1,230 reviews
As a life-long 63 year-old conservative, I watched this movie after reading these reviews with very low expectations, especially after hearing about Elizabeth Banks' clearly offensive comments! Harkening back to the 70s TV show, Charlie's Angels has always had messages about strong, powerful women. So what? And calling this movie a re-make is a bad mischaracterization,as it is set 40 years after the TV show with an agency that had grown with the years. I was happy to see that the movie was actually enjoyable, with the traditional plot twists. Was it great art, no. Was it fun, yes. I have no idea why some reviewers are completely trashing this movie! I recommend you watch this and judge for yourself!
- robmellor-23354
- Feb 12, 2020
- Permalink
Initially I had expected this 2019 movie to be worse than it actually turned out to be. Why? Well, first of all, we - as the audience - didn't really need another attempt to put "Charlie's Angels" to the big screen, it was done with equally little success back in 2000 and 2003. So this was a completely and wholeheartedly unnecessary movie.
Still, I was given the chance to sit down and watch it, so I did. And I must say that it was actually entertaining enough for what it turned out to be - a generic action movie, with a plot and script that had been done so many times before in other movies.
Truth be told, then I must admit that Kristen Stewart actually have managed to shed off her Bella-skin. While she is not an actress that I would rush out to the cinema to watch in a new movie, she did perform well enough in this movie.
The movie actually had a nice enough cast ensemble, which included the likes of Patrick Stewart, Djimon Hounsou, Elizabeth Banks and Nat Faxon.
"Charlie's Angels" is watchable, sure, but this is not a movie that rocked the movie industry, and I am sure it came and went without leaving as much as a dent in the paint job.
I am rating it a very, very mediocre five out of ten stars.
Still, I was given the chance to sit down and watch it, so I did. And I must say that it was actually entertaining enough for what it turned out to be - a generic action movie, with a plot and script that had been done so many times before in other movies.
Truth be told, then I must admit that Kristen Stewart actually have managed to shed off her Bella-skin. While she is not an actress that I would rush out to the cinema to watch in a new movie, she did perform well enough in this movie.
The movie actually had a nice enough cast ensemble, which included the likes of Patrick Stewart, Djimon Hounsou, Elizabeth Banks and Nat Faxon.
"Charlie's Angels" is watchable, sure, but this is not a movie that rocked the movie industry, and I am sure it came and went without leaving as much as a dent in the paint job.
I am rating it a very, very mediocre five out of ten stars.
- paul_haakonsen
- Feb 19, 2020
- Permalink
After so many adaptations, for the first time the universe of the Townsend Agency is in the hands of a woman. Elizabeth Banks took on the role of director, screenwriter, producer and actress of the new reboot that no one necessarily asked for, but that eventually manages to bring something new with the comfort in which it exists between action scenes that do not spare the right use of the environment and the scenarios. This new adaptation subverts some industry standards, but in no way gives up what is the franchise's DNA. In other words, sensuality is still present as a weapon in the agents' missions, but in a more intelligent way: flirting more with feminism and unpretentious humor.
Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart) and Jane Kano (Ella Balinska) are two Charlie's Angels who need to set aside differences when embarking on an international adventure with the new Bosley (Elizabeth Banks) and scientist Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott). They must prevent a new energy program from becoming a threat to humanity and find out who is behind such an evil plan.
Actress and director Elizabeth Banks takes over the direction of this new chapter with the mastery of those who know the universe of Charlie's Angels, developing the plot with a lot of reference to the past, which will make the fans of the series and films happy, in addition to updating the story when necessary; after all, both the series and the films of the 2000s have always been a portrait of the time in which they were set and showed women as strong and independent beings from men. And this film, my friends, is more than current in this regard. The Charlie's Angels navigate the waters of the new "wave of feminism" that has taken Hollywood in recent years, and takes advantage of this to assume a distinct place among all the other versions of this story that have already reached the screens. But it shouldn't be a film that needs to remember all the time that this is a story of women who take advantage of a supposedly naive appearance, and of an almost naturalized instinct for men not to feel threatened by the female sex, to fulfill their obligations. Missions and punching armed men and men in suits. In contrast, that is exactly what the film does. In many instances, it is unnecessarily attached to an extremely didactic explanation of the objectives themselves, instead of showing in a practical way what it came from - from beginning to end. Some feminist messages are hammered into the public's head, without any subtlety. Remember Ghostbusters (2016)? The Charlie's Angels are already opening with a guy wanting to disparage women. He's the villain. But everything is conducted in such a heavy and artificial way that in the dialogue the subject practically says that "a woman's place is in the kitchen". Knowing that this is a film that relies on feminism, it becomes a bad start - almost an anvil falling on the head.
