Hell’s Angels

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I remember back in 2000, watching the first Charlie’s Angels movie in theaters, mostly to see Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu (Drew Barrymore was also in the movie, but whatever). Nineteen years later, I saw this new Charlie’s Angels in theaters, mostly to see Ella Balinska and Naomi Scott (Kristen Stewart was also in the movie, but whatever). Each trip to the theater had a funny backstory to it. In 2000, I was with friends and they were conflicted about watching the Angels movie, or seeing Little Nicky instead. After much protest, I managed to convince them to see the Angels movie, since I had no desire to sit through ninety minutes of Adam Sandler talking in that annoying voice of his. For the current movie, I was going to be driven to the theater, but the family member serving as my driver was about to take a shower right before we were supposed to leave, I had to run around like the house was on fire in order to stop said shower and get to the theater on time. Slightly amusing personal stories aside, this current movie was… polarizing to say the least.

Written and directed by Elizabeth Banks, and serving as a continuation of the original TV series from the seventies and the first two movies from the early 2000s (the TV reboot from 2011 gets no love), 2019’s Charlie’s Angels is the latest retooling of the franchise. This time, the Angels are, as I mentioned, newcomer Ella Balinska, rising “it girl” Naomi Scott, and the painfully obvious stunt casting of Kristen Stewart. Rounding out the cast are Elizabeth Banks as Rebekah Bosley, Patrick Stewart as the John Bosley, and Djimon Hounsou as Edgar Bosley. Oh, and you’ll know for sure that it’s a Sony Pictures movie, because in typical Sony Picture fashion, all of the electronic devices in the movie are Sony branded products.

First and foremost, the franchise is given a new spin to its concept. Instead of having the Angels be private investigators working for a disembodied voice, they’re now an international, all-female spy agency, although they still work for a disembodied voice. Their top agents are Jane Kano (Balinska) and Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart, unfortunately), who are assigned to protect Elena Houghlin (Scott), who has invented a device known as Calypso, which is attracting the attention of certain parties who want to use it for evil intentions. “Bosley” is now a codename for the Angels’ handlers, and each “Bosley” plays their own role in the story. Patrick Stewart’s Bosley is retiring, Banks’ Bosley is the current handler of our movie’s team, and Hounsou’s Bosley is Jane’s personal mentor and role model. Needless to say, Calypso falls into the wrong hands, and it’s up to Jane and Sabina to get it back, while Elena is along for the ride. Hijinks ensue, as well as nods to the first two Angels movies, by way of a silent, wiry henchmen who wears all black, and party scene that involves a dance sequence.

I’ll start with what I did like about the movie. Changing the Angels from private investigators to a spy organization was an interesting spin to a franchise that ran its course. I said I went to see this movie for Balinska and Scott, and they literally are the best reasons to see this movie. Balinska gives a star-making turn as an action heroine; beautiful, tall, and armed with a sexy British accent. She has the second most involved story arc, which is linked directly to Hounsou’s Bosley. I swear, this movie could have been a wholly original concept with her as the lead, and it would have worked perfectly. Hopefully she will get more work in genre movies based on this role alone. Scott has the juiciest role, and really shows her range as an actress, as she has to express various emotions and perform lots of physical comedy. It also doesn’t hurt that she’s easy on the eyes. I couldn’t help but notice that there were many scenes where the camera would unnecessarily linger on Balinska’s face or Scott’s face, or better yet, scenes when both of them are standing side by side, and boy, are those lovely scenes to look at. I know it might come across as shallow by fawning over these actresses, but it's obvious that this is the movie’s intention, to be a star vehicle to get these talented ladies more roles in the industry.

Outside of Balinska and Scott, Elizabeth Banks is just fine as Bosley. Since she also wrote the movie, she gave herself all the best puns and one liners. I particularly liked this one extended gag she did about being a cinephile. As a writer, she did surprisingly well for herself, including a well-crafted plot twist for the end of the second act, and as a director, she did a nice job. She had unusual choices of camera angles from time to time, but it did provide a unique look to the movie. There are times when scenes looked like they belong in a music video, but given the context of the scenes, it sort of made sense. Hey, maybe Banks should be hired to direct more music videos so that she can further her craft. And lastly, Patrick Stewart is the best male performance in the movie. Granted, the material he is given to work with isn’t the strongest, but this is Patrick Stewart that we’re talking about. He could read the nutritional facts off of a cereal box, and he would find a way to make it entertaining and compelling. Sadly, this is where the good points about the movie end.

