Naomi Scott, Kristen Stewart, Ella Balinska and Elizabeth Banks star in Charlie’s Angels.
Charlie’s Angels
Directed by: Elizabeth Banks
Runtime: 119 minutes
Being a more-than-casual moviegoer in my early thirties, and considering myself to be a somewhat avid cinephile, it becomes a little daunting to reflect on the exact number of film reboots I’ve been party to in only my three decades of existence. I was there for the new attempts at Star Trek and Tomb Raider and The Mummy and Hellboy and Kong and Godzilla and Robocop, while also being old enough to remember previous versions fondly. Not to mention the fact that I’ve seen three different men play Spider-Man in just fifteen years, along with a slew of other Batmans and Supermans and team ensembles like the Fantastic Four. The idea that Hollywood is partial to a full system franchise reboot is not exactly a new one and, if anything, the very concept itself is prolific enough to be both profitable and exhaustive.
Charlie’s Angels is the third film version of the iconic ’70s television property in the last twenty years and one that eschews the traditional reboot model for something a little softer in the form of a direct sequel and narrative expansion. In the hands of director, screenwriter and starring actress Elizabeth Banks, the franchise now borrows from the Fast & Furious School of ‘Big, Dumb and Expensive: Now Global,’ as the crack team of private detective Angels has morphed into an international spy agency, equipped with lavish safehouses, fancy cars, techno-babble gadgets and far-flung locales. Think less sexy lady Magnum P.I. and more modern-day James Bond, where 007 sits this one out and instead we get a triumvirate of zany Miss Moneypennys. To Banks’ credit, the script handles all this necessary exposition in a relatively efficient manner, bringing the audience up to speed on the new scope of the Townsend Agency, the existence of multiple Bosleys (now a rank, not exclusively an individual) and how Angels are recruited. Banks also manages to keep both the television show and the previous film incarnations as canon in this world (I’ll avoid spoilers but how this is achieved garnered some of the biggest laughs in my screening) without completely bending over backwards into narrative absurdity, i.e. no clones, no time travel, no parallel dimensions.
Our story this time around focuses on Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott), a young systems engineer turned whistle-blower who turns to the Townsend Agency for help and is sucked into their world of high-stakes espionage and life-and-death action. Along the way, we’re introduced to multiple characters who flesh out the familiarities of the new franchise world: Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart), the wild and crazy Angel; Jane Kano (Ella Balinska), a former MI6 agent and the serious/nerdy Angel; Rebekah Bosley (Banks), a former Angel turned Charlie assistant; and Sir Patrick Stewart as John Bosley, the original assistant to Charlie (replacing Bill Murray’s role from the first film instalment).
Now, purely in terms of plot, Charlie’s Angels doesn’t really want you to think too hard about it. It’s a film that’s concerned more with curating a certain vibe and aesthetic than messy political intrigue or in-depth character motivations. Houghlin becomes the target of assassins after revealing the dangers of a new energy prototype she’s built, but exactly how this thing does what it does is never actually explained in any convincing way. The film desperately throws random buzzwords at the audience (Matrix! Blockchain! Seizures!) to stifle such curious questioning. Not that this is exactly a cardinal sin, and I can certainly think of many a blockbuster that also takes the cheap and easy route to setting up a protagonist-antagonist dichotomy, but it is nonetheless a distraction.
While we’re talking about vibe though, it’s worth noting that this is where Charlie’s Angels has the most wins. As a franchise, Charlie’s Angels has always been about empowering women, whether this was in the ’70s in the wake free-love and sexual liberation, or the early 2000s at the zenith of consumer capitalism and neoliberalism. The major change here in 2019 is that, for the first time, the story and direction of these empowered women is handled by a woman, and it shows in almost every frame of the film. Banks makes the long-established feminist undertones of the franchise explicit within the film’s opening moments and deliberately focuses on her female characters often at the expense of the male ones, treating them merely as narrative window dressing (villains, henchmen, foils, gurus etc.). The technique and film language used here isn’t exactly subtle, but it is effective. For example, many scenes where men are talking will include long close-ups or mid-shots of the women forced to listen to them, just so the audience can feel every awkward smile, murmur or eye-roll. And while this will likely piss-off the manosphere types who love to rail against anything targeted at anyone who isn’t a cis white dude, it avoids the pitfalls of other female-centric reboots like Ghostbusters and Ocean’s 8 by focusing on its already built-in message of solidarity, unity and empowerment for young women. Banks understands that the franchise has always been defined by sexy, strong women who look badass while kicking ass, and by the film’s credits, the audience is given a literal montage of exactly that (this time, without the ogling male-gaze of McG’s films). Again, it may not be delicate, but it certainly works.
While Charlie’s Angels isn’t as outright silly or campy as the previous films (gone is the overreliance on wire-fu parody stunts), it does struggle to find a tonal balance between playful and deadly. On an aesthetic level, the stunt choreography is mostly fine, with only a few occasional misfires, and there’s a few instances of really awful CGI that could easily have been something more practical and impactful (with a slim budget of $48-55 million, there’s a little wiggle room when compared to the previous films). I’m yet to see a definitive style in Banks’ work as a director, and even with the support of Bill Pope (The Matrix trilogy, Baby Driver, The Jungle Book) for cinematography, the film achieves a fine and passable level of blocking, transition and framing. With action franchises like Fast & Furious and John Wick pushing the boundaries of stunt work and set-pieces with each new instalment, it’s hard for Charlie’s Angels to appear as slick and stand out during the fight scenes, while also keeping the humour and girl-power mantra front and centre.
Banks and Stewart are both excellent in their supporting roles, hamming it up where necessary and clearly having a great time on screen. The Angels themselves are competent for the most part if somewhat lacking in the A-list chemistry established by Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu twenty years ago. In their individual scenes, Scott and Balinska do an admirable job of conveying their characters eccentricities, but the group/ensemble sections tend to suffer from some awkward comedic timing and weird, left-field narrative moments. However, in terms of performances, the darling of the film is Stewart by a country mile. She’s having an absolute ball in this film and steals every scene. After cutting the Twilight umbilical on her career and wallowing in art-house territory for a while, it’s great to see Stewart looking this comfortable and effortless in a blockbuster pop-corn film. On the whole, Charlie’s Angels is a decent and fun lady action romp and well worth the price of admission.
Leave a Reply