Other than that, virtually none of the feature's jokes work, and it becomes excruciating. The feature's humor is generic by inserting ready-made jokes and random reference puns; the most situational comedy that the previous ones created is lacking, mainly when they put men to be easily deceived and manipulated by the protagonists for a mission, something that happens in one or another creative moment in the beginning, but like the action, it does not last. This question of durability has a lot to do with the distribution of the plot cores, which spends a lot of time betting on the dynamics of a novice with two experienced ones in conflict.
In action, the script facilitates or makes it difficult when you want, but you never allow yourself to exaggerate too much or step into seriousness with more consequences, even because of the indicative classification. At times, he flirts with the mockery or that seriousness, presenting real risks to the characters and, in both cases, they are slightly exciting, but he passes very quickly due to Banks' little ability to conduct them on camera, appealing to that logic of a frantic succession of cuts that makes it difficult to understand geographically what is happening. Not to mention that video game identity and its succession of challenges are abandoned, but at least this is consistent with the proposal that is actually linked to espionage, in the assembly of those complex plots of betrayals and interests revolving around technological artifacts or specific documents. Of which a range of people are chasing.
The action and fight scenes rarely get really exciting and need a more precise montage. The script, her first, is inconsistent and incoherent, with narrative arcs that needed a clearer direction. As a consequence, the balance between action and comedy falls short of the potential shown all the time, giving the melancholy feeling that he is one step closer to being great. A possible shortcoming of the feature for some is that when we compare this film to other spy films, we never feel urgency in the situations that the spies go through. But even with this "script problem" at the end, the result is positive. Not to mention that some catchphrases are misplaced and a dance scene, as cool as it may be, happens absolutely nothing. For this reason, the dynamics between the three protagonists suffer. There is an arc over two of them being opposites and trying to get closer which is confusing and not at all cohesive in their development.
As a lot of time is spent on these aspects, even to develop them carefully and provide for the renewal of the franchise, there is little left to actually take advantage of the dynamics of the three together in the adventure, which mixes action with comedy. Even if they spend a lot of time together, the proposal to still be a team in formation is not as skillful as it would be if this stage had been skipped. It is that tiredness syndrome of original films, which, even though it is understandable in view of the history to be considered, is a safe game that is more exciting for continuity than when it is really happening. Because the three when together are great, they have very distinctive chemistry and personalities that complement each other and can be pillars for a new, more promising film sequence. Naomi Scott plays the innocent but fearless Elena, a scientist at a company about to launch an energy-generating device capable of revolutionizing the world, which upon discovering its risk of being used as a weapon, becomes a target to be saved by Jane and Sabina. Ella Balinska makes an impressive debut. Imposing, not only does she own the best action scenes, but she shows layers behind her character's calculated coolness. However, the show itself is by Kristen Stewart. Fitting like a glove on a paper with a more comical approach, she conquers the audience with charm, obstinacy and assertiveness, delivering her lines with such sagacity in her voice that steals every moment she appears. Sabina has a very unique personality and the actress does well by not letting her performance fall into the caricature.
However, feminism is not always presented organically in the plot. Elizabeth Banks ends up playing it safe and uses a lot of discourse to play with everyday situations, with which the public will certainly identify. As a joke, this feature works. But, in a broader sense, it gives a banal air to the film, as if it were just another one trying to surf in this "fashion". The biggest problem with Charlie's Angels is its script. In the direction, if Banks demonstrates a certain immaturity in the sense of an unnecessary stretch in the script, with revelations stuck in twists that leave something to be desired in the sense of holding the viewer within the story. Fat is noticeable when the weave stretches and ends up yielding to joints that leave little to the imagination and fall into repetition, easily avoided if the final cut was less passionate about the idea of taking extremely seriously what could - and should - be mere trickery to arrive at the idea that, in the end, men are naturally not more reliable or valuable than women.
