlie’s Angels simply shrugs its endearingly dumb shoulders, says “aw shucks” and zooms on with a complete lack of pretension.

Despite the enjoyment factor present here, the question still remains the same: why does Hollywood have this strange obsession with old TV shows? Mission: Impossible, The Flintstones, The Mod Squad. The sheer irony of this is that the target audience for each movie will be too young to even remember the original TV show, which will most certainly be the case for Charlie’s Angels. Whenever I hear of a new movie “based on an old TV show” in production, my skin instantaneously crawls. There’s just something so corrupt about raiding the annals of television history and more often than not destroying the memory of a once classic programme in a feeble effort to “bring it to a new audience”.

The cast do their best with what little they have, Cameron Diaz in particular giving a spirited, sweet and kooky performance as Natalie, while Drew Barrymore simply plays the cute, wholesome role we have come to expect from her. Lucy Liu seems less at home, actually loosening up for once, leaving the callous bitchiness of Ally McBeal and her similar movie roles behind. As Bosley, Bill Murray does the bumbling fool very well but the comic potential of the character is barely explored. The rest of the guys – Matt LeBlanc, LL Cool J, Sam Rockwell, Tim Curry (who miraculously given the movie manages a semi-restrained performance), Tom Green and Luke Wilson are left with thankless, all-too familiar roles in which they merely go through the paces. Crispin Glover, on the other hand just fills the screen with his hysterically “cool” mute hit man, every gesture so choreographed you can’t help but smile at the sheer deranged quality of it all.

At the end of the day, Charlie’s Angels is fluff in the extreme: pretty, fun and instantly disposable. It reaches across the demographic fairly well, featuring as it does a trio of sexy babes amidst several displays of thrilling, yet supremely exaggerated action while still retaining a distinct air of that old chestnut “girl power”. Although I had never seen the original TV series, I knew basically what it was and the horrendously cheesy decade it came from so I was not exactly thrilled at the prospect of the forthcoming movie adaptation. Thankfully, in spite of its summer movie trappings (I loathe and detest the majority of these big-budget monstrosities) I found myself floating away on the movie’s sheer inanity. Just remember: relax, loosen that tie and become one with the Angels.