Inside TV+Movies with Daniel Fienberg

TV Review: ABC's 'Charlie's Angels'

Here's a flawless blueprint on how not to reboot a franchise

By Daniel Fienberg Thursday, Sep 22, 2011 7:50 PM

"Charlie's Angels"

Credit: ABC

The "Charlie's Angels" brand has some value, but ABC has a few problems with that brand.

First: There certainly are people with warmth for the original TV series, which was a fairly earnest piece of Aaron Spelling cheese, elevated to glorious action eye candy by Farrah Fawcett (and, to possibly a lesser extent, by Kate Jackson, Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd).

The problem: If you watched "Charlie's Angels" when it premiered in 1976, even if you have fond memories of it, there's at least a possibility that you may be outside of the demographic ABC truly cares about. Also, you probably won't think that the beloved tone of the jigglefest has been well captured in this mannequins-on-parade interpretation.

Second: The 2000 "Charlie's Angels" film with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu was a pretty big hit and although it wasn't exactly an Oscar movie, as tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top sexy action-comedies go, it was pretty superb.

The problem there: [We'll leave aside that 2003's "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" was a less big hit and far less well received.] Repeatedly mentioning Drew Barrymore's name in promotion and even bringing her out at the Emmys isn't going to obscure that no matter what the "Charlie's Angels" movie was aiming for, tone-wise, that's not what ABC's reboot is aiming for in any way and no matter what kind of trailer ABC cuts together, there's actually no way to make it look like there are similarities.

So, really, whether you loved "Charlie's Angels" in the '70s or you loved "Charlie's Angels" in the '00s, you aren't going to see your version of "Charlie's Angels" celebrated on ABC on Thursday (September 22) night. There are many ways to honor or respect "Charlie's Angels" and this version achieves none of them and, in the process, it doesn't honor or respect viewers who come in without a vested interest of any kind.

I thought "Charlie's Angels" was bad when I watched the original cut back in May, but watching it a second time in what was a barely tweaked revised pilot was utterly excruciating. "Charlie's Angels" is entitled to be interpreted so many different ways, but hitting this level of tedium is almost astounding.

Full review after the break...

CBS had a similar problem with "Hawaii Five-0" last year, only worse. The network had a brand with some equity, but mostly to older viewers and, in that case, a brand that hadn't be leveraged for a blockbuster film franchise. CBS' solution was weirdly revolutionary: They took the franchise seriously and went out and made a good pilot. I'm not going to say anything about the series "Hawaii Five-0" has evolved into, but that Len Wiseman-directed pilot had feature-level cinematography, feature-level action sequences and enough darned energy that whether or not you cared about Alex O'Loughlin's Steve McGarrett, it was easy to be entertained.

I couldn't really tell you what ABC's approach to "Charlie's Angels" is. It's pretty unforgivably confused, in fact. If you have dialogue as stilted as what Alfred Gough & Miles Millar penned and actors as wooden as leading ladies Rachael Taylor, Annie Ilonzeh and Minka Kelly, it's almost your best bet to just go for camp, to try to achieve the level of trashy fun that syndicated beachfront dramas achieved almost by default throughout the '90s. If you taking that approach, though, you know what you can't have? You can't have a child traffic storyline, complete with gritty images of kids in bondage. You can't have flashbacks to a Central American political conflict, complete with children in peril. And you can't have a scene of graphic torture involving one of your leading ladies. There's a level of realism that absolutely, positively must be earned and if you don't earn it, you come across as exploitative. And "Charlie's Angeles" is allowed to be (or at least expected to be) exploitative with low-jeopardy action scenes or with its scantily clad leading ladies, but this was a kind of exploitation that made me feel dirty (in a bad way) and a little angry (in a bad way).

It's far better with a franchise like this to take the entire conceit as lightly as possible. If you fail then? At least light failures go down easy. But if you take this conceit too seriously and you fail completely, you make what ought to be a popcorn series go down like noshing on a handful of unpopped kernels.

