User Reviews

Initially I had expected this 2019 movie to be worse than it actually turned out to be. Why? Well, first of all, we - as the audience - didn't really need another attempt to put "Charlie's Angels" to the big screen, it was done with equally little success back in 2000 and 2003. So this was a completely and wholeheartedly unnecessary movie.

Still, I was given the chance to sit down and watch it, so I did. And I must say that it was actually entertaining enough for what it turned out to be - a generic action movie, with a plot and script that had been done so many times before in other movies.

Truth be told, then I must admit that Kristen Stewart actually have managed to shed off her Bella-skin. While she is not an actress that I would rush out to the cinema to watch in a new movie, she did perform well enough in this movie.

The movie actually had a nice enough cast ensemble, which included the likes of Patrick Stewart, Djimon Hounsou, Elizabeth Banks and Nat Faxon.

"Charlie's Angels" is watchable, sure, but this is not a movie that rocked the movie industry, and I am sure it came and went without leaving as much as a dent in the paint job.

I am rating it a very, very mediocre five out of ten stars.

After so many adaptations, for the first time the universe of the Townsend Agency is in the hands of a woman. Elizabeth Banks took on the role of director, screenwriter, producer and actress of the new reboot that no one necessarily asked for, but that eventually manages to bring something new with the comfort in which it exists between action scenes that do not spare the right use of the environment and the scenarios. This new adaptation subverts some industry standards, but in no way gives up what is the franchise's DNA. In other words, sensuality is still present as a weapon in the agents' missions, but in a more intelligent way: flirting more with feminism and unpretentious humor.

Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart) and Jane Kano (Ella Balinska) are two Charlie's Angels who need to set aside differences when embarking on an international adventure with the new Bosley (Elizabeth Banks) and scientist Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott). They must prevent a new energy program from becoming a threat to humanity and find out who is behind such an evil plan.

Actress and director Elizabeth Banks takes over the direction of this new chapter with the mastery of those who know the universe of Charlie's Angels, developing the plot with a lot of reference to the past, which will make the fans of the series and films happy, in addition to updating the story when necessary; after all, both the series and the films of the 2000s have always been a portrait of the time in which they were set and showed women as strong and independent beings from men. And this film, my friends, is more than current in this regard. The Charlie's Angels navigate the waters of the new "wave of feminism" that has taken Hollywood in recent years, and takes advantage of this to assume a distinct place among all the other versions of this story that have already reached the screens. But it shouldn't be a film that needs to remember all the time that this is a story of women who take advantage of a supposedly naive appearance, and of an almost naturalized instinct for men not to feel threatened by the female sex, to fulfill their obligations. Missions and punching armed men and men in suits. In contrast, that is exactly what the film does. In many instances, it is unnecessarily attached to an extremely didactic explanation of the objectives themselves, instead of showing in a practical way what it came from - from beginning to end. Some feminist messages are hammered into the public's head, without any subtlety. Remember Ghostbusters (2016)? The Charlie's Angels are already opening with a guy wanting to disparage women. He's the villain. But everything is conducted in such a heavy and artificial way that in the dialogue the subject practically says that "a woman's place is in the kitchen". Knowing that this is a film that relies on feminism, it becomes a bad start - almost an anvil falling on the head.

Other than that, virtually none of the feature's jokes work, and it becomes excruciating. The feature's humor is generic by inserting ready-made jokes and random reference puns; the most situational comedy that the previous ones created is lacking, mainly when they put men to be easily deceived and manipulated by the protagonists for a mission, something that happens in one or another creative moment in the beginning, but like the action, it does not last. This question of durability has a lot to do with the distribution of the plot cores, which spends a lot of time betting on the dynamics of a novice with two experienced ones in conflict.

In action, the script facilitates or makes it difficult when you want, but you never allow yourself to exaggerate too much or step into seriousness with more consequences, even because of the indicative classification. At times, he flirts with the mockery or that seriousness, presenting real risks to the characters and, in both cases, they are slightly exciting, but he passes very quickly due to Banks' little ability to conduct them on camera, appealing to that logic of a frantic succession of cuts that makes it difficult to understand geographically what is happening. Not to mention that video game identity and its succession of challenges are abandoned, but at least this is consistent with the proposal that is actually linked to espionage, in the assembly of those complex plots of betrayals and interests revolving around technological artifacts or specific documents. Of which a range of people are chasing.