In addition, the director and screenwriter does not create moments that resonate with the audience (such as there is no great scene of memorable action), she also does not compromise, leaving everything on automatic. She delivers (or her team) good photography, good art direction, and especially good costumes. It is also always good to highlight the soundtrack of the always great Bryan Tyler and the music score, especially the partnership between Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus and Lana Del Rey, who recorded a collaboration entitled "Don't Call Me Angel", shown in the final credits. Of the feature. But what doesn't really go round is the text. We waited, but the film never took off, perhaps out of insecurity. The film is fully aware of the franchise's tacky and absurd approach, which is a good sign. By bringing elements from previous works, "Charlie's Angels" conquers fans of the old ones and expands the universe.
Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart) and Jane Kano (Ella Balinska) are two Charlie's Angels who need to set aside differences when embarking on an international adventure with the new Bosley (Elizabeth Banks) and scientist Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott). They must prevent a new energy program from becoming a threat to humanity and find out who is behind such an evil plan.
Actress and director Elizabeth Banks takes over the direction of this new chapter with the mastery of those who know the universe of Charlie's Angels, developing the plot with a lot of reference to the past, which will make the fans of the series and films happy, in addition to updating the story when necessary; after all, both the series and the films of the 2000s have always been a portrait of the time in which they were set and showed women as strong and independent beings from men. And this film, my friends, is more than current in this regard. The Charlie's Angels navigate the waters of the new "wave of feminism" that has taken Hollywood in recent years, and takes advantage of this to assume a distinct place among all the other versions of this story that have already reached the screens. But it shouldn't be a film that needs to remember all the time that this is a story of women who take advantage of a supposedly naive appearance, and of an almost naturalized instinct for men not to feel threatened by the female sex, to fulfill their obligations. Missions and punching armed men and men in suits. In contrast, that is exactly what the film does. In many instances, it is unnecessarily attached to an extremely didactic explanation of the objectives themselves, instead of showing in a practical way what it came from - from beginning to end. Some feminist messages are hammered into the public's head, without any subtlety. Remember Ghostbusters (2016)? The Charlie's Angels are already opening with a guy wanting to disparage women. He's the villain. But everything is conducted in such a heavy and artificial way that in the dialogue the subject practically says that "a woman's place is in the kitchen". Knowing that this is a film that relies on feminism, it becomes a bad start - almost an anvil falling on the head.
Other than that, virtually none of the feature's jokes work, and it becomes excruciating. The feature's humor is generic by inserting ready-made jokes and random reference puns; the most situational comedy that the previous ones created is lacking, mainly when they put men to be easily deceived and manipulated by the protagonists for a mission, something that happens in one or another creative moment in the beginning, but like the action, it does not last. This question of durability has a lot to do with the distribution of the plot cores, which spends a lot of time betting on the dynamics of a novice with two experienced ones in conflict.
In action, the script facilitates or makes it difficult when you want, but you never allow yourself to exaggerate too much or step into seriousness with more consequences, even because of the indicative classification. At times, he flirts with the mockery or that seriousness, presenting real risks to the characters and, in both cases, they are slightly exciting, but he passes very quickly due to Banks' little ability to conduct them on camera, appealing to that logic of a frantic succession of cuts that makes it difficult to understand geographically what is happening. Not to mention that video game identity and its succession of challenges are abandoned, but at least this is consistent with the proposal that is actually linked to espionage, in the assembly of those complex plots of betrayals and interests revolving around technological artifacts or specific documents. Of which a range of people are chasing.
The action and fight scenes rarely get really exciting and need a more precise montage. The script, her first, is inconsistent and incoherent, with narrative arcs that needed a clearer direction. As a consequence, the balance between action and comedy falls short of the potential shown all the time, giving the melancholy feeling that he is one step closer to being great. A possible shortcoming of the feature for some is that when we compare this film to other spy films, we never feel urgency in the situations that the spies go through. But even with this "script problem" at the end, the result is positive. Not to mention that some catchphrases are misplaced and a dance scene, as cool as it may be, happens absolutely nothing. For this reason, the dynamics between the three protagonists suffer. There is an arc over two of them being opposites and trying to get closer which is confusing and not at all cohesive in their development.
