Charlie's Angels Review

 
PG-13: For action/violence, language, and some suggestive material Runtime: 1 Hr and 59 MinutesProduction Companies: Perfect World Pictures, 2.0 Entertainment, Brownstone ProductionsDistributor: Columbia PicturesDirector: Elizabeth BanksWriter: Elizabeth BanksCast: Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, Ella Balinska, Elizabeth Banks, Djimon HounsouSam Claflin, Noah Centineo, Patrick StewartRelease Date: November 15, 2019Kristen Stew. With my girl Nao, Ella B? Okay, I can’t do this. I tried to see if I could parody “Independent Women Pt. 1” but I couldn’t. I’m way too frustrated to even be creative. Sony, baby. Listen. I know you struck gold a few years back with Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle and your partnership with Disney regarding Spider-Man has been great. Even though you had a few bumps in the road, you persevered. But now, in 2019, the year of our lord… I’m begging you — I challenge you — to stop rebooting your most popular franchises. Let me redact that, because Jumanji was proof that you can do a reboot right (even though I’m scared for The Next Level now because of how much I was genuinely surprised by Welcome to the Jungle). Sony, stop handing the reboot button of your most valuable and beloved properties to people who clearly don’t know how to make them cool. This past June, we had the egregiously lifeless Men in Black: International, which starred the talented and undeniably hot Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson. It was directed by F. Gary Gray — who is known to make great movies — but was undercut by a shitty script written by the dudes who wrote Transformers: The Last Knight! Okay, that was one reboot Sony fucked up, but damn, I didn’t expect them to shit the bed twice this year with Charlie’s Angels and I’ll be damned, it’s for the same damn reasons! The only difference is that the culprit is writer/director Elizabeth Banks.
When a systems engineer, Elena Houghlin, discovers that the polygonal device called Calisto — which is intended to be used to preserve green energy (even though they never showcase the positive usage of this) — can be weaponized and attempts to be the whistleblower of the tech company she works at, she becomes the target of some of the most dangerous criminals in the world who are willing to buy it for their own destructive purposes. That’s until secret agents in the name of Angels, Sabina Wilson (Stewart) and Jane Kano (Balinska), swoop in to save her. Now, with the mentorship and recruitment by Bosley (Banks), they must take down the people with the most dangerous weapon in their hands and save the world. 
If there is anything I truly appreciate and commend this update for doing — and this is a credit to Banks’s script — is that it never for a moment stops to have any of her leads, or herself for that matter, comment on feminism to pander to the female demographic. In a year where so much faux feminism has been present in nearly every major blockbuster in the most inauthentic way (cc: Captain Marvel, Avengers: Endgame, Aladdin, Men in Black: International, Dark Phoenix), Charlie’s Angels thankfully has the dignity and integrity to not stoop that low and have the characters address the camera to make a statement on their gender or even emphasize their power verbally. This and Terminator: Dark Fate did a fantastic job of not being a #girlpower movie given their female leads. Thank God for that breath of fresh air. Aside from that, everybody served lewks. Not looks, but LEWKS! With each destination the lead actresses (and Banks) go to, they’re all in completely different outfits and damn did they stunt! I could’ve sworn whenever the trio would arrive on set, they’d go:
Nearly two decades have passed since the McG-helmed Charlie’s Angels franchise which had Barrymore, Diaz, and Liu at the height of their stardom and the badass, undoubtedly iconic   Destiny Child’s track “Independent Women Pt. 1”. A lot has changed since those days. Beyonce went solo, Diaz retired from acting, and most importantly, our sensitivity has changed. Those Charlie’s Angels movies are unapologetically problematic and a major product of the times. It was the most 2000s action franchise of the 2000s (aside from xXx) that encapsulated the themes of the era. Regardless, those Angels movies were ridiculous and fun!
Despite its fresh female perspective, Banks’s Charlie’s Angels update fails to capture any of the energy, silliness, or style that made the franchise the beloved phenomenon it is. Glimpses of fun moments and sequences are sparse, teasing the bridled potential of what could’ve been in some set pieces and character dynamic, but the final product is undercooked by a dull serious tone and some poorly crafted action sequences.Let me talk to all my fellow queers. Gather around, because they fooled us once with MIB and I know you’re all going to try to see this for Kristen Stewart. Some of my lesbian/bisexual friends messaged me about this. Let me tell you: it’s not enough. To see this only to ogle at her as she serves looks and kicks butt… it’s not enough. Out of all the cast members, K. Stew is the only character with a personality who exhibits range. This is the first time she gets to be the comic relief and honestly, she does an exceptional job. Her character Sabina is this playful, quasi-sociopathic wild card who never takes any situation seriously and she manages to get great laughs. Her comedic timing is perfect, but she’s not used to her full potential. Neither of her costars, Naomi or Ella, get the full-fledged treatment they deserve. Similar to Pitch Perfect, this is a story from the perspective of a group of women coming together as a team to kick ass and one of the key ingredients this lacked was teamwork. The range of personalities is present, but it's all to serve a criminal plot we've seen a million times in action film history. The best you could do is either compensate with big silly action sequences or with elaborate comedy… sometimes both, but none of that really happens here. This just plays it so straightforward and safe that it didn't leave any impact on me, even in terms of entertainment factor. For this being Elizabeth Banks’s sophomore feature, this shows glimpses of her potential when it comes to shooting action sequences, for there are several cool shots of hand-to-hand combat. Unfortunately, the editing is poor and a lot of the shots are very mid-budget studio quality. The action set pieces were dull and the editing was so bad. Banks needed better reference when it came to action because everything was studio-driven quick-cut close-ups on arm movements. 
None of the leads feel entirely fleshed out as characters and some of their arcs are either cut short or underdeveloped. The entire first act is solely centered on Elena who subjects herself to playing by the rules of her male superiors. While Banks’s script shows potential of her coming to her own as she's reluctantly caught up in the Townsend Agency, it's never followed through. Instead, it deviates to the predictable action plot and then gear shift the focus onto Jane. Hell, Sabina doesn't even have an arc, she just makes the jokes. Scott and Balliska aren't bad; they do a good job with their roles they just don't have much material to work with. Only in the third act during the final action set piece does this become genuinely fun, but it takes nearly 90 minutes of mediocrity to get there. Honestly, the only person aside from Stewart who made me laugh was Sam Claflin as Elena’s prissy incompetent boss who isn't even there that much. Yet, he made me burst out laughing. There are glimpses of potential within this update of Charlie's Angels, but Sony’s reboots as of late feel so damn safe and lazy and I can't help but feel embarrassed. MIB: International was derivative as can be and this is marginally better, providing at least several pounds of life (and hotter serves). I just can't help but feel some executive from the side said to limit this fun action-comedy to be serious and stick to straightforward action without capturing the essence of the source. It barely represents the fun of the original source series or its prior entities. With that, it leaves me disappointed and wanting more, for it ends on a strong note even though the end credits sequence proposes a cool idea for a feature I would've preferred. If this is a hit, I would love to see what the leads could do next… just hopefully not in the hands of a filmmaker who seems to be more preoccupied with being onscreen rather than behind the camera.  
Lacking all of the needed ingredients such as an identity, personality, and the chemistry between the leads, Elizabeth Banks Charlie’s Angels is an undercooked modern update lacking of both style and substance. Rating: 2/5 | 41%