The action and fight scenes rarely get really exciting and need a more precise montage. The script, her first, is inconsistent and incoherent, with narrative arcs that needed a clearer direction. As a consequence, the balance between action and comedy falls short of the potential shown all the time, giving the melancholy feeling that he is one step closer to being great. A possible shortcoming of the feature for some is that when we compare this film to other spy films, we never feel urgency in the situations that the spies go through. But even with this "script problem" at the end, the result is positive. Not to mention that some catchphrases are misplaced and a dance scene, as cool as it may be, happens absolutely nothing. For this reason, the dynamics between the three protagonists suffer. There is an arc over two of them being opposites and trying to get closer which is confusing and not at all cohesive in their development.

As a lot of time is spent on these aspects, even to develop them carefully and provide for the renewal of the franchise, there is little left to actually take advantage of the dynamics of the three together in the adventure, which mixes action with comedy. Even if they spend a lot of time together, the proposal to still be a team in formation is not as skillful as it would be if this stage had been skipped. It is that tiredness syndrome of original films, which, even though it is understandable in view of the history to be considered, is a safe game that is more exciting for continuity than when it is really happening. Because the three when together are great, they have very distinctive chemistry and personalities that complement each other and can be pillars for a new, more promising film sequence. Naomi Scott plays the innocent but fearless Elena, a scientist at a company about to launch an energy-generating device capable of revolutionizing the world, which upon discovering its risk of being used as a weapon, becomes a target to be saved by Jane and Sabina. Ella Balinska makes an impressive debut. Imposing, not only does she own the best action scenes, but she shows layers behind her character's calculated coolness. However, the show itself is by Kristen Stewart. Fitting like a glove on a paper with a more comical approach, she conquers the audience with charm, obstinacy and assertiveness, delivering her lines with such sagacity in her voice that steals every moment she appears. Sabina has a very unique personality and the actress does well by not letting her performance fall into the caricature.

However, feminism is not always presented organically in the plot. Elizabeth Banks ends up playing it safe and uses a lot of discourse to play with everyday situations, with which the public will certainly identify. As a joke, this feature works. But, in a broader sense, it gives a banal air to the film, as if it were just another one trying to surf in this "fashion". The biggest problem with Charlie's Angels is its script. In the direction, if Banks demonstrates a certain immaturity in the sense of an unnecessary stretch in the script, with revelations stuck in twists that leave something to be desired in the sense of holding the viewer within the story. Fat is noticeable when the weave stretches and ends up yielding to joints that leave little to the imagination and fall into repetition, easily avoided if the final cut was less passionate about the idea of taking extremely seriously what could - and should - be mere trickery to arrive at the idea that, in the end, men are naturally not more reliable or valuable than women.

In addition, the director and screenwriter does not create moments that resonate with the audience (such as there is no great scene of memorable action), she also does not compromise, leaving everything on automatic. She delivers (or her team) good photography, good art direction, and especially good costumes. It is also always good to highlight the soundtrack of the always great Bryan Tyler and the music score, especially the partnership between Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus and Lana Del Rey, who recorded a collaboration entitled "Don't Call Me Angel", shown in the final credits. Of the feature. But what doesn't really go round is the text. We waited, but the film never took off, perhaps out of insecurity. The film is fully aware of the franchise's tacky and absurd approach, which is a good sign. By bringing elements from previous works, "Charlie's Angels" conquers fans of the old ones and expands the universe.

Unfortunately I see the movie as a missed opportunity. I don't feel it is as fun as it could be (quite silly a lot of times though) and unsure of the mood and tone of the film. It seems all over the place - and therefor feeling quite uneven. Maybe though you don't care and just are here for the fun ... hopefully it works for you, but as I said be wary and aware that it just might not.

