Charlie's Angels (2019)

From Awful Movies Wiki
Revision as of 22:55, 29 July 2022 by Marxo Grouch (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "Category:Columbia Pictures films" to "Category:Columbia Pictures")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Charlie's Angels (2019)
538B7966-253E-498D-9AD5-35A703114ACE.jpeg
Charlies Angels 2019.jpg
Didn't Sony learn anything from the last time they made a film that's sexist towards a certain gender? Basically, the RoboCop (2014) of Charlie's Angels.
Genre: Action
Comedy
Directed By: Elizabeth Banks
Produced By: Doug Belgrad
Elizabeth Cantillon
Max Handelman
Elizabeth Banks
Written By: Elizabeth Banks
Based On: Charlie's Angels
by Ivan Goff and Ben Roberts
Starring: Kristen Stewart
Naomi Scott
Ella Balinska
Elizabeth Banks
Patrick Stewart
Photography: Color
Cinematography: Bill Pope
Distributed By: Sony Pictures Releasing
Release Date: November 15, 2019
Runtime: 118 minutes
Country: United States
Language: English
Budget: $48–55 million
Box Office: $73.3 million
Franchise: Charlie's Angels
Prequel: Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle


Charlie's Angels is a 2019 American action comedy film directed, written, and produced by Elizabeth Banks. It is a continuity reboot of the Charlie's Angels film series that serves as a continuation of the television series of the same name and the previous two theatrically-released installments, Charlie's Angels and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.

Plot

After accidentally creating a device that can be used to cause people to have fatal seizures, scientist Elena Houghlin discovers that her boss intends to use it for evil purposes, and goes to the Townsend Agency for help. Elena is then asked to work with two of the agency's Angels, Sabina Wilson, and Jane Kano, to bring down her former boss, and later discovers a conspiracy within the Townsend Agency itself.

Why Charlie's Angels Is Dead

  1. Reviving Charlie's Angels was a questionable idea in the first place, considering how the previous two theatrically-released films aren't generally liked as anything more than guilty pleasures, the 2003 video game based on the first film is generally considered one of the worst games of all time, and the 2011 reboot television series was a complete flop.
  2. The movie has a very inconsistent tone, as it sometimes seems like it is trying to be a reboot with a darker tone similar to the Daniel Craig-era James Bond movies, while at other times it is just as wacky and silly as the previous two movies.
  3. Questionable casting choices; neither Kristen Stewart nor Naomi Scott have much in the way of physical presence or fighting skill, meaning that when they beat up far larger bad guys, it ends up seeming unintentionally funny rather than impressive. Ella Balinska is the only one of the three with any actual combat training, which becomes extremely obvious in any scene where all three Angels are fighting (by contrast, two of the three Angels in the 2000s movies had combat training, with Lucy Liu being a world-class martial artist, and Cameron Diaz being a kick-boxer in her spare time).
  4. Abysmal and laughable acting, particularly from Kristen Stewart, who gives a mediocre performance as the lead Angel, Sabina. Ella Balinska isn't anywhere near as bad as Stewart, but isn't very memorable, either (though isn't helped by the fact that her Angel, Jane, is written with absolutely no personality).
  5. Unimpressive direction from Elizabeth Banks, who previously co-directed Movie 43 and also directed Pitch Perfect 2 (another comedy film that starred women), the latter of which is far better than this film.
  6. Much of the plot is ripped off from Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation and Fallout, both of which are infinitely far more superior films than this one.
  7. Charlie's operation has been expanded from just three women (and Bosley) who operate out of his mansion to a worldwide agency. This might have been an interesting idea, but the way they go about it turns the Angels into a generic spy network like you'd see in the aforementioned James Bond or Mission: Impossible movies.
  8. Awful action sequences, especially compared to the ones in the previous two films.
  9. Much like the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters, the movie is blatantly sexist against men, as every male character is either stupid, cowardly, evil or a throw-away character who dies after a few minutes.
  10. Insulting twist later on, when it turns out that Mr. Bosley is actually the main villain, taking away the one remotely sympathetic male character.
  11. Anti-climatic ending, which ends up being just the Angels having a fistfight with Mr. Bosley and his henchmen.
  12. Our main characters have no chemistry with one another.
  13. The pacing is so bad, which it feel hard to follow at all.
  14. The song "Don't Call Me Angel" is one of the most disappointing songs of all time. Although, not entirely a bad song just the awful sounds and Lana Del Rey has been sadly killing the music from the soundtrack.
  15. Really bad comedic dialogue, which sounds really cliché.

Redeeming Qualities

  1. Naomi Scott does easily the best job of the three lead actresses, and her character is the only likable/tolerable Angel.
  2. Even though most of the acting isn't much to write home about, Patrick Stewart and Djimon Hounsou both give good performances.
  3. Cool soundtracks like "How It's Done", "Bad To You", "Eye Off You" and more are pretty awesome and harmonic music.
  4. Even though "Don't Call Me Angel" is the most disappointing song, the fans considered it as awesome and pretty badass it was.
  5. Like the previous film, one of the original three Angels, Jaclyn Smith, makes a cameo as her character from the TV series, Kelly Garrett.

Videos

Reception

Charlie's Angels received mixed reviews from critics, who praised the performances of Stewart, Scott and Balinska, Banks' direction and action sequences, but criticized its writing, pacing and comedic dialogue. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 52% with an average score of 5.40/10, based on 230 reviews. The website's critics consensus reads, "Earnest and energetic, if a bit uneven, Elizabeth Banks's pulpy Charlie's Angels adds new flair to the franchise with fun performances from its three leads.". On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 52 out of 100, based on 41 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale, while those surveyed by PostTrak gave it an overall positive score of 69% (including an average 3 out of 5 stars), with 46% saying they would definitely recommend it.

However, it was quickly mixed-to-widely panned by audiences and fans of the franchise for its SJW content and female political agendas. It earned a 3.1 user score rating on Metacritic and holds a 4.8/10 rating on IMDb. Kenneth Turan of The Los Angeles Times commented: "Despite all its hand-to-hand fighting, the latest Charlie's Angels never really gets a proper grip on things." Joshua Rothkopf of Time Out stated: "For all of its #MeToo heavy lifting, though, the film still doesn't work, mainly for the same reasons as before: Constructed as symbols (not human beings), these characters have too much spy stuff to do and yet, not quite enough."

Director and actress, Elizabeth Banks couldn't handle the slightest forms of criticism at all and blamed men for the negative reception and failure of the film, which only hurt the film even more. Kristen Stewart was also guilty of this to a lesser extent, complaining that they were just trying to have fun while making the movie and that critics shouldn't have been so mean.

Box office

Charlie's Angels was a box office disappointment. It grossed $17.8 million in the United States and Canada, and $55.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $73.3 million against the film's $48-55 million budget. It is considered to be the lowest-grossing film in the Charlie's Angels franchise, and the fact that it was released too close to highly anticipated films like Ford v Ferrari and Frozen II. Some of the main reasons it bombed was the film's negative reception and lack of public interest in the franchise. A sequel was actually discussed, but it was scrapped due to the film's underperformance, most likely causing the studio to effectively kill the franchise for good.

External Links

Comments

Loading comments...