Charlie's Angles - Goodbye Charlie
didn't see who this movie would genuinely appeal to as I don't know anyone that's nostalgic for a soft reboot of "Charlie's Angels." My mind wasn't changed after witnessing this newest incarnation of the 70's television series. With the thankful inclusion of a female writer/director/actor in Elizabeth Banks, "Charlie's Angels" isn't a fashionable marketing ploy towards the female demographic. Unlike the hyper-sexualized McG films, misogyny isn't prevalent in this version, nor is it hitting us over the head with a feminist agenda. Banks plays a respectable middle ground in her adaptation of the source material. The problem, however, is that everything in this picture feels like it's too in the middle.
These days it's incredibly hard for an action movie to stand itself out. You must either go full throttle with your action sequences or have a fantastic story that can back a film with subpar action. The action in "Batman Begins" was awful. Christopher Nolan had minimal experience in directing action sequences before "Begins," and it showed with the picture's over-reliance on quick cuts, closeups, and noticeable use of stuntmen. Yet everyone loved that film because of how strong its story was coupled with its welcomingly gritty Mise-en-scène. The "John Wick" films aren't known for their stories, but the action is exhilarating where you can see the work Keanu Reaves has put into those films, which brings you directly in contact with him. "Charlie's Angels" action sequences are the same run of the mill scenes you can spot in any action film filled with quick cuts, constant usage of stuntwoman, and poor blocking. There is no sense of danger, just very low stakes. I could quickly tell that a 2nd Unit Rent A Director directed 90% of the action.
The story is no help either as it's the standard twisty plot filled with Scooby-Doo mask reveals spotted in any spy film. The first bad guy exposure is impressive. By the time the film reached the fifth one, I was already predicting it from a mile away. What makes matters worse is the incredibly slow pace of the story which follows Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott) Elena works for a high tech company whose version of iCloud is going to be used as a weaponized McGuffin. When researching the film's McGuffin at a local cafe, a Tattooed Hitman by the name of Hodak (Jonathon Tucker) tries to take Elena out before she can release the details of the McGuffin to the world. The Angels thwart Hodak's whack attempt then proceed to take Elena under their wing. From here, the plot goes as follows, one bad guy turns out to be a good guy where a good guy is really a bad guy, and the actual bad guy is finally revealed, but not until we find out that another supposed bad guy is, as a matter of fact, a good guy. If that sounds convoluted, I revert to my Scooby-Doo point. It's a bunch of people mad at all those "meddling kids." The stakes aren't dramatic enough to invest my interest. I'm aware that this is "Charlie's Angels," so it's meant to be light fun. But I still would have liked to have seen a story that could go places with its characters where I can root for them or hate them, or both. Look no further than the recently directed Christopher McQuarrie "Mission Impossible" films that have both spectacular action and emotional investment in its characters opposing to making them a single note.
The Angles themselves are distinguishable yet overly simplistic in execution. Jane Kano (Ella Balinska) is the no-nonsense, intimidating, "get the job done" Angle. Elena is the quirky science nerd who's yet to know how to get her hands dirty. In a surprising casting choice that mostly pays off, Kristen Stewart plays Sabina Wilson, a wise-cracking type-A personality who's the Deadpool of the group. It's a great casting choice as everyone perceives Ms. Stewart as an uptight personality who has zero charisma. Making her the most appealing Angel of the group is a welcome change to Ms. Stuart's publically stereotyped characterization. Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks' script gives Stewart so many puns that just like the characters that she's around, we are irritated by her constant quips. What's lacking in each of the Angels isn't personality but any semblance of a human being. They're all mostly stock characters who could be killed off without the audience caring whatsoever about them. We know nothing of their motivation or who they are. It's just label slapping in front of an actor's name for the trailers. The Angles have as much depth as a Pokemon.
I understand that "Charlie's Angels" isn't a film that's meant to provide depth, but then it should at least provide me with some spectacular action to make up for an average script. Everything about this film is boringly average, rendering this incarnation of "Charlie's Angels" no more special than a direct to video Steven Segal film. I feel this will be another movie that will come out, then forgotten about within a week. It has nothing substantial to say, no spectacular action sequences to boot, and characters who are likable yet forgettable. "Charlie's Angels" follows in the tradition of "Terminator: Dark Fate" of soft reboots that ride off of a tired unwanted wave of nostalgia.
** out of ****