Very good actors involved, paper characters though. Action is decent enough and there are some extras during the credits - if you are still around.

I recently watched two charlie's angels movies from the early 2000's. figured i'd give them a shot after hating them the first time in theaters. i very much enjoyed them for what they were: ridiculous and outrageous fun. with all the reboots these days i checked and found that a new one was coming out so i added it to my watch list.

this new version is bad in so many ways. it has very little ridiculousness or outrageousness, while at the same time being completely unrealistic. the story was complete nonsense, yet somehow predictable. the dialogue was bad. there was no semblance of characters. most of the comedy was crickets. and there were numerous cringe-y scenes.

it also suffers from what a lot of these female-empowerment movies suffer from lately. the "girl power" theme is just too preachy and in your face. make a good movie with good characters. i obviously wanted to see it knowing most of the cast would be female. but the movie has to not be garbage. don't even get me started on ocean's eight. another example where i was excited for this all female version of the movie. and the movie just sucked. and it as very preachy.

in conclusion, movies that have an agenda are generally worse for it. stop making movies for the purpose of female empowerment, and start making good movies with good female characters (1 viewing, 3/11/2020)

I'm no movie critic, just a woman who loves going to the movies. And I loved the movie! I was entertained, I loved the twist, I loved the music, the cameos, the clothes (although I'm more of a conservative girl myself), and the action. Of course my husband fell asleep and hated it, but I loved it and I can't wait to go see again with some girlfriends.

The Charlie's Angels movies in the early 2000s were a lot of fun. This Charlie's Angels...is not. The plot doesn't make any sense, the humor is lazy, and the action sequences are unbelievable--and by "unbelievable," I mean not believable. This movie also seems to have an underlying tone of misandry, as practically every male is predatory, dumb, or seducible (sometimes all three). As strange as it sounds, Kristen Stewart is the lone bright spot in this mess of an attempted reboot.

I had considered four stars. 1. Really weak action scenes. Mostly just flying kicks & takedowns; heavily dependent on camera angle for itsy bitsy believability. Very mundane, seen before, nothing new. 2. Getting really old. The usual car chase that was laughably mundane, and the machine gun - please! Gawd! 3. Usual prop scenes of showing an expensive sports car; club scenes; fashion. 4. Plot nothing new. The same old corporate selling of dangerous device to baddies. Dangerous device could pass as a child's puzzle toy. Dangerous device fails plausibility & middle school science. 5. Acting & dialogue - sad.

Probably one of the better if not the best performance from Stewart - she actually seemed like a real human being in this film. All actors performed great for that matter. Elizabeth Banks' directing was better than her writing. Too much cheese on the story made it infantile and poor humor that was annoying but excellent soundtrack. Action choreography was fairly decent. Pacing was surprisingly on point that the 2 hour runtime flew by. Cinematography was decent, the score mostly adequate when it wasn't annoying. Nevertheless I enjoyed it more than expected. This film is certainly not a 10, but also very undeserving of the 1's. It's a solid 6.5/10 rounded up to a 7 from me. Silly fun entertainment is always better than boredom.

Is this the best Hollywood can put together for a all female movie. You either gotta be 'bad assed' like Hustlers or funny like Bridesmaids and this was neither. This movie was TERRIBLE! I can't believe they even finished filming it.

I absolutely loved Kristen Stewart in this movie role! I felt like it was so perfect for her. She was the star of this film for me.

Otherwise I thought it was a fun action movie and was surprised to see the bad reviews here.

Boffin Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott) becomes a whistle-blower when she realises that the product she has been helping to develop has a serious flaw. Angels Sabina (Kristen Stewart) and Jane (Ella Balinska) investigate and learn that the invention -- a revolutionary new power source -- has the potential to be weaponised. Even worse, the prototypes have been stolen and are being offered to the highest bidder.

McG's two Charlie's Angels movies embraced the silliness of the whole concept, going for big dumb fun (albeit a bit too dumb in Full Throttle). In contrast, this feminist revision of the franchise attempts to be sassy, sophisticated, smart and stylish, with a massive dose of girl power designed to appeal to a woke #metoo audience.

