Movie Breakdown: Charlie’s Angels

Pre-Screening Ramble:

Frankly, I don’t get why there’s a new Charlie’s Angels movie.  Is this really a franchise that people have been wanting to see return?  Why in the world did Elizabeth Banks decide to retread what McG – and I actually mean this – already did pretty well back in the early 2000s?  What in the world is Kristen Stewart doing in this?  So many questions, so little enthusiasm to find out the answers.

Post-Screening Ramble:

Charlie’s Angels (2019) opens with a supremely confident Kristen Stewart telling a misogynistic dope that women are capable of doing whatever they want to do.  During this part, which also features a dash of nifty aerobatics via drapes, I felt like I might be in for something special, but writer/director Elizabeth Banks’ film fizzles from there and ultimately just ends up being a big mess that constantly feels like it’s trying too hard.  Some of it is fun – Kristen Stewart provides a palpable amount of unruliness to every scene she’s in, Patrick Stewart fully operates in scenery-chewing mode, and there’s a clever sequence in an office/lab with all the “angels” in disguises.  However, the bigger elements are missteps.  That feminist message that’s so strong at the start of the film largely fall to the wayside, there’s a lame macguffin (it’s a small box that provides … immense power), the plot twists are very weak and predictable, and the action is shot with so many quick cuts that it’s entirely disorienting.  Does this mean it’s disastrously bad?  Not at all, but it’s an OK at best movie.  If it’s something you want to see, skip on paying for a trip to the theater and instead hold out for an eventual viewing on your streaming platform of choice.

One Last Thought:

I’ve seen Nat Faxon in a lot of things over the years (starting with Orange County in 2002) and I’ve just never managed to become comfortable with what seems like his endless array of teeth.  Solid actor though.