As a lot of time is spent on these aspects, even to develop them carefully and provide for the renewal of the franchise, there is little left to actually take advantage of the dynamics of the three together in the adventure, which mixes action with comedy. Even if they spend a lot of time together, the proposal to still be a team in formation is not as skillful as it would be if this stage had been skipped. It is that tiredness syndrome of original films, which, even though it is understandable in view of the history to be considered, is a safe game that is more exciting for continuity than when it is really happening. Because the three when together are great, they have very distinctive chemistry and personalities that complement each other and can be pillars for a new, more promising film sequence. Naomi Scott plays the innocent but fearless Elena, a scientist at a company about to launch an energy-generating device capable of revolutionizing the world, which upon discovering its risk of being used as a weapon, becomes a target to be saved by Jane and Sabina. Ella Balinska makes an impressive debut. Imposing, not only does she own the best action scenes, but she shows layers behind her character's calculated coolness. However, the show itself is by Kristen Stewart. Fitting like a glove on a paper with a more comical approach, she conquers the audience with charm, obstinacy and assertiveness, delivering her lines with such sagacity in her voice that steals every moment she appears. Sabina has a very unique personality and the actress does well by not letting her performance fall into the caricature.
However, feminism is not always presented organically in the plot. Elizabeth Banks ends up playing it safe and uses a lot of discourse to play with everyday situations, with which the public will certainly identify. As a joke, this feature works. But, in a broader sense, it gives a banal air to the film, as if it were just another one trying to surf in this "fashion". The biggest problem with Charlie's Angels is its script. In the direction, if Banks demonstrates a certain immaturity in the sense of an unnecessary stretch in the script, with revelations stuck in twists that leave something to be desired in the sense of holding the viewer within the story. Fat is noticeable when the weave stretches and ends up yielding to joints that leave little to the imagination and fall into repetition, easily avoided if the final cut was less passionate about the idea of taking extremely seriously what could - and should - be mere trickery to arrive at the idea that, in the end, men are naturally not more reliable or valuable than women.
In addition, the director and screenwriter does not create moments that resonate with the audience (such as there is no great scene of memorable action), she also does not compromise, leaving everything on automatic. She delivers (or her team) good photography, good art direction, and especially good costumes. It is also always good to highlight the soundtrack of the always great Bryan Tyler and the music score, especially the partnership between Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus and Lana Del Rey, who recorded a collaboration entitled "Don't Call Me Angel", shown in the final credits. Of the feature. But what doesn't really go round is the text. We waited, but the film never took off, perhaps out of insecurity. The film is fully aware of the franchise's tacky and absurd approach, which is a good sign. By bringing elements from previous works, "Charlie's Angels" conquers fans of the old ones and expands the universe.
- fernandoschiavi
- Apr 3, 2021
- Permalink
I'm no movie critic, just a woman who loves going to the movies. And I loved the movie! I was entertained, I loved the twist, I loved the music, the cameos, the clothes (although I'm more of a conservative girl myself), and the action. Of course my husband fell asleep and hated it, but I loved it and I can't wait to go see again with some girlfriends.
- denmark-16918
- Nov 19, 2019
- Permalink
I recently watched two charlie's angels movies from the early 2000's. figured i'd give them a shot after hating them the first time in theaters. i very much enjoyed them for what they were: ridiculous and outrageous fun. with all the reboots these days i checked and found that a new one was coming out so i added it to my watch list.
this new version is bad in so many ways. it has very little ridiculousness or outrageousness, while at the same time being completely unrealistic. the story was complete nonsense, yet somehow predictable. the dialogue was bad. there was no semblance of characters. most of the comedy was crickets. and there were numerous cringe-y scenes.
it also suffers from what a lot of these female-empowerment movies suffer from lately. the "girl power" theme is just too preachy and in your face. make a good movie with good characters. i obviously wanted to see it knowing most of the cast would be female. but the movie has to not be garbage. don't even get me started on ocean's eight. another example where i was excited for this all female version of the movie. and the movie just sucked. and it as very preachy.
in conclusion, movies that have an agenda are generally worse for it. stop making movies for the purpose of female empowerment, and start making good movies with good female characters (1 viewing, 3/11/2020)
this new version is bad in so many ways. it has very little ridiculousness or outrageousness, while at the same time being completely unrealistic. the story was complete nonsense, yet somehow predictable. the dialogue was bad. there was no semblance of characters. most of the comedy was crickets. and there were numerous cringe-y scenes.
it also suffers from what a lot of these female-empowerment movies suffer from lately. the "girl power" theme is just too preachy and in your face. make a good movie with good characters. i obviously wanted to see it knowing most of the cast would be female. but the movie has to not be garbage. don't even get me started on ocean's eight. another example where i was excited for this all female version of the movie. and the movie just sucked. and it as very preachy.