Gender politics aside, it still ends up being dumb, but not much fun, thanks to a terrible script, clumsy execution, and humour that falls flat on its ass.

To be fair, I found the three main girls to be both attractive and likeable (even Kristin Stewart wasn't as irritating as I thought she might be), but affable eye-candy only gets you so far when virtually everything else about the film stinks. Writer/director Elizabeth Banks has thrown together a mess of clichés and bad gags for her script and clearly has no idea how to construct a film involving guns, fast cars and martial arts, making the movie a two-hour long exercise in action awfulness.

At the end of the film, Elena is recruited and trained as an angel, thereby paving the way for a sequel... one that I imagine will never happen given the general response to this massive misfire.

First of all, remove the politics surrounding this film as people seem to rate a film based on external circumstances.

Is this movie of the year? No

Is it exactly what it should be, a fun and entertaining watch, yes!

CONS

The plot is a bit basic and I felt at times that the film was explaining things to me unnecessarily - what the acronym of EMP stands for, for example.

A few of the supporting characters are a bit one dimensional but service the story well enough

PROS

The main cast are great and have a really good chemistry on screen. It looks like they had a blast filming together and that comes through to the audience when viewed. Ella Balinska has a great presence on screen. I've not seen her in anything previous to this but I think she will become a fan favourite actress in future films. Naomi Scott gets a pass as not only is she a great actress, even in Aladdin, which I do not rate highly as a film, but also because she played the role of the Pink Ranger in 2017 perfectly.

Kristen Stewart gets her own paragraph. I cannot understand why people still hate her. My only thought is that people only think of Twilight and how bad the franchise became. I actually think Kristen was great in the first and fifth films and still good in the others. If you then check out her indie filmography she has been smashing it with varying roles. I was so surprised at the role she had in Charlie's Angels, it is unlike any performance I've seen her give. She was genuinely funny and charming.

The directing by Elizabeth Banks I thought was good. Some very nice establishing shots and well framed scenes. The much derided action scenes were engaging and it was interesting to see them flow from the start to their climax. For someone who has never directed action this was a very competent effort. There were some slight cutting issues but I don't think it had an adverse effect on the scenes.

This currently sits at a 4.0 on this site and I'm not sure if this is trolling, political or the fact that people just don't factor in how enjoyable a film is in their rating.

This is a fun and enjoyable movie and nothing more should be expected

Glad I watched this despite the iffy reviews and negative buzz it was a pleasant surprise.

The leads were all excellent with good chemistry and the action sequences were very well executed. The editing between the different Angels fighting in the sequence in the quarry was excellent.

Would recommend this.

I don't remember myself ever being so irritated and angry watching a film. But this one did it.. When Charlie's Angels film was released with Lucy Liu, my girl Drew and Cameron D, I felt - yes! Girl power, step forward - puh-leeze! But this.. this!! This is not just one step back, this is several steps back, imho. The whole film fell flat for me: dialogue, jokes, using guns.. not even Patrick Stewart could save the film for me.. delete, delete, delete from my mind and my memory.. gotta watch the true Angels (2000) to restore the balance..

Not sure why it's rated badly, when you compare it to McG's, it's more or less the same! Action packed nonsense, keeps you entertained, and surprising fun performance from the three beautiful leads.

Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart) and Jane Kano (Ella Balinska) are two of Charles Townsend's Angels. Bosley 001 (Patrick Stewart) is the original Bosley and he's retiring. There are many Angels and Bosleys around the world. Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott) is the lead programmer of an energy device called Calisto. She tries to warn her boss about a deadly flaw in the device but is ignored. She contacts Charlie's Angels for help. Sabina and Jane with Bosley (Elizabeth Banks) must take down a mysterious group bent on stealing Calisto.

