Charlie’s Angels (2019)⭐️½

…is off to a lackluster reception on its opening weekend.

Will say it again: I really like Elizabeth Banks. Her vigor spunk, energy and creative talent — she’s got the goods.

She is out there doing what she wants to do, making the film she wants to make with Charlie’s Angels and god bless her.

But it appears she has swung and missed with Charlie’s Angels and that’s not the fault of internet trolls.

Of course, those trolls are horrifying, but you know, I challenge them to get up and make a fucking action movie. I welcome any of them into my realm.”

Elizabeth Banks: New ‘Charlie’s Angels’ Is Anti-Superhero Action Movie | IndieWire

LOL on “horrifying” trolls! It is all too easy to make excuses for why people aren’t flocking to see your movie, but maybe the truth is that it just isn’t that good.

And the early sentiment seems to be mixed to negative. It tried to attract 13-39 females and seeks to alienate the original fans of the TV series and men. That strategy seemed to fail. Logically, the world’s population is about 50/50 men and women. By targeting any one demographic, you’re effectively slicing your potential audience in half. And if you are going really niche, looking for an age range within a demographic? That’s going to severely limit your anticipated audience.

At least some of those 13-39 women are going to want to bring their male friends with them to watch, yes/no?

Curiously, Jaclyn Smith who played in the original TV series said despite all the bikinis on set, she “never felt exploited.” Perhaps a feminist version wasn’t necessary in 2019?

There allegedly was an attempt to attract more well-known actresses:

However, I hear that the script for Charlie’s Angels didn’t really attract top talent, i.e. Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone and Margot Robbie (a trio that would have potentially jazzed up business), hence why the production opted to go with largely a fresh face cast outside of Kristen Stewart. While we overwrite that stars mean nothing at the box office, they do sometimes when it comes to propping IP, and unfortunately and arguably no one in Middle America knows who British actress Ella Balinska is and they’ve only became recently acquainted with Naomi Scott from Disney’s Aladdin and Lionsgate’s Power Rangers.

How ‘Charlie’s Angels’ Fell From Grace At The Box Office With An $8M+ Opening – Deadline.com

Here are the numbers so far based on the early reviewers, as of this writing:

Rotten Tomatoes: 59% Rotten (critics, 118 reviews), 82% Fresh (audience, 552 reviews)
IMDB: 4.4 / 10 with 4,211 reviews

Reviews by Others

Let’s see, so far, what other moviegoers think of Charlie’s Angels. Keep in mind that some/many of these reviews contain spoilers. I tried to grab a balanced list of reviews and pull quotes.

Recommended

• Irish Film Critic (3.5 /5): “While I was totally confused by the new myriad of Bosley’s in this high stakes game of crime-solving, I was also impressed by the one female version played by Elizabeth Banks, who starred in as well as directed the film.”
• Irfan Nordin (7/10): “Earnest and energetic, if a bit uneven, Elizabeth Banks’s pulpy Charlie’s Angels add new flair to the franchise with fun performances from its three leads”
• Jason Bleau / Cinema Spotlight (4/5): “Elizabeth Banks does a fine job adapting this legendary property for a new generation and the three actresses that play the main Angels are all-in to make this a fun time. It’s funny, exciting, and much less cheesy than its predecessors which makes for an action comedy that feels more mature.”
• M.U.S.E (3/5): “Much to my surprise, I enjoyed this reboot!”
• Megan Danielle: “For it’s faults, Charlie’s Angels is a great modern take on the 1970’s franchise. For what it lacks in action, or score, it makes up in having a great new trio of Angel’s who work incredibly well together.”
• Mia Vincino: “Whereas the original eponymous 1970s television show and respective 2000 and 2003 movie adaptations appear to be the products of male fantasy disguised as empowerment, Charlie’s Angels (2019) is finally free from the confines of that suffocating gaze. Sapphic women have since reclaimed the previous installments, choosing to pretend like the blatant objectification of the Angels isn’t damaging. And we’ll be reclaiming this one, too.”
• Indiewire (Grade: B): “Nobody really asked for another “Charlie’s Angels” reboot, but this one will leave you eager for more. It seems these women might still have the element of surprise on their side, after all.”
• Brittany Witherspoon (3/5): ” I’d be lying if I were to say that this wasn’t a crowd pleaser because there are so many moments that rendered frequent chuckles and smiles out of me. Interestingly enough, Director Elizabeth Banks managed to do this without relying on the cheesiness that such a feature, at times, requires. But I guess that’s the magic of women in film. Against all odds, it simply worked.”
• TheFlemishScott (3 stars): ” These three women have some serious chemistry going on, and it’s contagious. Hell, even Patrick Stewart seems to be having the time of his life as Bosley, with some great one liners to prove it.”
• Candid Cinema: “There are a few moments that made me feel empowered and it’s because she showed women across the world, of different ethnicities, doing different tasks and showing that they are all powerful in their own way. It really was a beautiful sentiment and it was a great feeling leaving the theatre.”
• Amused in the Dark: “I really enjoyed the hell out of this adorable picture. This will likely make my top list this year.  Yes, I am serious … I am all for the pro feminism aspect of the movie. It does not even remotely shy away from it and a few times beats you over the head with it. You know what? GOOD. Let girls who come see this see themselves as bad ass action stars. Let them see they can wear pretty dresses, kick ass and save the world – and have fun doing it.”
• The Avro Post (7/10): “….a movie with three great leading ladies and a director who is far from green makes for an entertaining time at the movies if you’re not looking for anything too deep.”

