They might be Angels to Charlie, but to the killer and crooks of the world, these women have horns and they’re not afraid to show them.

Charlie's Angels

What my cinema companion said:
“Yeah that was alright I guess”

The Synopsis
Scientist and Programmer extraordinaire, Elena (Naomi Scott) is working on a devise that will revolutionise energy usage, however there is a flaw in the software that makes the devise weaponizable. When she tries to expose the flaw to her superiors she is targeted and chased until she is left presumed dead.

Taken under the wing of the Townsend Agency’s top private detectives, Sabina (Kristen Stewart) and Jane (Ella Balinska) – the three women, alongside their handler, Bosley (Elizabeth Banks), work together to uncover who exactly is after Elena, and what other forces are working behind the scenes to take the entire team down.

CA - Angles and Bosely

The Good
Right… so… Charlie’s Angels. Less of a reboot and more of a revival and in that respect I really enjoyed what they did with the development of the Townsend Agency since we last dipped into the world. The globalisation of the Angel initiative, the multiple Bosley idea – it was really inventive.

With the plot and the story itself I will say that the twists, though predictable in one sense, also managed to completely surprise you. It took you so far round in circles that you were a little bit dizzy by the point of the reveal which is great because it’s a spy movie – it’s all about espionage and deception and in that respect we were espionaged and deceived.

Something that I never saw coming is who ended up being the best actor… Yup; Kristen Stewart. Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t stuck believing she was still at the same level as her Twilight Saga days – I just hadn’t given her much thought since. Her portrayal as Sabina was, fun, quirky, and wholly her own, and I liked the information about her past we were drip fed throughout.

However I will give a quick lil shout out to Jane – portrayed by Ella Balinska – who I would always want on my side in a fight and I officially aspire to be in 2020.

Charlie's Angels

The Bad
As many good points as I might have listed above; at the end of the day this movie was pretty forgettable, which is a shame because whilst thinking back as I write this post, I didn’t have a bad experience watching it at all.

Everything was almost there – it was almost funny, it almost paid homage to the last movies well, the villains were almost dastardly enough, scenes almost had enough tension filled action. It all just needed a little more to be honest. Every time you thought you were going to get it – you didn’t, and that was pretty darn disappointing.

Just so it can be said; I could honestly go either way with how ‘on the nose’ all the female empowerment moments were. Lines of dialogue, on screen positioning, the general feel of it after hearing what Elizabeth Banks said after the films ratings opening weekend. *Shrugs*

Final point to make on the negative side of things is to do with that random dance sequence. I mean sure it looked cool but erm – why?

Charlie's Angels

The Conclusion
If you read through the above, you can tell that this movie did so many things right, my favourite being in the development of the brand of Charlie’s Angles since we last saw them in 2003 with Charlie’ Angles: Full Throttle. Sadly it very rarely hit its mark, which is a shame as it was an alright story, with a decent cast and a world of female spies we’re not exposed to enough.

Author


2 responses to “Film Review: Charlie’s Angels”

  1. I still say that the problem with this version of CHARLIE’S ANGELS was in the casting. People went to see the previous two movies because Drew Barrymore, Charlize Theron and Lucy Liu all had showed they could bring in audiences to fill movie seats and they each had their own fan base. So the lure of seeing the three of them in an action comedy was irresistible.

    As for this one…well, nobody is exactly sweating to see Kristen Stewart in anything and nobody even knows who those other two chicks are. And what with “The Fast & The Furious” and “Mission: Impossible” out Bonding James Bond these days…if you’re going to make an action movie you have to commit to being as outrageous and over-the-top as those franchises otherwise what’s the point?

    Like

    1. Casting wise, personally I am warming to Naomi Scott, so was intrigued when I saw she was in it as well ask Kristen Stewart… but you’re right they at a level that nobody across the generations would run to see them. The movie might have been better off with a younger cast to draw in the Gen Z crowd or an older more established cast to draw in the masses.

      You are absolutely right about the action portion of the movie not being high octane enough to satisfy. There was nothing memorable or even dare I say ‘cool’ about anything they did.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

LATEST REVIEWS