Review: "Charlie's Angels" Proves It's Still Possible to Fight Crime with Perfect Hair and Make-up!

Rachael Taylor as Abby, Minka Kelly as Eve French, and Annie Ilonzeh as Kate Prince

Hollywood loves a remake. But I think remakes of classic movies or TV shows are really, really hard to pull off well.

Here's my theory: the only real chance a TV remake has is by being better than the original.

In the case of Battlestar Galactica, that wasn't hard, since the original show was a groan-inducing cheese-fest. But it also helped that the new Battlestar Galactica was phenomenal television – one of the best sci-fi shows of all time.

Beverly Hills 90210 wasn't a great show either, but it was better than the limp retread 90210 – which may explain why the remake has never taken off.

So what of the new reboot of Charlie's Angels? True, the original series was horribly written, but it had a terrific and (then) ground-breaking premise. It also had three beautiful, charismatic actresses who had a great, easy chemistry together.

Does the reboot surpass the original?

It's too early to tell from the premiere, but it's actually a possibility. It's definitely not the annoying Bionic Woman reboot from a few years ago.

First, they changed the premise pretty significantly from the original series and the remake-movies. The three angels don't work for Charlie simply because "they were all assigned very hazardous," er, boring, duties.

The Angels now all work for Charlie because they screwed up: one is a former thief, one was involved in police corruption, and one made a big mistake on the job in the military. Even Bosley has been convicted of tax fraud. They're part of this ridiculous thing called "Charlie's Angels" because they're trying to redeem themselves.

And I think this actually makes a lot more sense. Let's face it: the idea that three women would submit to a male supervisor who controls every aspect of their lives, but who they're never allowed to see … well, it's good-natured, but it's demeaning.

Here they totally deserve the indignity, and they know it. They might be "angels," but they're in purgatory – not heaven.

The creators of the remake are insisting that the show isn't camp, that they're going to take the story seriously.

Frankly, I'd like some of what they're smoking.

Let's face it: it's simply impossible for this premise not to be campy. Three smokin' hot female criminal operatives who change fashions with every scene and who always have time for perfect hair and make-up?

Besides, when did "campy" become such a bad thing? I enjoyed the breezy tone of the pilot, and the show's many subtle and not-so-subtle references to actual angels (and also devils). There are also two very clever twists in the opening few minutes of the pilot, a hilarious gag involving the introduction of Bosley and another involving one of the angels and her car. I refuse to spoil them, but be forewarned that both surprises will be ruined if you pay too close attention to the show's publicity.

The fact is, the show is fast-paced and fun, but not lazy and stupid – the exact writing "sweet spot" for a show like this.

As for the three new angels, they're not just beautiful, they've got personality – especially Rachael Taylor's bad-ass Abby. (I wasn't crazy about Friday Night Lights' Minka Kelly, at least in the pilot, who seems totally miscast as a "tough girl-from-the-streets." But then I never bought Jaclyn Smith as a "tough girl" either.)

It's also nice to see not just some color in the angels, but some actual cultural diversity. It helps that the show has been moved to Miami, which is as light and sunny as this show.

As I said, I think remaking a classic is much more difficult than Hollywood would have you think. But what do you know? It looks like the creators of Charlie's Angels have a shot of pulling it off.