It’s been 16 years since the last ‘Angels’ film, and for the most part, society has moved on. The days of the hypersexualized female action star are over; Hollywood showed us that women could hold their own on the silver screen. Whether it be Daisy Ridley in Star Wars, Gal Gadot in Wonder Woman, or Charlize Theron in quite literally anything, it’s pretty commonplace now to see well made female-led action movies. This is not that. Pitch Perfect 2 Director and actor Elizabeth Banks, who wrote, directed, produced, and starred in Charlie’s Angels, fails to do anything of real meaning here. It’s the film equivalent of empty calories; seeing it or not seeing it will have the exact same effect. There isn’t anything inherently offensive about this movie or even remotely controversial, it’s just an alright B movie at its best, and a waste of time at its worst. There’s no reason to go see it during this particularly crowded cinema season.
While I wouldn’t typically factor box office into a review, as the quality and money made often have no correlation, I feel it necessary to qualify my claims. This movie was a financial disaster; no one came out to see it, and frankly, I don’t blame them. The financial failure leads me to my primary criticism, who was this for and why was it made? I don’t know anyone who was clamoring for a Charlie’s Angels movie. The script feels aimless, simply wandering from scene to scene as if the plot had accidentally taken us there. It’s not written particularly well either, with dialogue feeling robotic and contrived. For example, there is one instance where a character describes the Angels as a “Non-Governmental NGO,” and to my understanding, NGO already stands for non-governmental organization, so that just goes to show the quality of the writing here.
It is also painfully clear that Elizabeth Banks has never directed action before, as it’s extremely choppy and filled with quick cuts sloppily stitched together. Today, the industry standard seems to be wide angles that give the audience a good idea of what’s going on, showing the action in full a la Mission Impossible: Fallout. In 2019, Charlie’s Angels feels lackluster and lazy. Compared to John Wick or Atomic Blonde, this movie has nothing remotely new to offer. It’s hard to follow and ultimately not enjoyable to watch, which is a big red flag in an action movie. Save for a few scenes, all the action is riddled with these style issues.
The saving grace here is the acting, which prevents a total disaster. Where the script fails, the talent is surprisingly able to pick up the slack. The cast includes Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, Ella Balinska, Elizabeth Banks, and for some reason, Patrick Stewart. Stewart, not Jean-Luc, is really enjoyable and genuinely funny with her performance at times as “Sabina Wilson,” which comes as a pleasant surprise. The other Stewart is left with almost nothing to do, so much so that his character could have been played by literally any actor. The disappointing thing is when he was intended to be vital to the story, it was hard to care at all, as the script didn’t do any favors for these characters. Every single one is a shallow cookie cutter from a 90s action drama. Balinska and Scott deliver fine performances, doing the best they can with what little they are given. Ultimately, Charlie’s Angels feels like a movie from another time and just doesn’t have a place in today’s market of rich, plot-driven action films.
2.5/5 STARS