The weakest link of the movie for me (as if you haven’t figured it out already) was Kristen Stewart. Maybe I have a powerful anti-Twilight bias, but for the life of me, I can’t take her seriously as an actress, and as I mentioned before, I think she was a stunt casting above all else. Her character is a tomboy who is just an exaggerated version of Kristen Stewart’s public persona, or perhaps some kind of exaggerated version of Miley Cyrus’ public persona. None of her jokes land, and she comes across as annoying most of the time. In fact, any time when her character was in danger or at risk of dying, I was quietly wishing that she would die. I would have probably enjoyed this movie more if they hired someone else for this role, I don’t care who, just not Kristen Stewart (and not Miley Cyrus either).

And then there’s the most polarizing aspect of the movie: it’s strong feminist message, which is the “toxic”, anti-men version of feminism. Now, I have nothing against feminism in its original, first-wave form, as in women being treated equally in society as men. That being said, this movie leans more on the “to hell with all men” kind of third-wave feminism. Much like with the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters, every man in this movie is either a sexist jerk, outright evil, insultingly stupid, or is killed off. Also, all the third-wave feminism tropes are on display: men in the workplace not respecting female employees, men telling women that they need to smile, men not listening or believing in women, no man is allowed to make physical contact with a woman (even if it’s not in a sexual manner) unless she gives her consent, and so on and so forth. Yes, these are things that happen with women in society, but some of them are more blown out of proportion than others.

And this message isn’t subtle at all; in fact, the first spoken dialogue of the movie is Kristen Stewart making the case that women should be able to do whatever they want with their lives. Yes, I agree, but not when that message is shoehorned into a movie by having the men degraded in order to elevate the women. In fact, whenever this form of feminism appears in the movie, it comes across as forced and unnecessary. To further prove the point, a lot of men are killed, some of which in very gruesome ways, and the Angels don’t show any sympathy about it. In fact, at one point, an innocent man is killed by mistake due to the Angels’ actions, and the Angels write it off as “collateral damage.” Wow, that’s pretty cold. I doubt they would feel that way if it was an innocent woman who died due to their actions. But I guess he had it coming, because he dared to ask one of the Angels to smile.

Not all men are treated so poorly though. The Angels have a male assistant they call “The Saint” who acts as their personal doctor and chef. He’s not at all threatening or masculine, and he comes across as strangely out of place from the rest of the movie. I wouldn’t be surprised if Elizabeth Banks did this as a joke about her own real life personal assignants. The character could be removed altogether and the movie would be fine without him. And there’s the thankless role of Langston, played by Netflix’s favorite young actor, Noah Centineo. He’s Elena’s lab partner and he forms an attraction to Jane (I can’t blame him). Centineo and Balinska have a good chemistry together, and I wouldn’t have minded if Centineo was given a much bigger role and played Jane’s love interest throughout the movie. However, he only appears in three sequences and is quickly forgotten about, which was a pity. And in one final bit of third-wave feminism to top it all off, it’s hinted at that Charlie himself is actually a woman who is using technology to alter her voice so she sounds like a man, because heaven forbid a man tell women what to do.

Overall, I’m going to give the 2019 Charlie’s Angels a disappointing two stars out of five. As an action comedy, it works fine, but it’s bogged down by its hamfisted, third-wave feminist messages, and a subpar performance by Kristen Stewart. I can only recommend seeing this movie in theaters if you have a gift card or other means of seeing it without paying money. That, or just wait to rent it on physical disk or On Demand or streaming media. I would love for Balinska and Scott to get more roles and be in more genre movies, but not even their talent and beauty could save the rest of this flick. That concludes this fanpicked review. And remember, when it comes to the media that you consume, be like Indiana Jones, and choose wisely.

Short Version

Pro:

• Outstanding, star making performances from Ella Balinski and Naomi Scott.
• Charming performance from Patrick Stewart.
• Decent writing and direction from Elizabeth Banks.

Cons:

• Kristen Stewart, enough said.
• Noah Centineo is underutilized.
• Off-putting third-wave feminist themes.

Verdict: ** (two out of five stars).