Charlie's Angels (2019)

Starring: Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, Ella Balinska, Elizabeth Banks, Patrick Stewart Djimon Hounsou, Sam Clafin, Jonathan Tucker, Nat Faxon, Chris Pang, Hailee Steinfeld (cameo), Danica Patrick (cameo), Ronda Rousey (cameo)
Directed by: Elizabeth Banks
Rating: PG-13
Genre: Action, Adventure, Comedy
2019

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: To protect a whistleblower (Naomi Scott), Charlie's Angels work together to identify the threat in a global conspiracy.

Review:

Tim: I really like Elizabeth Banks, but I was frustrated by her with her remake of Charlie's Angels. The film (the third in the franchise and first in 16 years) was an absolute box office bomb. It was embarrassing. And, in response to that, she lamented that men refuse to see an action movie starring women. There may be a hint of truth to that, but it's laughable that was the cause of the movie's failure. I thought the film was quite bad. The last two Charlie's Angels movies did far better, and I thought were better films than this one. I was probably overly kind in my rating of the film because I like a number of the cast members. If you're going to make a controversial comment like that, you need to make a good movie. This isn't that, and it's no surprise that audiences stayed away.

The cast had some odd choices. I like Kristen Stewart, but it was a bizarre choice casting her in this role. Audiences are most likely somewhat familiar with the previous films, starring Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Drew Barrymore. They are at least somewhat believable as action heroines. Stewart feels like a drop from their level. I've never heard of Ella Balinska and while she definitely looks more of the part, her acting wasn't especially strong. If you make an action movie and your two leads are Kristen Stewart and Ella Balinska, you have issues. This movie desperately needed star power to attract audiences and they didn't have it. I wasn't a fan of Stewart or Balinska- both give forced performances that never felt natural. Naomi Scott fared much better. She was the proxy for the audience and it was much easier to make a connection with her. She still had some bad moments of acting, but as a whole was enjoyable. I definitely enjoyed Scott more than not. Elizabeth Banks is talented and I enjoyed her supporting role, although I didn't always believe her performance. It was fun seeing Patrick Stewart in a different role, but he added less than I would have expected. I really like Djimon Hounsou, but he gets to do almost nothing in this film. Sam Clafin was solid in a supporting role, but again, his performance was forced. He (and many of the cast) needed more subtlety in their performances. Jonathan Tucker was an exception to this, who gave a great performance that was restrained yet memorable. He was one of the highlights of the film. As a whole, you look at the names and the talent involved and the movie doesn't live up to this promise. You have to blame the director, so Banks doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

The story felt beyond generic. It was derivative of many, many others movies that have done this plot, but significantly better. It asked you to suspend disbelief so many times that you have a harder and harder time doing it. Stewart, Balinska, and Scott have far less chemistry than you needed. One of the strengths of the previous two films is that you had fun watching Liu, Diaz, and Barrymore together. They gelled as a cast. That absolutely does not happen here. The action scenes are fine, but too often edited in a poor way. The movie was surprisingly humorless. So many jokes fell flat. None of the characters were all that compelling, and it's only when they are pitted against stronger villains that you feel anything for them.

It certainly felt like this movie was designed to kick start the franchise and it works hard to set up a sequel. Banks makes the classic mistake of looking too far ahead. Rather than making a really good movie here, she is focused on the wrong things. For example, a bunch of cameos after the conclusion of the movie infused more energy and excitement into the film than anything that happened before it. That's really bad.

I probably should have rated this movie a bit lower. It's an okay film, I suppose, but a deeply flawed one. No one will remember anything about this, other than it was a box office bomb (and I believe it deserved to be). You can't revisit a franchise and deliver a film that's worse than the two movies in it. Charlie's Angels is a nonstarter and it'll probably be a decade before this franchise gets another shot.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 6



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: Charlie's Angels, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle