A bizarre blockbuster smash is re-examined as a window into a very strange time for cinema

The best movies are the ones that prove themselves to be timeless, and continue to hold up for generation after generation without losing any of their entertainment or re-watch value. On the other hand, there are plenty of massively successful titles that are unquestionably products of their time that haven’t aged too great, with 2000’s Charlie’s Angels in the midst of being called out.

It all started over on Reddit, where the entirely apt summation was put forth stating that “Charlie’s Angels (2000) is a fucking weird movie.” That isn’t a wrong-headed assessment, either, because it certainly is. The feature-length directorial debut of McG is so turn-of-the-millennium that it almost causes physical pain, but that didn’t stop it from blowing a hole in the box office.

Leather-clad actioners were still all the rage in the post-Matrix boom, while the combination of the Wachowski game-changer and Ang Lee’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon had brought wire-fu to the masses. Throw in a soundtrack packed with tunes by bands that were popular only at that time, the presence of Tom Green in a mainstream blockbuster, questionable green screen and CGI, and you’ve got a time capsule into what was a bizarre period for big budget Hollywood offerings.

Crispin Glover’s incredibly weird villain wouldn’t be out of place in a modern-day crowd-pleaser, but that’s oxymoronic in itself when whatever the hell he’s doing with his performance seems so out of place in amongst the candy-colored costumes and generally frothy nature of Charlie’s Angels as a whole. It is indeed a very weird movie, but that’s maybe a huge part of why it was so popular.