in conclusion, movies that have an agenda are generally worse for it. stop making movies for the purpose of female empowerment, and start making good movies with good female characters (1 viewing, 3/11/2020)
I don't remember myself ever being so irritated and angry watching a film. But this one did it.. When Charlie's Angels film was released with Lucy Liu, my girl Drew and Cameron D, I felt - yes! Girl power, step forward - puh-leeze! But this.. this!! This is not just one step back, this is several steps back, imho. The whole film fell flat for me: dialogue, jokes, using guns.. not even Patrick Stewart could save the film for me.. delete, delete, delete from my mind and my memory.. gotta watch the true Angels (2000) to restore the balance..
- pennypencil
- Jun 12, 2022
- Permalink
Is this the best Hollywood can put together for a all female movie. You either gotta be 'bad assed' like Hustlers or funny like Bridesmaids and this was neither. This movie was TERRIBLE! I can't believe they even finished filming it.
- jblue-11387
- Nov 22, 2019
- Permalink
- cornelia-11774
- Oct 7, 2020
- Permalink
I had considered four stars.
1. Really weak action scenes. Mostly just flying kicks & takedowns; heavily dependent on camera angle for itsy bitsy believability. Very mundane, seen before, nothing new.
2. Getting really old. The usual car chase that was laughably mundane, and the machine gun - please! Gawd!
3. Usual prop scenes of showing an expensive sports car; club scenes; fashion.
4. Plot nothing new. The same old corporate selling of dangerous device to baddies. Dangerous device could pass as a child's puzzle toy. Dangerous device fails plausibility & middle school science.
5. Acting & dialogue - sad.
- westsideschl
- Mar 29, 2020
- Permalink
I absolutely loved Kristen Stewart in this movie role! I felt like it was so perfect for her. She was the star of this film for me.
Otherwise I thought it was a fun action movie and was surprised to see the bad reviews here.
Otherwise I thought it was a fun action movie and was surprised to see the bad reviews here.
- jill_wooden
- Jul 4, 2020
- Permalink
The Charlie's Angels movies in the early 2000s were a lot of fun. This Charlie's Angels...is not. The plot doesn't make any sense, the humor is lazy, and the action sequences are unbelievable--and by "unbelievable," I mean not believable. This movie also seems to have an underlying tone of misandry, as practically every male is predatory, dumb, or seducible (sometimes all three). As strange as it sounds, Kristen Stewart is the lone bright spot in this mess of an attempted reboot.
- cricketbat
- Feb 23, 2020
- Permalink
I loved this movie! I don't see why you all hate this movie? It was funny, sexy and sweet with a great twist and if you love the franchise you will see a lot of great refrences through out the movie. This movie deserves a better review than it's gotten.
I really don't get the hate. It's a good action movie. Sure the device behind the plot is kinda goofy but you don't watch die hard for it's deep philosophical musings. Also I disliked Kristen stewart coming into this movie but she actually gave a surprisingly good performance. She was actually one of the most entertaining characters and I've definitely changed my opinion about her.
- jmace-26117
- Dec 15, 2020
- Permalink
- tawfichathat-1
- Feb 13, 2020
- Permalink
Very enjoyable. Classic story, a lot of girl power action, some weak comedy. This movie is really entertaining and fun to watch. Also Ella Balinska.
Unfortunately I see the movie as a missed opportunity. I don't feel it is as fun as it could be (quite silly a lot of times though) and unsure of the mood and tone of the film. It seems all over the place - and therefor feeling quite uneven. Maybe though you don't care and just are here for the fun ... hopefully it works for you, but as I said be wary and aware that it just might not.
Very good actors involved, paper characters though. Action is decent enough and there are some extras during the credits - if you are still around.
Very good actors involved, paper characters though. Action is decent enough and there are some extras during the credits - if you are still around.
I can't believe this, watched from the start till the end and everything is just felt flat,
Kristen Stewart trying so hard to be funny, (and fail), the opener is so boring, dialog line so generic, story is weak and mainstream, action scene is boring. big names like Sr. Patrick Stewart & Djimon Hounsou not effective to the movie. I just can "Feel" the movie man...
the good point of this movie are just the girls are pretty, that's all.
nb: best scene : last / end of the movie (before credit)
- rocks_schatzy
- Nov 13, 2019
- Permalink
Glad I watched this despite the iffy reviews and negative buzz it was a pleasant surprise.