So anyway, our new Angels: Abby Samson (Taylor) is a Park Avenue princess, whose father was basically Bernie Madoff, so it's marginally appropriate that she's a world class thief. Kate Prince (Ilonzeh) is a former cop who disgraced herself in a way that I'm assuming will prove to be noble or at least for a good cause, though we haven't learned it yet. There's also a third Angel, Gloria. The opening credits want you to take her seriously and she's a former soldier and whatnot, but you'll notice pretty quickly that she isn't Minka Kelly and that she therefore isn't relevant.

There's also Bosley (Ramon Rodriguez), who has been reshapped as an MIT-trained computer whiz with an active libido and magical computer tablet that lets him do all of the research, background stuff previous Bosleys have done, while also being out in the field where he can showcase his rock-hard abs.

The first case, as mentioned earlier, involves a human trafficker code-named Pajaro. It's a bad choice for a code name, because of the leads, only Rodriguez can say it properly. I eagerly await future Spanish pronunciations from the cast, which may be inevitable, since the story is set in Miami.

I mention that nobody can pronounce "Pajaro," but there's a lot of dialogue in "Charlie's Angels" that nobody can spit out while retaining dignity. This goes back to my suggestion that with a different angle, going for camp would have been easier and safer.

I present to you, sample dialogue from the Gough & Millar script:

*** After rescuing a young girl: "Who are you? You don't look like cops." "We're not." "We're angels."

*** Regarding Pajaro: "He's a ghost." "Ghosts aren't real. This guy is and he needs to pay."

*** Dealing with grief: "I never thought my heart could hurt this much."

*** As proof of determination and delivered without irony: "We're going to find out who did this." "If it's the last thing we do."

*** Wisdom from Charlie: "Just remember, you're angels of justice, not angels of vengeance."

*** Self-explanatory: "We're angels, not saints."

*** What the [bleep] does this even mean: "Abby put the cat in 'cat burglar.'"

That's only a start. You'll have your own favorite lines.

And did I mention that the Angels are able to find the bad guy's whereabouts because HE TWEETS?

And the thing that's worse is that not only do the Angels talk like this, but they talk like this a lot. There are long, horrible scenes of planning in which pilot director Marcos Siega just gives up entirely. There's no effort to stage or spice up the dialogue and all of the actors are just doing their best to get the words out.

I don't know what the weather was in Miami when this pilot was shot, but I'm going to guess "cold," because at least that would explain why all three lead actress seem so uncomfortable throughout. As Emmy viewers already know, they have no chemistry together and Gough and Millar can't even given them dialogue that would stand in for chemistry. The only time there's any warmth between them comes at the end, when we learn that Abby likes to borrow clothes from her fellow Angels. Somebody told the writers that's what women do when they're friends.

Earlier, I included Taylor amongst the stars I accused of being wooden and that's not completely fair. Taylor is by far the best of the available Angels, both when she has action scenes and when she's forced to say lines that the writers thought were clever, but really, really aren't. Ilonzeh is asked to do nothing and barely registers. Kelly, with a surplus of back story, is asked to do a lot and it proves beyond her abilities. There's one speech in which Kelly's character is recalling the death of her parents and she has a half-smile that becomes weirdly enigmatic in the worst way possible. And again, there's no energy between any of them, nor with Rodriguez, who I guess I'd describe as innocuous.

I have no choice but to place a lot of the blame on Siega, though who's to know what's his fault? The action scenes are woefully choreographed and uninspired, but is that his fault or the limitations of the actors and second unit? I don't know. Within 20 minutes of watching, I defy you to remember anything that happened in the pilot, action-wise. I guess they decided not to go for the goofy explosiveness of the movie (or of "Hawaii Five-0"), but I couldn't tell you what they decided to go for instead. The action is neither realistic nor cartoonish. It's barely connected to the rest of the show.

But good action requires successful execution. You work at it, but failure is as logical an outcome as success. Failing to make Rachael Taylor, Minka Kelly and Annie Ilonzeh sexy when they're wearing red leather devil outfits? Well in that case, you've taken what ought to be a default position and you've done something much more difficult. These are great looking women and they're theoretically well consumed for at least some sexiness. Then why is everything so sterile? Why does everybody seem so uncomfortable? I go back to my "it was cold," theory, but that's an excuse, not an explanation. Siega has actually been just fine at getting sexiness on "Vampire Diaries" and "True Blood," so I don't have a clue what went wrong here.

