The 'Charlie's Angels' Reboot Is Terrible

The 2019 Charlie’s Angels movie serves as both a reboot of the franchise and the continuation of the lore of the original 70’s TV series and the 2000’s movies.  In it, the wild, happy-go-lucky Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart) and former MI-6 agent Jane Kano (Ella Balinska) – two of Townsend Agency’s new generation of Angels – team up with a computer engineer named Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott) to stop a conspiracy that aims to weaponize a revolutionary energy conservation device that Elena helped build.

I actually had no interest of watching this reboot.  Based on the trailers and how it was marketed, it seemed to be lazy and bland.  I also didn’t like the fact that Naomi Scott’s character, Elena, isn’t an “Angel” yet at the start.  That meant that their dynamic for most of the movie would not have the appeal of being three equals; it weakened them as a legit trio.

Moreover, the reboot looked like another one of those “woke” films that obnoxiously prioritized the endorsement of leftist worldview over quality and competence.  And Elizabeth Banks – who produced, wrote, and directed this film, on top of playing Bosley – had made sure to make that impression stick as she was on full SJW mode during its promotion and release.

It also didn’t help that the theme song for it, “Don’t Call Me Angel” by Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus, and Lana Del Rey – which attempted to replicate the magic that Destiny’s Child’s “Independent Women” brought to the original Charlie’s Angels film – was plain godawful.

All things considered, this movie just didn’t look agreeable to me.  But in the end, I decided to give it a chance.  And I genuinely wanted to be surprised and find it enjoyable.  Heck, I would have even been happy if it turned out being the “so bad, it’s good” variety.

Unfortunately, as it happens, it’s exactly what I thought it would be – terrible.

Look. I love the original Charlie’s Angels movie starring Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu, as well as its sequel Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle.  Thus, in watching the reboot, they served as my benchmark.  But even though those movies aren’t exactly masterpieces, Bank’s 2019 reboot is still embarrassingly inferior to them.  (From here on, I will be referring to Charlie’s Angels and Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle collectively as “the OG”, and the 2019 Charlie’s Angels reboot as, well, “the reboot.”)

The reboot’s script lacks any subtlety or cleverness.  What it has in gratuitously ample amounts, though, are blatant, forced, and cringeworthy #MeToo and feminist allusions.  Several major aspects of its story are stupid and don’t make sense (especially the reason for the face-heel turn of the big bad, which is inconsistent with the character) – and they’re not even the kind that you can just let go; they linger and infuriate.  In addition, its attempts at humor mostly fall flat, and if there was anything that made me laugh, it was the bad dialogue and the worse Photoshop work involved in some scenes.

Now, there’s no denying that the OG is dumb, cheesy, and goofy.  However, it also has a brimming sense of fun.  Why?  Because unlike the reboot, its focus is to be fun, not to be feminist propaganda.

But what really allowed the OG to overcome its flaws is the extreme likability of its trio – Dylan Sanders (Barrymore), Natalie Cook (Diaz), and Alex Munday (Liu).  You really get to be invested on them from the get go.  With just a brief montage of their different, colorful backgrounds serving as intro, the OG paints an effective and delightful picture of what each of them is like as an individual.  At the same time, they are established right off the bat as a legit trio – that of equals and sisterhood.  So, just a few minutes into the movie, you have been completely won over by the girls’ personalities and chemistry.  From this point onward, you will be rooting for them all the way.  The rest of the movie now has an easier time with selling their badass, attractive, quirky, versatile, intelligent, and graceful characterizations, and they are indeed organically and rivetingly portrayed as such.  That’s why this Charlie’s Angels incarnation ended up becoming one of my most favorite trios in fiction ever.

On the other hand, while Sabina, Jane, and Elena show promise as characters (I especially like Jane; Ella Balinska is hot and has swagger), they aren’t able to mesh well into a trio.  First of all, as I’ve mentioned before, the fact that Elena starts off as an outsider and an amateur compromises their appeal as a trio right away.

Secondly, the reboot expands the Townsend Agency into a full-on international spy ring with multiple Bosleys and numerous Angels.  I believe that this utterly ruins the mystique of “Charlie’s Angels.”  The formula of having just one Bosley serving as the liaison to the invisible Charlie and just three active Angels at a time is what makes Charlie’s Angels distinctive as an ensemble.  It gives them the charm of being an exclusive, tight-knit group.  The reboot’s vision, however, simply makes them as just another generic covert organization.

Thirdly, Banks’ Bosley is too involved in the three character’s adventure.  It was as if Banks wanted to make it a de facto quartet with her character.

These three factors really made it difficult for Sabina, Jane, and Elena to gel as a trio.  And as a result, it was impossible to care for the story they’re in.

In addition, the reboot’s action sequences are messy and unimaginative.  Its best action moment – and the only thing I would consider to be decent – was already shown in the trailers.  Meanwhile, yes, the OG’s fight choreography, being “wire fu” and all, is mostly ridiculous.  However, since the fight scenes are visually comprehensible and the tone embraced the cartoonish nature of the premise, the action is visceral and entertaining nonetheless.

Aside from fighting, the OG trio also does undercover work in which they put on elaborate disguises; those scenes are honestly as fun to watch as their fighting scenes.  On the other hand, the best the reboot trio can offer are bad wigs.

It’s no surprise that the reboot flopped.  But Banks had the gall to blame sexism as the reason why.  I understand that the movie’s failure probably hurt her ego – this was her pet project after all – but this preposterous rationalization of hers simply showed that she’s just another blame-shifting, tone-deaf Hollywood SJW elite.  Now, plenty of other outlets have already rebutted her stupid arguments, and I don’t want to pile on to that.  But let me say this one thing.   It wasn’t only the men who ignored it.  The women ignored it, too.  It appealed to neither.  Hence, sexism was never the problem.  Nobody bought tickets because of one reason and one reason alone: the movie sucked.  That’s it.  Plain and simple.

It’s another example of a movie putting agenda over art and suffering for it.  But most importantly, this reboot failed to understand what Charlie’s Angels should be, and thus, it failed to deliver any of its merits.