Charlie's Angels is the newest sequel/reboot of the films directed by McG as well as the campy series of the same name. This time Elizabeth Banks is at the help and tries to give us a fun and silly spy film filled with feminist ideas, which isn't a bad thing in concept, but in execution it just doesn't work. Banks has mistaken themes over fun and the two just do not mix. Charlie's Angels is for the most part devoid of fun, takes itself to seriously at times and handles its message in a very mishandled and lazy way.
I'm not going to pretend like the previous Charlie's Angels films are great cinema. They are far from it, but they were fun, schlocky movies that new what they were and never took themselves too seriously. This new reboot/remakes does not. In fact it makes the mistake of taking itself too seriously. Now, this could be done. There are plenty of remakes/reboots/sequels that have reinvented themselves into something new and different, but Banks's script doesn't allow for this. Banks has instead made and incredibly bland and unremarkable film that only has one thing going for it and that is its new feminist angle. However, Banks fails to implement this in a clever or meaningful way and it ends up feeling forced and amateur.
This years Late Night, written by Mindy Kaling had a feminist edge to it about working in the workplace and it handled it so much better. Kaling has proven herself in the past to be a very clever writer and Late Night ended up being a very fun and poignant film with similar themes this film wants to explore, but it is handled in a much worse way. Banks has stated that her film is filled with "sneaky feminist ideas", but there's nothing sneaky about it. It's so in your face, it comes off as a parody of itself.
What about the rest of the film? It's mostly just standard, bland and very boring. The film takes forty minutes of its near 2 hour runtime to truly get started and still finds time to waste time. The original McG films lacked in plot, but made up for it with fun action beats happening every second. This film instead has very little going on.
Now, some have actually criticized the acting of this film, however I found it fine. Our three main leads to an alright job with the script they're given and find ways to have fun with it, but the best stuff is watching the actors work off of one another. The action scenes are also choppy and chaotic, but there's a few moments where there was some potential and some alright choreography, but mostly it just ends up feeling very bland.
Charlie's Angels is not a total disaster, but it's not a good film either. It mistakes topical themes for story and character and fails to give those themes real meaning. It is mostly just a bland generic action film that is ultimately just very forgettable. It feels amateurish in many respects and just ends up feeling like a complete waste of time.
I'm not going to pretend like the previous Charlie's Angels films are great cinema. They are far from it, but they were fun, schlocky movies that new what they were and never took themselves too seriously. This new reboot/remakes does not. In fact it makes the mistake of taking itself too seriously. Now, this could be done. There are plenty of remakes/reboots/sequels that have reinvented themselves into something new and different, but Banks's script doesn't allow for this. Banks has instead made and incredibly bland and unremarkable film that only has one thing going for it and that is its new feminist angle. However, Banks fails to implement this in a clever or meaningful way and it ends up feeling forced and amateur.
This years Late Night, written by Mindy Kaling had a feminist edge to it about working in the workplace and it handled it so much better. Kaling has proven herself in the past to be a very clever writer and Late Night ended up being a very fun and poignant film with similar themes this film wants to explore, but it is handled in a much worse way. Banks has stated that her film is filled with "sneaky feminist ideas", but there's nothing sneaky about it. It's so in your face, it comes off as a parody of itself.
What about the rest of the film? It's mostly just standard, bland and very boring. The film takes forty minutes of its near 2 hour runtime to truly get started and still finds time to waste time. The original McG films lacked in plot, but made up for it with fun action beats happening every second. This film instead has very little going on.
Now, some have actually criticized the acting of this film, however I found it fine. Our three main leads to an alright job with the script they're given and find ways to have fun with it, but the best stuff is watching the actors work off of one another. The action scenes are also choppy and chaotic, but there's a few moments where there was some potential and some alright choreography, but mostly it just ends up feeling very bland.
Charlie's Angels is not a total disaster, but it's not a good film either. It mistakes topical themes for story and character and fails to give those themes real meaning. It is mostly just a bland generic action film that is ultimately just very forgettable. It feels amateurish in many respects and just ends up feeling like a complete waste of time.