But I guess I do have a clue. I've gone through many, many ways in which "Charlie's Angels" fails, from the script to the direction to the acting. Really, though, the root cause is what Linda Holmes isolates in her very fine NPR review: This was a show made without any love from anybody involved.

ABC made because it liked the idea of making a show called "Charlie's Angels" on its schedule, but I don't think they made it because they adored Gough and Millar's vision, or because Siega proved he had the perfect way to realize that vision or because Minka, Annie and Rachael walked into a room and somebody said, "These MUST be our Angels." This was a mechanical process, not an artistic one. So who's surprised the result is so lame?

"Charlie's Angels" premieres on Thursday (September 22) night at 8 p.m. on ABC.

Daniel Fienberg
Executive Editor

A long-time member of the TCA Board and a longer-time blogger of "American Idol," Dan Fienberg writes about TV, except for when he writes about movies or sometimes writes about the Red Sox. But never music. He would sound stupid talking about music.

Related Searches: TV, review, ABC, Charlie's Angeles

mas1986

10 minutes into the show and the acting SUCKS!!! And, if I hear MOJITO in one more show, I'm canceling my cable.
September 22, 2011 at 8:14PM EST Reply to Comment
- DJ I was going to come here to post myself, /.. haha UNTIL I saw the FIRST POST ! HAH
  
  and I could NOT have said it better myself. you took the words right out of my mouth.
  
  Good job brother, another person who is actually aware of how a REAL show is made, and , in this case, obviously a complete fake.
  
  we just hope that there could not be a large enough group of morons who would be following this , just as any other stupid show.
  
  but good luck :-)
  October 13, 2011 at 7:56PM EST
sh00tn butt

i think i will watch a football game instead .. i agree with MAS1986
September 22, 2011 at 8:44PM EST Reply to Comment
kat

seriously? what acting? this show SUCKS!!! enough said

September 22, 2011 at 9:17PM EST Reply to Comment
- tanya I think the show is really really good ans i'm upset that the show has been cancelled, i would rate it 10/10!!
  May 26, 2012 at 5:55PM EST
hanao

I'm sad to say that I work on this show down here in Miami. Omg I didn't think it could be this bad with such a cool looking set. I was wrong. I will say, though, Ramon is pretty hot
September 22, 2011 at 9:30PM EST Reply to Comment
Craig Ranapia

My only thought: Wouldn't it be really cool if someone built a decent show around Tricia Helfer, Gina Torres and Marcia Cross?
September 22, 2011 at 10:14PM EST Reply to Comment
Cai

I made it through 8 minutes of this show and then turned it off! It was like watching a bunch of Barbie dolls trying to come alive and act! The old Charlie's Angels may have been cheesy and campy, but I'll take cheese over crap any day.
September 22, 2011 at 11:27PM EST Reply to Comment
- marie I agree, you hit it right on the nose.
  September 23, 2011 at 6:56AM EST
Sam

It makes me sad to see such harsh reviews- I really enjoyed it. I wasn't expecting great acting or a deep story, just something light and fun, and that's what I got. Looking forward to the next episode :)
September 23, 2011 at 12:11AM EST Reply to Comment
- John Yeah pretty much you and me both. In this day & age we must appreciate shows that aren't reality crap. This was a good watch to me and I'm looking forward to a good series run. Hopefully!
  September 23, 2011 at 1:32AM EST
Forsyth Cries

OK...Saw three minutes of the premiere during Big Bang commercial breaks, and realized immediately that this is the stupidest show on TV. ITEM ONE: "Give me a visual confirmation that the girl is in the room..." "Switching to satellite camera feed..." So they show us a horizontal shot from 10 feet away of the girl laying on the bed. Ok, no scientific reality in this show. ITEM TWO: One of the angels pulls her gun out to threaten the other angels because she thinks they won't let her kill the bad guy. So she'll kill them if they won't let her do it. Now we've reached total lack of plot and character reality! This show should be a hit...but I'll never watch it.
September 23, 2011 at 12:13AM EST Reply to Comment
Swearin

I remember back during pilot season I was in a GNC store in LA and I overheard a guy talking loudly into his cell phone about how he was "flying to Miami soon" to start work on the Charlie's Angels set. I don't think the show was cast yet, but un that moment I was jealous because being on that set sounded awesome. I'm relieved now to know that all the action and sexiness I thought I would never see, didn't actually ever end up existing. Oh well.

Like "Revenge", I think this was another example of ABC just going for something on the basis of a good outline, but failing in every way to back up the premise with good dialogue or good casting. I blame the economics of this development season; seems like all the networks went for quantity over quality, and thus spread their budgets too thin.
September 23, 2011 at 1:30AM EST Reply to Comment
Tex

Here's someone worse than Madoff. Read then forward this link to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed: http://texsquixtarblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-is-worse-bernie-madoff-or-rich.html

September 23, 2011 at 1:38AM EST Reply to Comment
augustborn

I Dvr'ed the show and the best part of the recording was the commercials I skipped over...talk about amateur hour from acting,writing editing and camera positioning shots..
September 23, 2011 at 2:01AM EST Reply to Comment
Browser31

Where's She Spies when you need it. Light fare, but with spunk and energy.
September 23, 2011 at 4:46AM EST Reply to Comment
- marie She Spies was good, I liked it.
  September 23, 2011 at 6:53AM EST
marie

My husband and I watched the new Charlie's Angles for a couple of minutes. The girls are not pretty and they are boring, we got really bored and changed the channel to watch something else. The girls are really plain and boring. If they had pretty girls people would be more interested in the show.
September 23, 2011 at 6:48AM EST Reply to Comment
marie

The girls are plain and boring on the new Charlies Angles. If the show had some pretty girls people would like it, however with plain boring girls that are not pretty it is to boring to watch.Write a comment...
September 23, 2011 at 6:51AM EST Reply to Comment
august

I deleted the dvr recording 30 min into the show, bad writing , acting , directing filmography.. The original show was not that great when you subtracted the raging hormones of 13 yr olds and and their fathers who watched back in late 70s and the show was pushing the edge of tv porn for the time... the same things that made the show popular in decades gone (pretty sexy risk'a lens flirtation) by is no longer valid the distraction of sexiness no longer blinds those to what was bad in the original series transcends into the new series remake... only with the current rules of tv that permit far more risky things then in the past and the exposure to internet for all. In short the show is as bad now as it truly was then when ya subtract the male hormone equation lol

September 23, 2011 at 10:13AM EST Reply to Comment
cvanor

Horrible had to turn it off
September 23, 2011 at 12:55PM EST Reply to Comment
M

Late to the party here, but have you seen anything beyond the pilot? I'm wondering if maybe there's any improvement down the line. Clearly there's plenty of room for it.
September 23, 2011 at 1:56PM EST Reply to Comment
- M - ABC only got the revised pilot to us the DAY before premiere, so they're not far enough ahead in production/post to be sending out future episodes...
  
  -Daniel
  September 23, 2011 at 2:06PM EST
cheek brown

The show (i.e., the acting) got better as it went along. I loved the martial arts. All of the ladies, and even Bosley, was kicking ass. The climax was so touching, it brought tears that I wasn't expecting to shed. It's better than the previous TV show, and better than the movies. Looking forward to the next episode.
September 24, 2011 at 12:35PM EST Reply to Comment
- Ash http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/please-put-charlies-angels-back-on-air/
  December 18, 2011 at 5:06PM EST
Sg

I just watched the first few minutes of the pilot and turned it right off. Loved this review. Could not be more dead on.
September 30, 2011 at 5:49PM EST Reply to Comment
Em5q1

I donno if it is just me but I found it kinda boring. I tried to sit through it all but I couldn't. I prefer the old version this one. It just lacked when it shouldn't...and I totally get what they were trying to do they were trying not to make it like the other charlie's angel by adding a twist or something but it failed. There is no chemestry with the actors it like they are there but not. There is still more ephisode and it has the potential to get better but if it does not this show will crash and burn.
October 4, 2011 at 6:17PM EST Reply to Comment
Steph

I dont like the new character of bosley!
October 13, 2011 at 11:49PM EST Reply to Comment
Steph

