The success of the original “Charlie’s Angels” released in 2000 is not reflected in the new reboot, which came out on Nov. 15. The original version grossed $40 million during the opening weekend, while the recent one, directed by Elizabeth Banks, fell short, only grossing $8.6 million. However, its less than warm welcome is definitely justified.
The new movie follows a group of women as they endeavor to retrieve Calisto, an assassination tool created by engineer Elena Houghlin. Along the way, they discover more about themselves and the people they’re working against.
“Charlie’s Angels” targets a female audience by promoting women empowerment, as shown by the largely female cast of Sabina, Jane, Bosley and Houghlin, who appear in some flashy action shots. While its feminism may be empowering, the execution was subpar.
The opening begins with Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart) stating that she thinks “women can do anything,” which would have been great if her robotic, impersonal delivery was more emotional. However, the action scenes that followed supported Sabina’s feminist message, as the heroines took down the antagonists to display their strength, challenging the stereotype that women are “weak.”
The movie’s multiple attempts at humor did not impress; the jokes felt flat and awkward, almost like ones that could be found in a 2000’s children’s show. Such is the case in the beginning when Sabina called the Australian man clingy and claimed it to be the worst date she had ever been on, while he called her beautiful and amazing. She responded with, “I know,” followed by a pause. It was clearly intended to be a humorous moment, but the theater only responded with silence. For a movie about strength and empowerment, the insipid humor dulled the impact of its message.
Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott) is a major source of comic relief, but her stiff lines and acting made me cringe and feel uncomfortable. It was unnatural to watch and the corny jokes were disappointing for older audiences. The same can be said for Stewart’s character Sabina, whose humor was rather slapstick in nature and earned little more than an awkward cough, which is unfortunate for such an experienced actress who has starred in highly grossing films like the “Twilight Saga.”
Though the plot contained a few twists, they lacked excitement and surprise. Even the moments revealing the twists felt dull and, like the rest of the movie, weren’t engaging. When viewing good movies, I often feel immersed in the storyline, but while watching “Charlie’s Angels,” I was a disappointed spectator. Nothing about the movie was believable, especially not the highly unrealistic circumstances the characters were in. In one of the confrontations, all of the main villains were able to escape. It would be unrealistic to expect none of those moments to exist in an action movie, but they felt excessive in this case.
Additionally, instead of immersing themselves into their characters, the actresses mechanically read their lines. The combination of humor and action was poorly paired, especially with the ill-fitting, superficial emotional scenes wedged in between. Even when Sabina was severely wounded and near death, the scene evoked no emotion from the audience. When Jane began to cry over Sabina’s condition, her delivery failed to garner sympathy. Despite her character remaining tough and aloof for the majority of the movie and this being her sole emotional display, I could only think of how cliché and superficial the scenario was. The scene only lasted a couple of minutes before Sabina woke up, which made the movie feel even more kitschy. I expected a large conflict at the end, but instead, it was rather lukewarm; Sabina punched John Bosley, Elena became an angel and that was the end of it.
Despite the lackluster plot and generally poor acting, rising actress Ella Balinska (Jane) was amazing to watch. She played her character well and was truly the embodiment of female empowerment, as her acting made Jane relatable and multi-dimensional. Her scenes, along with Elizabeth Banks (Bosley), were entertaining and momentarily distracted me from the otherwise tedious scenes. Even with Balinska and Banks’ outstanding performances, I would give the “Charlie’s Angels” 2.5 stars out of 5; it certainly wasn’t the most engaging or humorous, but I would watch it to kill time if I had to.