The leads were all excellent with good chemistry and the action sequences were very well executed. The editing between the different Angels fighting in the sequence in the quarry was excellent.
Would recommend this.
The leads were all excellent with good chemistry and the action sequences were very well executed. The editing between the different Angels fighting in the sequence in the quarry was excellent.
Would recommend this.
- mikeprior-83108
- Mar 27, 2021
- Permalink
Now I'm a huge fan of the last two films with Cameron, Drew and Lucy so instantly I was a little nervous for this reboot with three new Angels.
Sadly this reboot is nothing like the previous two films. I struggled to see any strong chemistry between the girls, and just felt like they were three different individuals doing their own thing on the same mission. I applaud Elizabeth Banks for having her hands all over this project, but she needed to take about 100 steps back from the acting part, and maybe some of the script writing too. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Elizabeth Banks but her as Bosley... Ugh! The movie is about Charlie's Angel's.. Not Bosley's Angels. Elizabeth's character was there in ever scene, every mission, every single moment, that she was almost trying to be one of the Angels. Going back to this being Charlie's Angels.. The movie barely even mentions him and you have to wait till a end credit scene to hear the famous line "good morning Angels".
I can see where Elizabeth was heading with this film making it a strong female message but this is such a iconic franchise that some changes should not have been made.
Surprisingly Kristen Stewart was actually decent in this film and was the glue to the film. I was left heartbroken and devastated with how this reboot turned out.
Sadly this reboot is nothing like the previous two films. I struggled to see any strong chemistry between the girls, and just felt like they were three different individuals doing their own thing on the same mission. I applaud Elizabeth Banks for having her hands all over this project, but she needed to take about 100 steps back from the acting part, and maybe some of the script writing too. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Elizabeth Banks but her as Bosley... Ugh! The movie is about Charlie's Angel's.. Not Bosley's Angels. Elizabeth's character was there in ever scene, every mission, every single moment, that she was almost trying to be one of the Angels. Going back to this being Charlie's Angels.. The movie barely even mentions him and you have to wait till a end credit scene to hear the famous line "good morning Angels".
I can see where Elizabeth was heading with this film making it a strong female message but this is such a iconic franchise that some changes should not have been made.
Surprisingly Kristen Stewart was actually decent in this film and was the glue to the film. I was left heartbroken and devastated with how this reboot turned out.
Not sure I get all the hate (did any of these so-called reviewers actually see the movie?). I personally had a fun time. Surely no Citizen Kane, but that's not the point, is it ?
- bubbathmemoman
- Nov 19, 2020
- Permalink
Very entertaining and enjoyable. A welcome update to the Charlie's Angels franchise.
I might not have given it full stars because action movies aren't my go-to. But the first review that imdb was displaying was an off-topic review about how someone thinks this movie is "offensive to men," encouraging people to skip it. Dude: it's not for you. Go review something you can relate to. If you can't accept the "woman power" spin on the genre and/or appreciate that apart from that angle it has all the expected elements of any other film from that genre -- plus enjoyable performances by top actors (all genders)*, and minus the loud, testosterone-driven constant cursing and braindead violence that seems to infect so many movies that, therefore, I have no interest in watching -- then it's not for you. You don't get it. Imdb, don't feature a review by someone who can't even "see" the movie and then encourages others not to see it!
I looked up the "rookie angel" on imdb. Turns out she played live-action Princess Jasmine in the Aladdin movie, and is playing the pink power ranger in an upcoming movie. I think of how my niece and nephew watched a bunch of animated princesses when they were little, and they were certain that princesses are magical beings with superpowers. Maybe that will translate into a generation that appreciates the awesome capabilities of women. That's part of the audience for this movie, and that's great.
*Of all the performances I liked in this movie, maybe the tops were the two Stewarts -- Kristen and Sir Patrick. Love! Kudos to the casting director, as well as to Elizabeth Banks for all the hats she wore on this project (writer, director, actor, etc.)
I might not have given it full stars because action movies aren't my go-to. But the first review that imdb was displaying was an off-topic review about how someone thinks this movie is "offensive to men," encouraging people to skip it. Dude: it's not for you. Go review something you can relate to. If you can't accept the "woman power" spin on the genre and/or appreciate that apart from that angle it has all the expected elements of any other film from that genre -- plus enjoyable performances by top actors (all genders)*, and minus the loud, testosterone-driven constant cursing and braindead violence that seems to infect so many movies that, therefore, I have no interest in watching -- then it's not for you. You don't get it. Imdb, don't feature a review by someone who can't even "see" the movie and then encourages others not to see it!