There are lots of issues here. Most importantly, this franchise does not need a sequel to pull together the various iterations. After a semi-successful movie reboot and a failed TV reboot, this franchise needs a reboot reboot. It needs to think outside the box. It cannot keep repeating the same Jiggle TV action thriller. It's time to inject realism into this tired franchise. I've always thought that recruiting female cadets from the police academy would make sense if intel suggests an unknown male in the academy is planning to do evil. Female recruits would be the only trustworthy ones. That would be my hook into something completely new. It does not help that the opening credits seems to be a tampon commercial. It's going in the wrong direction.

There is a problem with the first scene. Kristen Stewart is playing a tomboy playing an innocent ingénue. I didn't buy the ingénue act so her character is not good at acting which is problematic. The scene ends with an unnecessary balcony jump which is the essence of this movie. It's jumping off a balcony and wholly unnecessary. That's not to say that it's all bad. I actually like Stewart as a tomboy trying to be tough. Her banter with the Chinese guy turns out to be funny. Naomi Scott is great as the innocent newbie. Her Krav Maga bit is fun. On the other hand, Elizabeth Banks' age-jokes are not as funny as they should be. She is trying too hard and she is bad for the movie. She's doing a comedic spoof of an action thriller. It may work if the rest of this becomes a complete spoof. There are other issues like the non-sense trying to explain the Calisto McGuffin. There are the ridiculously bad ineffective male villains. Tucker is a fine henchman but he's not the lead. That brings me to the twist. It's set up right but it's staged wrong. The shock should come later in the office but by then, non of that is surprising. At least, McG had the idea to be ridiculous. This is not ridiculous enough to be fun and not real enough to be tense.

Now I'm a huge fan of the last two films with Cameron, Drew and Lucy so instantly I was a little nervous for this reboot with three new Angels.

Sadly this reboot is nothing like the previous two films. I struggled to see any strong chemistry between the girls, and just felt like they were three different individuals doing their own thing on the same mission. I applaud Elizabeth Banks for having her hands all over this project, but she needed to take about 100 steps back from the acting part, and maybe some of the script writing too. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Elizabeth Banks but her as Bosley... Ugh! The movie is about Charlie's Angel's.. Not Bosley's Angels. Elizabeth's character was there in ever scene, every mission, every single moment, that she was almost trying to be one of the Angels. Going back to this being Charlie's Angels.. The movie barely even mentions him and you have to wait till a end credit scene to hear the famous line "good morning Angels".

I can see where Elizabeth was heading with this film making it a strong female message but this is such a iconic franchise that some changes should not have been made.

Surprisingly Kristen Stewart was actually decent in this film and was the glue to the film. I was left heartbroken and devastated with how this reboot turned out.

Where do I start, Kristen Stewart just cannot act, the script is beyond awful, and the acting is no better. The entire film seems to have been written by a man hating feminist in a power trip. If you obviously hate half your target audience then no wonder the film flopped big time at the box office.

I found it entertaining and honestly think all the low scores on here are just troll scores. I saw a different side to Kristen Stewart and I thought she was great with the quips. I don't care if it's mainly female, as a female I quite liked it and found it worth watching through to the end. There are many films lately that I can't say that about and I wonder why those posting 1 star and 2 star reviews didn't just stop watching it if it was so bad. The film has a sense of humour but obviously some people who review don't have one. I am glad I watched it.

Since Elizabeth Banks opined that the new Charlie's Angels flopped because of sexists refusing to see it, I decided to be a good ally for once and actually check it out, so that I can use arguments and textual evidence to tell you WHY it sucks. Now you'll have far more valid reasons to skip it! No need to thank me, Liz (whatsoever).

I must also be a little bit contrarian, however, and suggest that the film's failure could also be attributed to Banks casting the Angels with such charisma vacuums as Kristen Stewart, releasing it the same weekend as Ford v. Ferrari, marketing the film poorly, writing it even more poorly, and all-around trying too hard to be edgy, along with the fact that not even the most zealous of Twitter feminists seem terribly peckish for another installment in this particular spy franchise (despite it being more overtly empowering and positive this time). These are just theories, mind.

