Charlie's Angels

Charlie's Angels

Starring Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, Ella Balinska, Elizabeth Banks

Directed by Elizabeth Banks

 "Men don't go see women do action movies." Thus are the words of the director/producer/co-writer/co-star of the third film remake of the 1970s classic television series "Charlie's Angels," Elizabeth Banks.  The film only grossed $8 million dollars opening weekend, and is by all intents and purposes a box office bomb, but it's not because the reasoning Banks makes - it's because the film is just unnecessary, with choppy, uneven editing, an overly simplistic story that tries to be smarter than it is, and heavy-handedly providing the main message Banks wants to get across  - women can do anything men can do, but way better.

The original series follows three highly capable, intelligent, powerful women who repeatedly save the world, and the original film (and subsequent sequel) built on that by providing some fun, popcorn-action films with highly talented actresses like Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu.  Now we continue the legacy of the Angels (which is both the best and the worst of this film, in that it pays homage to the original and clearly ties them all together, but also tarnishes its own legacy with their strange retconning and character developments) with a worldwide network of Angels that are seemingly countless in number (and also include some famous faces, as you'd see in the film's closing credits).  We're introduced to two diametrically opposed Angels in Sabina (Kristen Stewart) and Jane (Ella Balinska) - Sabina is a rebellious Angel who's wild, reckless, and often serves as the decoy, while Jane is the former MI-6 agent who's firm, by-the-books, and highly resourceful.  They're joined by Bosley (Elizabeth Banks) to retrieve scientist Elena (Naomi Scott), who's crafted a new form of power supply called Calisto that has the ability to effectively provide electricity - as well as an unintentional byproduct that can turn it into a weapon to kill people anonymously.

You can tell where the film goes from here - Calisto goes missing, people seemingly double-cross one another, we travel literally around the world to retrieve said McGuffin, and there's a lot of action sequences involving the Angels with expensive outfits and luxurious weapons.  So it's basically your typical action-set piece film, which doesn't offer a lot other than what it delivers, except it tries to make itself smart by trying to throw us off the scent with strange editing and utterly nonsensical moments that doesn't even make sense when you piece them all together.

The action is rarely entertaining, and to combat Banks's statement that men don't want to see women do action movies, I would point her to the likes of Charlize Theron's "Atomic Blonde," Sigoruney Weaver's "Aliens," Angelina Jolie's "Tomb Raider," or Jennifer Lawrence's "The Hunger Games" (which, as Banks has seemingly forgotten, also starred in).  I was polite and didn't even mention Brie Larson's "Captain Marvel" or Gal Gadot's "Wonder Woman" because - again as Banks nonsensically stated - they're part of the comic book genre, and Banks believes that too is "a male genre."  The action here is so simplistic, unoriginal, and choppily edited it's almost laughable, like seeing a first-year film student's early work.  As the Angels globe-trot around the world, we get voice-over details about what each situation consists of, what their roles will be, and are pretty much spoon-fed everything that eventually happens - it's ex positional dialogue that's totally not necessary.  It just doesn't work.

Something else Banks said about the failure of the film has to do with people not wanting to see a long-dead franchise that no one asked to be rebooted.  She blasts this theory when she said, "you've had 37 "Spider-Man" movies and you're not complaining!  I think women are allowed to have one or two action franchises every 17 years - I feel totally fine with that."  Again, she's not understanding the core concept as to why no one saw this movie - it wasn't that good.  If there was a great plot, great action, great anything - I'm sure it would've been successful.  But you can't create a prime steak with Big Mac meat, and in the same way you can't make a fantastic franchise from such trivial ingredients.

That's not to say the whole of the film is bad.  In fact, there's one thing that the film has going for it: the new Angels.  Naomi Scott is the new recruit who's learning what it means to be an Angel, but is also highly intelligent and independent in her own right, and she really showcased what it meant to be a strong, empowered woman in the live-action adaptation of "Aladdin" earlier this year.  Ella Balinska is an up-and-coming star who'll easily get more action roles added to her repertoire as she effortlessly showcased the best action prowess of the film (and did most of her own stunts).

Yet the surprise standout is the one that most people were the most nervous about - Kristen Stewart.  Stewart has had a bad rap ever since her God-awful "Twilight" franchise - and she's also had other duds along the way - but she's actually a talented actress who's done something that no other American actress has accomplished: she won the French equivalent of an Oscar known as the Cesar Award for her work in "Clouds of Sils Maria."  She runs away with this film as the quirky, lovable, utterly wild Sabina, who's laissez-faire attitude is infectious and fun.

The supporting actors all show that they know they're in an over-the-top spectacle and doesn't really take things too seriously as well.  Sam Claflin is the young, hip entrepreneur who's company invented the Calisto, but also is a sniveling wimp.  Jonathan Tucker is the quiet assassin who never says a word and basically takes Crisin Glover's role from the original films, and Patrick Stewart offers his own unique flair as the retconned original Bosley.  Only Elizabeth Banks seems to want to make a serious film, and you can tell she gets flustered by other actors' nonchalant approach to the film even in her role.

Then there's the overlying message that Banks wants to get across, and that's the sense of female empowerment pretty much to the detriment of everything else.  I'm a strong supporter that women can do great things (and I'll definitely see them kick butt in films, despite what Banks says), but this film shoves it down your throat in a very unnatural, forceful way.  Even the opening when you see women doing strong things seems ham-fisted, and all throughout the film the message is as subtle as having a flashing line below the film saying "WOMEN ARE BETTER THAN MEN" over and over.  Again, I think women should be treated as equals, but here it gets totally out of hand.

While trying to create something new for a new generation, "Charlie's Angels" fails to deliver anything more than an over-the-top female empowerment story, but at least the three main leads are likable and talented enough to make it something a bit better than a total dud.

The Score: C-