Probably won’t be the first to comment about why a new Charlie’s Angels was needed, but I was wondering the same thing when this was first talked about. You take a look at the original back in 2000 (based on the 1970s television show), and it honestly wasn’t bad as people made it out to be. That can’t be said with the 2003 sequel Full Throttle. Yikes! Being that this is a continuation and third installment of those previously mentioned movies, this could’ve gone either way.
What’s the Story: Sabina (Kristen Stewart) and Jane (Ella Balinska) are known as Angels, working for the mysterious Charlie Townsend and are a part of his private detective agency that has gone international in different countries around the world managed by multiple Bosley’s. When Elena (Naomi Scott) blows the whistle on a dangerous technology, the angels are called into action and bring her in as a recruit.
So, my expectations weren’t exactly high since none of the trailers sold me, even with a new trio involved. Plus, does anybody remember that terrible 2011 television reboot that was rightfully canceled? I walked into the theater just to get it out of the way without thinking a thing. The last time Sony released a reboot of a well-known series was Men in Black: International, which was forgotten quickly this year. Luckily, this probably won’t earn the same faith, but this should’ve given me a real reason for this to exist.
It would be easy to say the biggest strength this new Charlie’s Angels has to offer are the three leads themselves, and you’re right. These are the people to have to be likable action stars that should have fun. But Stewart impressed me the most out of the trio. I have been one of those who have been critical of her acting ever since Twilight came out, but it was nice to see her out of her comfort zone and play a fun character. Scott proved herself to be a good actress before in Aladdin and Power Rangers, so it wasn’t a surprise that she carried her role as the non-Angel with no problems. This is Balinska’s first major role, and not only is she beautiful, but she does well in her action scenes, and her performance wasn’t too bad. That isn’t to say it’s on par with what original trio (Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu) brought, but they did a decent job at not overshadowing them.
Banks not only play one of many Bosley’s, but also directs and wrote the screenplay too. I didn’t feel there was anything special about her Bosley. The thing is that she’s no better than the likes of Bill Murray and Bernie Mac. As a director, it offers mixed results. She did a decent job with helming 2015’s Pitch Perfect 2, so I didn’t know how she would handle an action movie on her own. I can’t say she brought any real style of this. The way she handles the action wasn’t as good as I figured. Some are fine while some fight sequences are filmed close up and mostly edited poorly. There wasn’t a particular scene that stood out from everything else.
As it comes with the basic plot, this came off as a generic spy comedy, especially when there’s some kind of McGuffin involved. Maybe it was because most might be familiar with how the world’s up from the last two movies and the original show, although most of the surprised didn’t come as a shocker, especially when the villains aren’t used to their advantage.
I will say it started out a bit strong and came out with an energetic feeling, and then it went away about 40 minutes in. It occasionally became off as boring when not a lot of action is happening. Nearly most of the comedy that’s in here appeared dry, with the exceptions of the times I laughed because of Stewart’s comedic timing. I was hoping for this to be fun, and some might get that experience, but I just wanted more from this and not an action-comedy that doesn’t leave much to be remembered by.
Charlie’s Angels wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be, but it still ends up becoming an underwhelming reboot that could’ve been better. Banks tried her hardest and the chemistry/performances of its three leads are solid, yet the story and unimpressed action aren’t much to make it be defined as entertaining.
2 thoughts on “‘Charlie’s Angels (2019)’ // Film Review: Angels Couldn’t Fly High”