Someone started one of these reviews with the words, "once upon a time there were three bad actresses". That is unfair. It would be much more fair to say, "Once Upon A Time There Was One Bad Writer . . . " Just exactly what they were thinking in putting this thing together is hard to say. GILLIGAN'S ISLAND was a more effective vehicle than this -- vastly more. Here, the premise seemed to be, if we get three pretty if mostly terminally skinny actresses (critics in the 1970s lamented the trend toward predominantly stick-like girls on TV and that trend is on full display here) and give them an ample budget to go blow on clothes on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, we don't need to do anything else but show up with a couple of cameras once a week and start shooting. The stories -- seemingly universally written by the same guy, week upon week -- were usually profoundly weak, most commonly yet another variation on "who's trying to wreck the art show/fashion show/beauty contest/dance competition/cruise ship/car show/roller derby/monster truck pull/illegal moonshine industry in West Appalachia . . . " which will be solved by having the characters go undercover and then promptly blow their cover by all standing around in a group in public chattering like the world's oldest group of high school reunion classmates, talking in full voice all about the case. Indeed, Eavesdropping and the failure to take into account the same is one of the most prominent thematic elements of this show, right after the selection of bra-less tight-fitting tops for the title-roled stars (at least in the earlier seasons). Either that, or one of the Angels will start asking a few basic questions of one of the one-dimensional bad guys, who then invariably suddenly grows an extra cerebral lobe and retorts, "hey, wait a minute, you ask an awful lot of questions for a librarian/dance instructor/drive-in carhop/bikini salesgirl/television news reporter -- you must be a cop!" The bad guys themselves were usually some of the most one-dimensional in the history of television, the kind who almost universally will murder anybody at the drop of a hat for no story-worthy reason other than to drive these torturous plots along. Similarly, the sense of menace to the safety of the Angels that is supposed to propel a lot of the usual drama in a detective show was also most often so lightly attempted that you had more fear for the castaways on Gilligan's Island the time they were captured by Vito Scotti dressed up as a Japanese midget submarine sailor who didn't know the War was over than anything that usually happened here. Yea, verily, the action sequences also must have been some of the worst-executed, if not also conceived, ever recorded for an action show on TV; most of the time, *Charlie's Angels* represented a giant leap backward in the female action hero on TV, in comparison with much more successful predecessors like Mrs. Emma Peal and Honey West fully ten years earlier. Ironically, it was only in the last couple of seasons after the ratings had slipped into fair-to-middling territory and everybody said the series had jumped the shark that you finally started sometimes seeing some drama like that audiences had grown used to in every other detective drama on TV ranging from Hawaii Five-O to the Mod Squad, but by then I guess it was just too late. Concomitantly, the characters were so poorly written that they failed to develop distinct personalities until very late in the game, most notably with the (finally) aggressive treatment given to the controversially-cast Tanya Roberts, whose hard look and raspy voice clashed obtrusively with the sweet presentation of all the previous actresses cast as Angels.
And finally, another reviewer pointed out that, "(i)t's (sic.) very nature is tongue in cheek (but) that it tries to act seriously . . . (makes) . . . It dysfunctional and laughable." I couldn't put it better myself (after editing). More successful series have handled the tongue-in-cheek premise very successfully by acknowledging the humor inherent in it but mostly that was never the tone set here.
Well, if you are an old man who would like to liven up your lonely apartment after work with some pretty, usually utterly mindless fluff from some always pretty, always nice, sweet girls usually with sweet feminine voices, you have a reason to screen this series. It does have certain advantages over reruns of Bob Ross.
P. S. Way too much has been made of the "jiggle" aspect of this show. I can recall exactly one instance of clear, unequivocal jiggling in all five seasons of this show (and I was paying attention). No, at least until Tanya Roberts showed up, the actresses were just too skinny for that.
And finally, another reviewer pointed out that, "(i)t's (sic.) very nature is tongue in cheek (but) that it tries to act seriously . . . (makes) . . . It dysfunctional and laughable." I couldn't put it better myself (after editing). More successful series have handled the tongue-in-cheek premise very successfully by acknowledging the humor inherent in it but mostly that was never the tone set here.
Well, if you are an old man who would like to liven up your lonely apartment after work with some pretty, usually utterly mindless fluff from some always pretty, always nice, sweet girls usually with sweet feminine voices, you have a reason to screen this series. It does have certain advantages over reruns of Bob Ross.
P. S. Way too much has been made of the "jiggle" aspect of this show. I can recall exactly one instance of clear, unequivocal jiggling in all five seasons of this show (and I was paying attention). No, at least until Tanya Roberts showed up, the actresses were just too skinny for that.