I looked up the "rookie angel" on imdb. Turns out she played live-action Princess Jasmine in the Aladdin movie, and is playing the pink power ranger in an upcoming movie. I think of how my niece and nephew watched a bunch of animated princesses when they were little, and they were certain that princesses are magical beings with superpowers. Maybe that will translate into a generation that appreciates the awesome capabilities of women. That's part of the audience for this movie, and that's great.
*Of all the performances I liked in this movie, maybe the tops were the two Stewarts -- Kristen and Sir Patrick. Love! Kudos to the casting director, as well as to Elizabeth Banks for all the hats she wore on this project (writer, director, actor, etc.)
- bettyholland-63899
- Jul 17, 2020
- Permalink
Come on people. It was not that bad. I enjoyed the movie. I'm not there to pick out every details. Everyone being too harsh on the movie.
- flyingdragons-22398
- Nov 26, 2019
- Permalink
Boffin Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott) becomes a whistle-blower when she realises that the product she has been helping to develop has a serious flaw. Angels Sabina (Kristen Stewart) and Jane (Ella Balinska) investigate and learn that the invention -- a revolutionary new power source -- has the potential to be weaponised. Even worse, the prototypes have been stolen and are being offered to the highest bidder.
McG's two Charlie's Angels movies embraced the silliness of the whole concept, going for big dumb fun (albeit a bit too dumb in Full Throttle). In contrast, this feminist revision of the franchise attempts to be sassy, sophisticated, smart and stylish, with a massive dose of girl power designed to appeal to a woke #metoo audience.
Gender politics aside, it still ends up being dumb, but not much fun, thanks to a terrible script, clumsy execution, and humour that falls flat on its ass.
To be fair, I found the three main girls to be both attractive and likeable (even Kristin Stewart wasn't as irritating as I thought she might be), but affable eye-candy only gets you so far when virtually everything else about the film stinks. Writer/director Elizabeth Banks has thrown together a mess of clichés and bad gags for her script and clearly has no idea how to construct a film involving guns, fast cars and martial arts, making the movie a two-hour long exercise in action awfulness.
At the end of the film, Elena is recruited and trained as an angel, thereby paving the way for a sequel... one that I imagine will never happen given the general response to this massive misfire.
McG's two Charlie's Angels movies embraced the silliness of the whole concept, going for big dumb fun (albeit a bit too dumb in Full Throttle). In contrast, this feminist revision of the franchise attempts to be sassy, sophisticated, smart and stylish, with a massive dose of girl power designed to appeal to a woke #metoo audience.
Gender politics aside, it still ends up being dumb, but not much fun, thanks to a terrible script, clumsy execution, and humour that falls flat on its ass.
To be fair, I found the three main girls to be both attractive and likeable (even Kristin Stewart wasn't as irritating as I thought she might be), but affable eye-candy only gets you so far when virtually everything else about the film stinks. Writer/director Elizabeth Banks has thrown together a mess of clichés and bad gags for her script and clearly has no idea how to construct a film involving guns, fast cars and martial arts, making the movie a two-hour long exercise in action awfulness.
At the end of the film, Elena is recruited and trained as an angel, thereby paving the way for a sequel... one that I imagine will never happen given the general response to this massive misfire.
- BA_Harrison
- Nov 26, 2019
- Permalink
Not sure why it's rated badly, when you compare it to McG's, it's more or less the same! Action packed nonsense, keeps you entertained, and surprising fun performance from the three beautiful leads.
- Rebekahjanel
- Dec 19, 2020
- Permalink
Honestly if a movie wants to push an agenda and make factoids about being sexist in the first 8 seconds. "it takes a man 7 seconds longer to perceive a woman as a threat in comparison to a man." if this is in fact true, i'd like to know the odds of the average woman being able to defeat the average man in a fist fight, because that is what this statement was referring to by a little girl. and it's probably a 95/5, and that not including weight relative, that number would be more like a 99.99/.01
Unless a woman has a weapon or you know if fact, that she is a trained fighter, a man shouldn't perceive her as a threat.
what a joke
- professionalcritic-26867
- Feb 19, 2020
- Permalink