I WALKED out of the cinema liking Charlie’s Angels more than I did when I walked in.
I expected it to be a vehicle to champion specific ideas, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was just another action movie. And that is not a bad thing.
It was not an easy conclusion to come to. The acting consists of young people looking pretty, the action scenes were acceptable, and the story could have been smarter.
The thing is, I could say the same thing about any action movie with a male lead.
Charlie’s Angels – this 2019 version – is set in the same universe as the TV series and previous movies.
Yes, the Angels from 1976 onwards are all canon. They are effectively establishing a Charlie’s Angels universe. It is a cringey idea, but it is no different from other action-spy-centric movie series.
To make the Charlie’s Angels universe cohesive, the movie took some liberties. First, ‘Bosley’ is now a rank, instead of a name. The story begins with the retirement of the most senior of the Bosleys, John Bosley, played by Patrick Stewart.
At the same time, a tech company developed a power source that, on the surface, could solve the world’s energy needs.
In the wrong hands, it could become the perfect weapon for assassins.
Thanks to a whistleblower, it is up to the Angels to stop the energy source from being sold to villains.
Charlie’s Angels is packed with stereotypes, no more than other typical action movie. It makes the story predictable. Some are so cliche that it is not difficult to stay a step or two ahead of the film. For instance, you can guess who dies first.
The Angels, the trio (played by Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska) at the core of the movie, are not memorable. They look good, but they needed a little more substance.
Not an origin story, but character. More than just the trope of the rogue professional, the reactive nerd, and the hot-headed muscle.
That said, it was still a fun experience for me. I like a silly action movie once in a while.
Overthink, and the film will fall apart. But, for me, there is nothing egregiously wrong about it.