Even more cartoony than previous films, but also even more insistent we find these sexy agents super cool (in spite of the lines they're made to say and how we can tell, due to bad effects, that physics wouldn't remotely permit their combative feats), Charlie's Angels stars Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, and Ella Balinska as the main Angels. Director Banks plays a former Angel who now assists Charlie more closely, together with Djimon Hounsou. Noah Centineo and Sam Claflin appear as characters working alongside Scott's character, a scientist (she's not a proper "Angel" until later). Lastly, Patrick Stewart appears in all manners of delightful outfits.

These are the top-billed stars, but we're also treated to such cartoonish caricatures of sexist males that I'm not really too shocked that even the woke journalists seemed uneager to champion this - at least from what I could see. It's a shame. They could've helped perpetuate the notion that this movie failed due to sexists refusing to pay for it, which would hardly be an effective boycott in the year that Captain Marvel was among the highest-grossing films. It's not the sexists; it's everyone else catching on that in-your-face girl power does not undo a film's issues.

It didn't even help that the film was given a totally "YAAAS" soundtrack featuring such paragons of defiance as Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus, and Kash Doll. One of the tracks is called "Don't Call Me Angel". I now wish the movie complied and was just named Charlie's, but in case that's too male-centric, it might also have been called absolutely nothing.

Struggling to find positives, I decided to do Elizabeth Banks another solid and look up more favorable reviews to see what I may have missed. Roger Ebert's website (which gave full scores to things like Black Panther and The Last Jedi) is still the way it is, so I read the Christy Lemire review.

She writes that the clothes are really nice, which I guess/assume is accurate. She says Banks' script couldn't be more "McGuffin-y" and I haven't surmised if that's a plus. Interestingly, she does note that the opening montage of random girls being awesome around the world seems heavy-handed and poorly sewn in, so it looks as if truly everyone is starting to get the idea. Then again, perhaps the film would have been a 4 instead of a 3 if this montage was excluded?

Really, I think the Universe was trying to tell us something when John Forsythe, the voice of Charlie in the original show as well as the McG films, left the mortal plane. Oh, not that the franchise needs to die, but rather that we need to move on from digitally reanimating dead celebrities for the sake of nostalgia bucks (à la Peter Cushing in Rogue One and soon James Dean) and create sophisticated deep-fake text-to-speech programs that can keep voice talents "alive past death" too. And they say having children is the most surefire way of keeping yourself in this world.

And there we are. This stinker should even things out nicely as I got lighthouses and Roy Andersson on my radar and just wrote reviews of Klaus and Jojo Rabbit.

This film had a story it had action. Charlie's angles is about kick ass women so that's what I expected and that's what I got. I'm a woman and not a particular young one either so I've seen them all and yes it wasn't as good as the originals but to me they were probably more man hating with big clevages big hair and than this so not sure why all the whinging.

Another bad chick feminist flick with stupid characters,bad fights and weak script and dialogue but all of that was already expected

All I have to say is that this movie proves that people just love to hate and discriminate against certain actors/actresses smh. Yes its another reboot, who cares? How many decades has it been since the last? It was a fun movie, the acting was just fine but apparently people are never going to let Kristen Stewart live down her part from the Twilight Saga. Yes, she was awkward af in those movies but hello, the character was awkward af in the books. She played the part perfectly and anyone that had actually read the books before the movies came out would know that. Besides even those movies themselves were done over a decade ago and she has been in a number of other things both before and after those movies. Get over it people.

The acting was good, the movie was entertaining enough for what it was, its not like any of the Charlie's Angels movies, spin offs or shows were award worthy. They were always just purely entertainment for a short while and this movie holds up to the others just fine. Lots of great actors/actresses in it, entertaining enough story. It is definitely a solid 5-6 star worthy and I am tempted to overrate it just to try and help counter all of the smashing being done against it by people that just want to be nasty over it for no reason. There are two types of haters here. The first half all anyone has to do is look up basically any movie with Kristen Stewart to see that she is obviously unfairly discriminated against by idiots everywhere that just need a focal point for their anger. Although why they chose to target her and not someone else from the movies, go figure. The second half addressing gender swaps in movies lately, why so much hate over it? Is it really that important that its a MAN in those parts? Maybe that type of attitude is EXACTLY why the swap was done in the first place. That aside following the storyline from the original show till now it actually makes perfect sense that the Angels would eventually inherit the whole business/empire whatevs after Charlie died as he trusted them all so much. Companies continue on after founders die, that's just how it goes. Back to the gender swapping. No one seemed to care when it came to the remake of The Mummy which in and of itself was a complete joke if compared to the original movies, or even the last remake before this one that was the best remake in the history or remakes as far as I'm concerned, Brendan Fraser's Mummy beats Tom Cruise's hands down. It had the fun, adventure and humor thing down.They should have just named the current remake movie something else, it wasn't even worth watching more than once for me. Just another mass produced remake in the years of remakes.