I dont like the new bosley!
October 13, 2011 at 11:50PM EST Reply to Comment
vivi

This is totally messed up. If some TV reviewers who don't know a flint about good TV. THIS IS ABSURD
October 14, 2011 at 6:49PM EST Reply to Comment
vivi

THIS IS ABSURD. Some people actually enjoy this show and who gives a flint if some rigged TV reviwer doesn't agree?
October 14, 2011 at 6:50PM EST Reply to Comment
Lynette

I enjoyed watching the show online on abc.com. I couldn't watch it each week because I had other shows that I wanted to watch on thursdays. I wish they would have put on a different day and time.
October 28, 2011 at 1:59PM EST Reply to Comment
- Ash http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/please-put-charlies-angels-back-on-air/
  December 18, 2011 at 5:07PM EST
Patrick

There's a moment where they find a safe in the floor. As soon as I saw it I knew the word "Biometric" would come up. Guess what? It did. That's how painful predictable and cliche the script is.
November 30, 2011 at 4:45PM EST Reply to Comment

News From Our Partners

Follow HitFix:

Follow @HitFix

Get Instant Alerts on Breaking News

Latest Posts

The 'Nikita' Season 3 finale sets the endgame in motion - How did it do?

Would Nikita kill the President or not?

Saturday, May 18, 2013
Listen: Firewall & Iceberg Podcast No. 182

Dan and Alan talk upfronts, reality and 'The Office' finale

Friday, May 17, 2013
Recap: 'American Idol' Finale Results - The Winner Is...

Kree or Candice? Join as as we wade through over two hours of filler.

Thursday, May 16, 2013
Interview: John Cochran discusses his 'Survivor: Caramoan' win

This season's shutout winner discusses his path to victory

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Cannes Film Festival 2013

Inside TV+Movies with Daniel Fienberg

TV Review: ABC's 'Charlie's Angels'

Send to your friends

Direct link: http://tinyurl.com/3vkx9sx

TV Review: ABC's 'Charlie's Angels'

Share this Post on ...

Direct link: http://tinyurl.com/3vkx9sx

TV Review: ABC's 'Charlie's Angels'

Comments

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

mas1986 10 minutes into the show and the acting SUCKS!!! And, if I hear MOJITO in one more show, I'm canceling my cable.

sh00tn butt i think i will watch a football game instead .. i agree with MAS1986

kat seriously? what acting? this show SUCKS!!! enough said

tanya I think the show is really really good ans i'm upset that the show has been cancelled, i would rate it 10/10!!

hanao I'm sad to say that I work on this show down here in Miami. Omg I didn't think it could be this bad with such a cool looking set. I was wrong. I will say, though, Ramon is pretty hot

Craig Ranapia My only thought: Wouldn't it be really cool if someone built a decent show around Tricia Helfer, Gina Torres and Marcia Cross?

Cai I made it through 8 minutes of this show and then turned it off! It was like watching a bunch of Barbie dolls trying to come alive and act! The old Charlie's Angels may have been cheesy and campy, but I'll take cheese over crap any day.

marie I agree, you hit it right on the nose.

Sam It makes me sad to see such harsh reviews- I really enjoyed it. I wasn't expecting great acting or a deep story, just something light and fun, and that's what I got. Looking forward to the next episode :)

John Yeah pretty much you and me both. In this day & age we must appreciate shows that aren't reality crap. This was a good watch to me and I'm looking forward to a good series run. Hopefully!

Tex Here's someone worse than Madoff. Read then forward this link to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed: http://texsquixtarblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-is-worse-bernie-madoff-or-rich.html

augustborn I Dvr'ed the show and the best part of the recording was the commercials I skipped over...talk about amateur hour from acting,writing editing and camera positioning shots..

Browser31 Where's She Spies when you need it. Light fare, but with spunk and energy.

marie She Spies was good, I liked it.

marie The girls are plain and boring on the new Charlies Angles. If the show had some pretty girls people would like it, however with plain boring girls that are not pretty it is to boring to watch.Write a comment...

cvanor Horrible had to turn it off

M Late to the party here, but have you seen anything beyond the pilot? I'm wondering if maybe there's any improvement down the line. Clearly there's plenty of room for it.