Not Recommended (or undecided):

• Society Reviews (1/5): “These women don’t take orders from no man because even Charlie is a woman now too. Charlie’s Angels is just as dull and woke as it was advertised to be, and its films like this that are causing audiences to stay home and save money,,,and you should do the same.”
• North Shore Reviews / Daniel M. Kimmel (1/5): ” It would be all too easy to dismiss “Charlie’s Angels” as having the depth of a video game, but that would be unfair… to video games. Perhaps it’s time to lay this ‘70s relic to rest and look elsewhere for a vehicle for female action heroes?”
• Funk’s House of Geekery (1/10): “Now we have another new version, and this one isn’t stupidly bad. It’s embarrassingly bad. It’s completely incompetent on almost every level.”
• JeddTheJedi (2.5/5): “…brings several interesting ideas to the table, but this revival of Charlie’s Angels comes up short on thrills and spectacle, resulting in something that’s resoundingly underwhelming.”
• Cole Garner / Geek Center (Grade: C-): “Honestly, compared to the awful trailers, this reboot/sequel/spin-off isn’t what I expected. I couldn’t help but to expect a really bad movie, but thankfully the movie is at least watchable.”
• Jmuney’s Blog (2.5/5): “Globetrotting in 2019: who needs it? I, for one, cannot say I find it particularly necessary after watching the 2019 edition of Charlie’s Angels. As three gadget-toting, butt-kicking, espionage-deploying young women chase a McGuffin around multiple continents, what do they, or any person of any age for that matter, have to offer us that we haven’t been offered before?”
• CJ at the Movies (1 star): “This is made for millennials, and I, for one, got sick of it.”
• Movie Nation (2/4): “But damn, this thing is pretty much joyless — no fun at all. Reports of Stewart’s gifts as a budding comedienne have been wildly-exaggerated, the one-liners don’t land and the story’s a non-starter and a bit of a downer, to boot.”
• Rock at the Movies (6.5/10): “The film doesn’t really blow you away or really breath a great deal of hope into this franchise but it was an interesting film to watch, especially if you feel nostalgic of what you’ve seen come before.”
• Screen Zealots / Louisa (2 / 5 stars): “…the type of movie that’s best suited for watching on an airplane or anywhere else where you’re trapped and in dire need of entertainment. It’s sadly not as good as it could be (or that I hoped it to be), and that’s a real bummer “
• Critical Hit (6.5/10): “…an overall energetic tone and a solid showing from its cast – led by a scene-stealing Kristen Stewart – help to keep this a moderately fun but flawed watch.”
• David Palmer (6/10): “Elizabeth Banks’ script (and she also produced, so all flaws on this project truly fall on her shoulders) feels lazy at times, many of the jokes are obvious or dialogue full of exposition (at one point a character explains a plot point we just learned to another, just to ensure the audience caught it) “
• Jessi Crunk / Sinfully Cinematic: “…a 4 out of 10. If you’re looking for an action movie with very cliché elements, then this would be a good movie to rent when it comes out of theater. Other than the action, the film simply failed to deliver on its emotional value, humor, or story line. It also fell short of delivering the scenes of female-empowerment that many were looking forward to.”

Did you see Charlie’s Angels (2019)? If so, what are your thoughts? Use the comments section below and tell us whether or not you recommend seeing.