Kristen Stewart is till gorgeous! this box-office was flipping actions are good, I consider to need exciting scenarios.

Charlie's Angels (2019) fails to meet even the low expectations engendered by advanced publicity promoting a diverse group of angels and multiple Bosleys.

A basic tenet of screenwriting is Show, Don't Tell, yet the opening six-minute focuses on a high-school-level debate on feminism versus anachronistic sexism, while an epic martial arts contest occurs largely offstage in the next room, shown only in quick cuts that fail to cast any light on the Who?, What?, Why?, or other questions germane to the nearly incomprehensible plot.

Farrah Fawcett, who starred in the original television series, is considered one of the most beautiful and sexiest actresses of the 1970s. So Close (2002) features brilliant fight choreography involving former Playboy Hong Kong model Qi Shu. Beauty and martial arts skills are not mutually exclusive, yet films like Charlie's Angels seem to adopt the distinctly sexist view that (audiences believe) beauty is somehow incompatible with feminine strength, so cast what one might term chick-flick protagonists - girls who are attractive, but not so devastatingly beautiful or voluptuous as to be perceived as a competitive threat to females in the audience.

This is not to suggest the actresses are the least bit unattractive, but none of the many angels possess the captivating beauty or sensuality of Qi Shu or Farrah Fawcett, and none flaunts it with a revealing outfit.

The plot is an incoherent mess that seems strangely evocative of The Saint (1997), hobbled together with a mishmash of scenes that superficially resemble scenes from Mission Impossible, Kingsman: The Secret Service, and other popular films, with little purpose other than backdrops for exposition on feminist ideology with a healthy measure of misandry. The final insult to anybody who found the original television series amusing in a campy sort of way is a shot near the end utilizing a voice synthesizer.

In a scene of unbridled absurdity, a professional assassin fires about a thousand rounds with a 6000-round-per-minute GE M134 minigun to little effect, but is defeated by an angel firing two rounds one-handed with a 9mm SIG-Sauer P250 Compact, while hanging precariously from a moving vehicle.

The film is stylish with solid cinematography, but the constant social/political proselytizing seems incongruous with the campy comic book cosmos of reality. Like Ocean's 8, the film lacks a B-story to give emotional depth, but intimates a lesbian relationship between two of the leads. The violence is largely bloodless with no emotional consequences. Character arcs are virtually nonexistent, other than a sort of coming-of-age arc for a supporting character in a sidekick role - but even there, the shot at true love is abandoned in favor of radical feminism. Also like Ocean's 8, it aggressively avoids anything vaguely resembling sexiness. Efforts at playing the seductive vamp in the opening scene wouldn't even have raised an eyebrow among censors attempting to apply the Hayes Code in the 1930s, if it were not for the inclusive interracial relationship.

In Never Say Never Again (1983), quartermaster Algernon comments to Bond (Sean Connery), "Now you're on this, I hope we're going to have some gratuitous sex and violence." Such a comment would never occur to the angels' quartermaster, who seems to be some sort of new-age eunuch, even though a bit of gratuitous sex and violence is precisely what Charlie's Angels lacks and desperately needs to counter the ceaseless onslaught of insipid exposition.

Charlie's Angels opens with Sabina (Kristen Stewart) asserting, "I think women can do anything." Unfortunately, the female-led creative team failed to seize the opportunity to demonstrate that making entertaining action movies is among those abilities.