I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

I was 21 when this movie came out, and I had lots of friends who loved this. Maybe it's because it represents a particular time in my life, but I love this movie. I mean, I watched it again for nostalgia sake, but I'm not going to buy it and watch it over and over or anything. Yes, it is supposed to be stupid and funny, and I don't really think anyone ever thought this was supposed to be a masterpiece. It is an action comedy, with a feminine flair. No, it does not represent the original Charlie's Angels, which I once tried to watch, but couldn't. As a feminist, I obviously can't approve this for today, but even 15 years ago, this was still progress (just like I could never enjoy the original). Here's why young women loved this when it came out: Women are the central characters. It's fun / funny, and despite the stunts being purposefully unrealistic, the actors who play them are legitimate bad asses, if you know anything about them. To young women at the time, this wasn't just a dumb movie - this was a movie led by a cast of strong female actor role models. And, they were doing comedy (before Bridesmaids), when women didn't get the primary comedy roles very much (or action roles for that matter). Yes, it was a caricature of what we might eventually hope for. But, that was better than anything we had at the time. And, you do have to admit that it is genuinely funny at many parts, and it seems like everyone had fun making it. With all that being said, of course this is not a feminist piece. The women are objectified constantly. Yes, they're smart and crafty, but they all still have SOs in their life, either former or current male love interests (plus male on female violence with the ex is depicted quite graphically, even sexualized, which is terrible). And, the fact that the stunts are made to be so unbelievable alone is an insult, implying that women could not actually do impressive physical feats, so they have to exaggerate. I only hope that they at least used some women for stunt doubles, or that there were more female staff than the lead actors.

Angels are asked to rescue a very important person of American government. He is kept in a hiding place in the Mongol-Siberian border. The key is rings. The rings have important information and it includes name of Dylan.This film is second one of Charlie's Angels series. I merely watch action films because they're always acted by males and they're very violent. So I don't like them. However this series are acted by mainly females and not too violent. Furthermore they're very cool and sexy.Maybe many audiences think it's very unreal and not good. I think it's not realistic but this makes this film more exiting. By watching this film, I think I'm one of angels and I feel purged of stress. And the actors are nice. Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu are very fascinating and very sexy. These are the reasons why I like this film.

This is a big, shiny, silly, camp summer blockbuster and I suspect most of the bad reviews are purely because it dares to make fun of itself in a way that Mission: Impossible, Die Hard, X-Men and all those dude- dominated action movies don't.But really, I have to worry about all those people who hated this on seeing it. Did they not see the first movie? Or perhaps they thought the original TV show was a cerebral example of 1970's TV programming.The fact is if you liked the 2000 movie, with all the silly in-jokes, cultural references, campy soundtrack and frankly ridiculous stunts then you'll enjoy this one just as much. Maybe more because it also has Demi Moore looking amazing and a Jaclyn Smith cameo.

For the longest time I had remembered this movie being a big step down from the first movie. But after just watching it again, I'd say they're more or less equal.Surprisingly, this one actually has more of a plot than the first movie. It isn't exactly complex, but there is more interaction between the characters and a few examples of setup and payoff. Some of the jokes are pretty bad, particularly the ones centering around Dylan's former name, "Helen Zaas". Bill Murray is definitely missed, and the villains this time around aren't as good as Sam Rockwell was. Both movies are silly, but they're self aware. The filmmakers knew what they were doing with these movies, just wanting to make popcorn entertainment consisting of action sequences and attractive women. And for what these movies are, they aren't bad.