Critique of “Charlie’s Angels” (2019): A Movie Review

The days of “Jiggle TV”, a 1970s style, are gone. . . You know that endearing term used by the media to describe the guilty pleasure of pop culture, the boob tube, which the late television producer Aaron Spelling provided eagerly to prime-time viewers? It was the ABC network that struck gold with the curvy police officers-turned-private detectives of the Townsend Agency, in the 1976-1981 highly popular series “Charlie’s Angels”. The phenomenon spread nationwide, and the honeys wearing holsters grew to be larger than life. The nostalgia of those who lived through the “Charlie’s Angels'” euphoria, which catapulted the small-screen sirens into super-stardom, is evident for those who can recall the euphoria. Again. After the irreverent and spry Drew Barrymore/Cameron Diaz/Lucy Liu films (and the failed, short-lived update series), the “Charlie’s Angels’ franchise has taken on a new twist that may be refreshingly acceptable to some. This property no longer has the masculine-influenced creative flair of yesteryear. Now that we are firmly in the 21st century, writer/director/co-star/co-producer Elizabeth Banks has the final say as to how her version of Charlie’s Angels will soar at the box office. Banks’s decision to infuse her crime-fighting cuties a feminist sense while still maintaining the sensualness of the original butt-kicking beauties is quite liberating. The so-called “new and improved” take on the series feels like an attempt to flesh out the synthetic soul of its rambunctious, female empowerment blend that’s all too familiar. Banks is enthusiastic in her efforts to inject some excitement and flash into this latest offering. She proves that not only the boy’s clubs can produce the popcorn-action-packed exuberance of mindless entertainment. Angels are always up to something: Roaming to exotic locales, wearing suggestive outfits or disguises, attending fancy functions, playing with explosive guns, and even defeating baddies through elaborate set pieces. The casting of the Angels also is very curious and interesting. The Angels are made up of the usually stoic Kristen Stewart (Personal Shopper) and newcomers Naomi Scott (Aladdin) and Ella Balinska (The Athena TV series). The Townsend Agency employs Jane Kano and Sabina Stewart (Stewart). This enormous organization has expanded its operations globally due to its success. The agency also provides Bosley supervisors for the women to help them with their dangerous missions. Banks plays a Bosley representative for our heroines. Other Bosley prototypes include Djimon (from “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“), and Patrick Stewart from “Star Trek: The Next Generation”, who is a retired Bosley. Elena Houghlin, played by Scott, is the network whistle-blower. She hooks up with Sabina & Jane for their protection and to help her earn her legal Angel wings. Banks’ disjointed script is too cute, especially with the subplot that involves the Calisto Project, which plays a crucial role in the world’s resources. Elena gets tangled in this project, and it’s a bit of slapstick. The Angels also have to deal with a few colorful villains that, for argument’s sake, come across as low-grade James Bond baddies. In the midst of the villainous chaos are wealthy weasel Jonny (Chris Pang from ” The Way Way back “) and unctuous Peter Fleming (“ Crazy Rich Asians”) as well as their stone-cold executor Hodak. This version of Angels attempts to reduce the skin-tightness by focusing on a feminist angle. However, this overstuffed show only succeeds in a mild way. Stewart and Balinska have a few teasing clashes and Scott, the outsider, has fun as Scott is the computer whiz who wants to be part of something crazy and adventurous. These gals, who gallop around the screen, aren’t clones of Angel wannabes past. Charlie’s Angels is not a creatively titillating film. This toothless jet-setting film is a jittery, high-flying romp that’s more of the same despite its misguided sisterhood-themed patchy intrigue.