M - ABC only got the revised pilot to us the DAY before premiere, so they're not far enough ahead in production/post to be sending out future episodes... -Daniel

Ash http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/please-put-charlies-angels-back-on-air/

Sg I just watched the first few minutes of the pilot and turned it right off. Loved this review. Could not be more dead on.

Steph I dont like the new character of bosley!

Steph I dont like the new bosley!

vivi This is totally messed up. If some TV reviewers who don't know a flint about good TV. THIS IS ABSURD

vivi THIS IS ABSURD. Some people actually enjoy this show and who gives a flint if some rigged TV reviwer doesn't agree?

Lynette I enjoyed watching the show online on abc.com. I couldn't watch it each week because I had other shows that I wanted to watch on thursdays. I wish they would have put on a different day and time.

Ash http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/please-put-charlies-angels-back-on-air/

Patrick There's a moment where they find a safe in the floor. As soon as I saw it I knew the word "Biometric" would come up. Guess what? It did. That's how painful predictable and cliche the script is.

News From Our Partners

Be the first to know - sign up now to get an instant e-mail alert whenever something big happens in Movies, TV or Music

Latest Posts

Recent Activity on Facebook

Most Popular on Facebook

About HitFix

Advertise on HitFix

Subscribe to HitFix

Popular Topics

mas1986

10 minutes into the show and the acting SUCKS!!! And, if I hear MOJITO in one more show, I'm canceling my cable.

sh00tn butt

i think i will watch a football game instead .. i agree with MAS1986

kat

seriously? what acting? this show SUCKS!!! enough said

hanao

I'm sad to say that I work on this show down here in Miami. Omg I didn't think it could be this bad with such a cool looking set. I was wrong. I will say, though, Ramon is pretty hot

Craig Ranapia

My only thought: Wouldn't it be really cool if someone built a decent show around Tricia Helfer, Gina Torres and Marcia Cross?

Cai

I made it through 8 minutes of this show and then turned it off! It was like watching a bunch of Barbie dolls trying to come alive and act! The old Charlie's Angels may have been cheesy and campy, but I'll take cheese over crap any day.

Sam

It makes me sad to see such harsh reviews- I really enjoyed it. I wasn't expecting great acting or a deep story, just something light and fun, and that's what I got. Looking forward to the next episode :)

Tex

Here's someone worse than Madoff. Read then forward this link to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed: http://texsquixtarblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-is-worse-bernie-madoff-or-rich.html

augustborn

I Dvr'ed the show and the best part of the recording was the commercials I skipped over...talk about amateur hour from acting,writing editing and camera positioning shots..

Browser31

Where's She Spies when you need it. Light fare, but with spunk and energy.

marie

The girls are plain and boring on the new Charlies Angles. If the show had some pretty girls people would like it, however with plain boring girls that are not pretty it is to boring to watch.Write a comment...

cvanor

Horrible had to turn it off

M

Late to the party here, but have you seen anything beyond the pilot? I'm wondering if maybe there's any improvement down the line. Clearly there's plenty of room for it.

M - ABC only got the revised pilot to us the DAY before premiere, so they're not far enough ahead in production/post to be sending out future episodes...

-Daniel

Sg

I just watched the first few minutes of the pilot and turned it right off. Loved this review. Could not be more dead on.

Steph

I dont like the new character of bosley!

Steph

I dont like the new bosley!

vivi

This is totally messed up. If some TV reviewers who don't know a flint about good TV. THIS IS ABSURD

vivi

THIS IS ABSURD. Some people actually enjoy this show and who gives a flint if some rigged TV reviwer doesn't agree?

Lynette

I enjoyed watching the show online on abc.com. I couldn't watch it each week because I had other shows that I wanted to watch on thursdays. I wish they would have put on a different day and time.

Patrick

There's a moment where they find a safe in the floor. As soon as I saw it I knew the word "Biometric" would come up. Guess what? It did. That's how painful predictable and cliche the script is.

Be the first to know - sign up now to get an instant e-mail alert
whenever something big happens in Movies, TV or Music