By Jason Guyer
In 2019, the reboot is king. The latest of which is “Charlie’s Angels.” One reboot I am not sure anyone asked for. And honestly, there seems to be too many of these nowadays.
The television show was popular in the 1970s and the Drew Barrymore film versions were less so in the early 2000s.
It seems nonsensical to reboot properties that were only marginally popular and this goes doubly for properties that would be out of tune with the social and political landscapes of the time you reboot it.
The original “Charlie’s Angels” was a jiggle-obsessed and simple television show that fit in the time period. The show in its exact form would not fit in 2019.
There are severe issues with how it portrays women and what are seen as enviable characteristics. Therefore, if you go to see the new “Charlie’s Angels” reboot expect something different, expect something better.
The “Charlie’s Angels” reboot follows a brilliant scientist. This scientist invents a product called “Calisto.” Calisto is a sustainable energy source and one that would revolutionize the way people use power.
However, when Calisto falls into the wrong hands, the Angels must retrieve it.
This iteration of “Charlie’s Angels” has Kristen Stewart playing Sabina Wilson, Naomi Scott as Elena Houghlin and Ella Balinska stars as Jane Kano.
Kristen Stewart is meant to steal the show and be the lead in this version of “Charlie’s Angels.” This is in more ways than one. Stewart is the best and most accomplished actor of the three and on screen this makes her stand out for obvious reasons.
Talent often rises to the top and whether people like it or not, Kristen Stewart is talented. “Charlie’s Angels” is challenging for Stewart. She is the lead. She carries the humor and she breaks the mold of an Angel. Carrying this kind of weight in a film can be a huge ask for any actor. Stewart carries it wonderfully. Stewart makes the character of Sabina Wilson her own and a unique character who is constantly being true to herself.
In a spy world constantly trying to define her, Sabina Wilson defines herself. This is true from the opening scenes of the film. Wilson is in the midst of capturing a criminal. This criminal is all about one misogynistic scenario where Sabina Wilson submits to him. Wilson uses his misogyny to capture him because it is not a scnario he expects from a person of the opposite sex.
These opening scenes are where you get the most familiar with the Sabina Wilson character and what Kristen Stewart is doing with the character. This connection with the audience is paramount to the audience enjoying the film, especially since Sabina Wilson is basically the lead Angel.
In a film like “Charlie’s Angels,” you should try to connect with each Angel and especially with the lead Angel, it makes for a better film experience.
The next Angel to get to know is Elena Houghlin who is played by Naomi Scott. Scott is most well known as Jasmine in this years reboot of “Aladdin.” The Elena Houghlin character is the “new” angel, the recruit. Scott is decent and comfortable in the role as Elena Houghlin. Houghlin is a smart character who is constantly curious and Scott handles that scenario well and plays well of the other two Angels.
The third Angel is Ella Balinska’s Jane Kano. Balinska is probably the least accomplished actor of the three and it shows at points in the film. The good thing though is that the character of Jane Kano is the Angel with military experience who is often stoic. Ella Balinska’s Jane Kano asserts herself when she needs to and is the backbone of the Angels.
Honestly, the strength behind her character is one of the most compelling aspects to this version of “Charlie’s Angels.”
These Angels have a lot of strength. Stewart is her best spunky self as Sabina Wilson. Scott is intellectually affecting as Elena Houghli, and Balinska is grounded and the stable center of the group as Jane Kano.
There are two problems with these Angels though: the writing and directing.
Elizabeth Banks is the director and writer. Banks does a fantastic job expressing that all women can be and are angels. These feminst-style Angels will turn some off just for the mere fact that it dares to be feminist. In 2019, that is a sad commentary on society, not on Elizabeth Banks who cares to try to portray women as they should be and not make a jiggle obsessed farce. The feministic aspects to “Charlie’s Angels” and the message Banks and these Angels are trying to convey is a powerful one.
The message is not what is wrong with “Charlie’s Angels,” in fact it is one of the best parts. This may give many a reason to see “Charlie’s Angels”. These are not you parents Angels, for some that may be enough to make this film enjoyable. Where Banks goes wrong is that “Charlie’s Angels” feels like a refitting rather than a reboot. She refits the message and the girls but the type of films still contains a weak story and weaker action. The films strengths are the Angels as it should be but you can’t make a good film without a good story.
You also can’t make a good action film without good action.
These two aspects of “Charlie’s Angels” are the worst parts. If you are going to reboot, then reboot. Do not refit.
“Charlie’s Angels” should have been a darker more character centric style action film, think “Atomic Blonde.” If you are looking to make Angels action heroes, as they should be, then make them action heroes. “Atomic Blonde” delivered great action. If you mixed these great characters with that gritty stylized action. We have a fantastic version of “Charlie’s Angels.” Instead, we are left with this version where the “Charlie’s Angels” characters are great but they toil in mediocrity and basic action sequences.
“Charlie’s Angels” is to be seen for the Angels and these Angels are better than any before them because we allow them to be actual people.
This only gets the film so far and it is not as far as the film should go.
The audience that a film like this is going to garner is one that already likes the “Charlie’s Angels” franchise or those who already like the one of the three leads.
If you like Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, or Ella Balinska then this movie is for you, it does not offer much else for anyone else.
The action will do nothing for the action crowd and sadly the feministic profile of the film will turn away many more.
It is disappointing really because if you watch “Charlie’s Angels” you will like the characters and want to spend more time with them.
The downside of not garnering a big audience may well be another reboot in 10 years. Instead of growing these wonderful characters.
This will take away the thing “Charlie’s Angels” needs most, the character growth.
This spunky, humorous, actionless “Charlie’s Angels” offers a one time enjoyable viewing experience.
Just remember: these are not you parents Angels. These are your Angels.
IRATE SCORE: 3/5
Jason Guyer is an avid moviegoer and works in the graphics department at the Eagle Times. For questions or comments he can be emailed at [email protected].
As your daily newspaper, we are committed to providing you with important local news coverage for Sullivan County and the surrounding areas.