Charlie's Angels (2000) is a surprisingly subversive, if very politically confused, film that revels in schizophrenic references and racially, sexually charged scenes that do literally nothing to affect the plot.

I believe this is sometimes cool as fuck (other times I want to lobotomise myself) and could be intentional (unlikely).

I wanted to write a flowery analysis substantiating this claim but I am too tired (time of writing: 4:35AM). Here are the elongated bullet points I resort to when I am this fatigued (I might edit later).

⋅ Opens with a foiled terrorist plot with a literal suicide bomber on a plane (this film premiered almost 1 full year before 9/11). This is done with the use of the most heinous blackface probably of the entire decade (including Tropic Thunder). There's no hiding from it, Barrymore (white) is wearing an entire disguise that is a black man. Does subverting gender make racism okay? Y2K Charlie's Angels really does ask questions no other film ever has before or since.

⋅ But something is gnawing at me about all the racist overtones in this film. You know in that one episode of The Simpsons where Mr. Burns' doctor is explaining to him what is wrong and tries to squeeze a bunch of diseases through a little doorframe and they can't all fit? Mr. Burns thinks that this means he's invincible and the doctor rushes to correct him that "even the slightest breeze could..."
That's what I think about both the yellowface and blackface in this film... when paired with disguising in drag and a blonde Lucy Liu in traditional Bavarian dress... are they just culture jamming too hard and then going too far and then being racist... but then in throwing so many racially/sexually charged bits at the wall.... they end up creating something radical, even if accidentally? But like all the diseases not being able to fit through the door, Y2K Charlie's Angels is extremely tense in its thematic messaging? Like, the contradictions are becoming more and more potent as the film goes on?
Surely I am giving them a massive benefit of the doubt and honestly I despise concerning myself with the *intentions* of the author(s). I really want to just say that this is neo-Dadaism because it is that incoherent and absurd. Like, the racism doesn't even make internally logical sense. EDIT: Also Tom Green (Barrymore's then-husband) making a cameo in this film a year before 2001's Freddy Got Fingered?? People smarter than me (Lindsay Ellis) have argued that that film is a Dadaist masterpiece... just sayin'.

⋅ Okay, forget about the neo-Dadaist culture jamming, whether or not they were really doing that (I honestly don't want to give McG the credit), what really scrambles my egg is how Charlie's Angels (2000) prophecised the technological shift towards surveillance capitalism. The villain wants to pair vocal recognition tech with global satellite tech to "turn every cell phone into a homing beacon" (paraphrased). Hmmmmmmmm... would be a real shame if that ended up happening... right?
Then there's this other small part where Lynch and Rockwell are trying to get the Angels to hand over access to Curry's servers and they say that that would be "unethical". I'm sorry but can you get any more pro-privacy than that? This is supposed to be a Bush-era action/comedy.

⋅ Finally, and this is such a miniscule part of the film too, I want to talk about Lucy Liu's dominatrix bit at Red Star company HQ. She has this monologue where she's explaining to a room full of workers that they're the ones who should be making the decisions and that the managers should be subserviant to them. Um... hello? Based department? And why is she saying this between male drag Diaz and Barrymore? Is it because without two men in suits flanking Liu her position of perceived power is illegitimate? Foooooood for thought.

EDIT
Had to come back to say that if you're trying to look for an example of *male gaze* then just show them the first half hour of this film (if not the whole thing). Cameron Diaz's opening scene is absolutey cooked.

Alright that's enough for now, but I have to give this 4 stars. It's doing too much with so little. If you don't read into it then it's easily 2-3 stars, I mean, obviously.

EDIT
4 stars does not redeem this film's crimes against humanity, it merely reflects its potency as an encapsulation of the zeitgeist of the time (the turn of the millennium).

P.S. It goes without saying but it's so offputting watching Murray be the way he is on-screen with the Angels after... you know... the allegations.