A Charlie’s Angels Reboot Is On The Way, But How Well Does The Original Hold Up Now?

https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2019/10/8511326/charlies-angels-2000-movie-sexist-or-empowering

Watching Charlie’s Angels in 2019 requires some fairly complex mental gymnastics. The action kicks off with a sequence that culminates in Drew Barrymore emerging from an LL Cool J skinsuit, Mission Impossible-style. Cameron Diaz answers a mail delivery by cheerfully informing the UPS guy that he can just stick in her slot next time. Meanwhile, Lucy Liu has to contend with her so-called sisters-in-arms dubbing the result of an ill-fated baking spree “Chinese fighting muffins.”

But even more dated than the plot, or some of its cringe-worthy twists and jokes, is the drooling, lascivious discourse around it at the time of its release. The film received mixed reviews when it hit cinemas in November 2000, but even the most positive reviews come off as negative when you consider the language used by mostly male critics to describe its woman protagonists.

Writing for Entertainment Weekly, Owen Gleiberman described a scene in which Barrymore’s Dylan fends off three attackers while attached to a chair as her “kicking her legs, clad in long black pants, right into the air, cocking them open like a V (presumably for victory rather than virgin).” Roger Ebert called it “eye candy for the blind,” and “a movie without a brain in its three pretty little heads.” Laughably, Tom McCarthy’s Variety review pondered whether men might have to worry about movies not being about them anymore, writing: “What with this and Ang Lee’s similarly female-slanted Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon poised to dominate the action market through the holidays, slighted-feeling boys may start wanting to get some of their own back.”

This isn’t an indictment of the critics themselves. It’s simply a paper trail proving just how much our culture has changed in a relatively short amount of time. It’s not like woman critics were effusive in their praise — but there is a marked difference in how they phrased their criticism, and what, in fact, they took umbrage with.

At L.A. Weekly, Manohla Dargis asked: “Of course, it’s terrible — but did it have to be this bad?” She also pointed out the lack of depth afforded to the only character of colour, writing that “Liu’s defining trait seems to be that she isn‘t white.” At the Washington Post, Rita Kempley decried the film’s reliance on male fantasies to sell tickets, but also acknowledged its more subversive moments. “The movie gives Diaz (the adorable one) a chance to spoof the obligatory display of cleavage,” she wrote. ”At one point she and her partners have just emerged from the sea in their wetsuits when Diaz realises she is not showing enough skin and unzips her clingy ensemble down to her navel.”

Less than two months away from a reboot directed by Elizabeth Banks starring Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, and Ella Balinska, the question of Charlie’s Angels’ legacy seems more relevant than ever. Was it just another vehicle for male sexual fantasies? Or did it subtly subvert those tropes, providing a rare example of female empowerment and friendship in one sleek, action-packed blockbuster package?

Honestly, I’d say both. The impact of Charlie’s Angels on young women growing up in the late ‘90s and early aughts cannot be overstated. Like the Aaron-Spelling produced show it’s based on — which famously starred Farrah Fawcett (she of the red bathing suit poster every male had in his room circa 1976), Kate Jackson, and Jaclyn Smith — it was a massive phenomenon. Grossing $125,305,545 million domestically, it was the 14th most successful film in a year that included the release of Gladiator (the eventual Best Picture winner), What Women Want, Erin Brokovich, and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Destiny’s Child recorded one of their biggest hits, “Independent Women,” for the soundtrack, and Diaz single-handedly made one-shoulder tops one of the biggest trends of the era. (And right on schedule; they’re poised for a comeback.)

Though undeniably flawed, the movie, now available on Netflix, remains a surprisingly fun watch. Dylan, Alex, and Natalie (Barrymore, Liu, and Diaz, respectively) are the Angels, three private detectives working for an agency run by an anonymous millionaire named Charlie. Along with their sidekick and handler, Bosley (Bill Murray), they’re tasked with finding a kidnapped billionaire tech entrepreneur (Sam Rockwell) and rescuing the world from a potential privacy breach that could have life-altering consequences. (The idea of fighting to save privacy in the digital age is both terrifyingly prescient, and a quaint glimpse into the anxieties of a pre-9/11, pre-cell phone era.)