Charlie’s Angels (2019 Review)
Charlie’s Angels Proves that, For Better or Worse, Women Can Make Action Fueled Spy Movies too.
From the get-go I felt as though the new Charlie’s Angels movie was going to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the idea of three women kicking ass and taking names as they save the world is wonderfully empowering. On the other, the original Charlie’s Angels also made sure that the characters always looked pretty and smiled for the camera. It’s a tricky concept to navigate in this day and age, but the fact that the incredibly talented Elizabeth Banks both wrote and directed it, gave me hope that it might be able to keep all the balls in the air. While it certainly manages to be an entertaining juggling act, Charlie’s Angels does drop a few balls along the way.
Charlie’s Angels is perhaps one of the most iconic 70s TV series of all time. This film adaptation gets a fresh and modern update as it’s pulled into the 21st century. Now the Townsend Agency has gone international with an army of Angels all around the globe. The film focuses on two, in particular, the chaotic and cunning Sabina (Kristen Stewart) and the highly trained and tough Jane (Ella Balinska). They’re tasked with helping a computer engineer turned whistleblower named Elena (Naomi Scott) stop a disastrous weapon from falling into the wrong hands. Of course, things get really complicated when it turns out there might just be a mole in the organization working against them. With no one to trust these Angels must combine their incredible skills and work together to save the day.
For the most part, the plot of Charlie’s Angels is something right out of a James Bond or a Mission: Impossible movie, which I have absolutely no problem with. There’s an evil mastermind (who I won’t spoil for you) with an army of henchmen to throw at any problem that arises. He even has the perfect man for the job when the Angels inevitably show up (Jonathan Tucker in a pretty intimidating performance). However, the Angels have a few tricks of their own, including lots of neat little gadgets that would earn a nod of approval from Q Branch. The problem is that it seems to lean a little too heavily at times on traditional spy movie tropes, making it feel a bit more like “paint by numbers” rather than a fresh coat of paint. Then again, one might argue that if it’s not broke there’s no need to fix it. After all, there are plenty of memorable movie spies that follow the same formula and audiences love them for it. Luckily, like those movies, Charlie’s Angels invests enough in its characters to give it a chance to stand out in a crowded genre.
The casting in Charlie’s Angels is pretty much spot on. Audiences will recognize Scott from Power Rangers and the recent Aladdin remake. She plays a geeky, awkward, genius and manages to fit the character to a T. She’s joined by relative newcomer Balinska as the muscle of the group (she stands an intimidating, by Hollywood standards, 5’10), and she fits the physicality of the role pretty convincingly. The real star though is Stewart who turns in the best performance of her career. I’ve been less than kind with my critiques of her acting in the past pointing out that she doesn’t seem truly capable of genuine emotions on screen. This performance is such a huge departure for her that I suspect she might have been given the wrong roles in the past. Sabina is manic to the point where she is the embodiment of chaotic good and Stewart’s take on the role makes her the perfect comedic relief for the film. If anything her performance is reason enough to see Charlie’s Angels, but all the Angel’s in it manage to make the movie a lot of fun.
Banks pulls triple duty in this film. Not only does she write and direct, but she also plays a huge part in it as “Bosley” (which is now “a rank” in the organization rather than simply a character). However, I think there might have been too much on her plate (as with anyone forced to pull off three of the biggest jobs on a film set at the same time). At times Charlie’s Angels can’t decide if it wants to take itself seriously and make the characters incredibly badass or if it wants to embrace the cheese of its 70s inspiration. While it manages to do both fairly well, the two aspects don’t jive smoothly. At times the characters are a little too at ease and with all of them cracking jokes it appears as if even they weren’t really taking things seriously, undermining the tension the film tries to build. Don’t get me wrong, the action scenes are all pretty cool and unique enough to be memorable. However, the overall feel of Charlie’s Angels lacked cohesion.
In the end, Charlie’s Angels is your typical spy movie. You can expect all the cliches and plot devices you’ve seen time and time again. Sticking to this tried and true method which certainly pays off, also means that Charlie’s Angels feels like it’s trying to hard to play it safe. After all, the film is really fun with plenty of shoot outs, explosions, and fistfights. It’s also uproariously funny at times. However, even as it tries to create a film that seems empowering, it feels like it doesn’t have anything new to say. It’s a movie that understands concepts, but not how to balance them properly. Personally, I think it’s a great little action flick, but not anything to write home about. Take it for what it is though and you’ll have a good time with it.
