Did anyone ask for Charlie’s Angels? It kind of just popped up out of the blue, and I felt no urgency to see it in theaters, but I tried out of principle because Elizabeth Banks directed it, and Banks has range, but cannot quite escape the gravity of supporting actor. I am also a sucker for chicks kicking butt in movies, especially if one of those chicks is a statuesque black woman, but it felt too soon after Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, my favorite one in the franchise, including the original television series which I barely remember. When the first film came out, I was not into it because it felt uneven, but the second one was perfect and eminently rewatchable. I am too old to get excited about a new iteration of Charlie’s Angels when I have already lived through two.
It did not help that Kristen Stewart is one of the titular angels. Charlie’s Angels came out before I saw her in Underwater and Seberg and began to reverse my opinion of her as a blah, one note actor cursed by Twilight. I feel as if people are trying too hard to make Stewart a thing instead of letting her work speak for itself so the mere mention of her name makes me recoil. Apparently I am not the only one who feels this way because the available showtimes dropped precipitously until it was virtually impossible to see it. There were a host of better movies showing at the time so it did not stand a chance if you also include the haters who congregate to deride a film simply for having women in the lead. They tried it with Birds of Prey, but eventually got beat back soundly yet met no resistance with this film thus leaving Banks dejected.
I added it to my queue for home viewing and got the DVD as soon as it became available on Netflix. Unfortunately I postponed watching it at home for almost two months because a global pandemic really wrecks your ability to fully concentrate on anything even a popcorn action film specifically designed to distract you and make you feel good. Charlie’s Angels is now an international private agency, but here is where the lawyer in me could not shut up. How does this work logistically because they do not have government authority to make arrests, but they are using lethal force, and the only job that we saw them get hired to do they definitely did not get paid for because that person gets recruited? How do they finance this operation and not get arrested? At one point, a character claims that they are a NGO, i.e. a non-government organization, which are usually nonprofits. Because they are basically as cool as the cinematic MI6, but with a girl power agenda—imagine if Black Panther’s Nakia was a bit more shallow, did not like to work alone and instead of actually rescuing women and girls in danger, she hooked up the organizations that help those women and girls get back on their feet. I appreciate the idea that women need to create their own institutions since the status quo was not made for them, but it really needs work. Anyway a corporate whistleblower gets their help to stop an innovative alternate energy device from being turned into an untraceable assassination device.
Charlie’s Angels’ fight scenes are outstanding and clearly the best part of the movie. One of my pet peeves in television shows and movies is that even when women are kicking butt, there is an impulse only to let them fight other women, not men, but this film does not pull any punches. In her film debut, Ella Balinska, who plays Jane, a former MI6 agent, is not a tiny woman and did all her stunts, gets regularly tossed around the room then has to bounce back and fight, and I believed it. The assassin, Hodak, played by Jonathan Tucker, whom I remember from Parenthood as the political candidate Bob Little, clearly brushed up on finding his inner Josh Stewart from The Punisher and embraced him with relish. I would have happily watched those two fight for the entire movie, no plot. I regret not paying to send the message that I want more of this please.
Generally Charlie’s Angels story works, and everyone does a good job, but it needed tightening up, a firmer rhythm and strike a more even tone. There would be really serious violence, but then it would be brushed off in a cavalier way that did not quite work. In a slightly different context, I would wonder if they were the bad guys and sociopaths. Also it felt like the story had three different goals: to establish the way that the angels operate, to give the Bosleys a story line and to relate to an every woman outsider as an entry point into becoming invested in the Angels. While the overall story worked, I am tired of relating to the weakest character instead of the strongest or most interesting one. The Bosleys storyline ended up being strong, but the revisionist history detracted from it, and it felt as if it emerged too late in the proceedings, but it ultimately delivered in the denouement. Banks should have probably just embraced her ego and said, “Fuck it. I’m going to be the lead,” made the story about her transition from being an Angel to a Bosley and go from there. There were two forgettable characters (sorry guys) who became randomly vital at the end of the film when it may have been better if their characters were just cut completely. To see the story loop back around to them was fine, but I think that the viewers were supposed to react by saying, “Ohhhhhhhh” instead of “Um, ok. Sure.”
Charlie’s Angels feel good, girl power mission became so overt that I was waiting for the mailman from Don’t Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood to appear and scream, “Message.” There should not be a single child in this movie. The white cis hetero guys bad, all girls good overly simplistic moral of this story does not land well when I know that the 52% is banging on state government doors and disobeying orders because they want to get their hair done. I need a little more nuance. It inadvertently promotes the idea that all women are secretly or potentially spies and cannot be trusted. I did appreciate the idea that if the leader shows emotion, it gives permission for those beneath her to do the same instead of imitating the emotionless action hero trope modeled when men are the action lead.
Charlie’s Angels had a great sense of humor. The chemistry between the Angels and Banks was great, and I actually laughed. I totally understand why Stewart took this role. She wanted to stretch herself and be the comedic relief, and it worked. Even Sam Claflin brought a bit of funny to his entrepreneur. Luis Gerardo Mendez as Saint was a dream, and if he existed in real life, everyone’s lives would be better, but is he a gay trope that some may find offensive since gay men do not exist to make heterosexual women’s lives better, but have lives of their own?
Charlie’s Angels was entertaining. I would definitely watch another sequel, which it probably will not get. The story fears grappling with the problematic implications of its story and the full spectrum of the humanity of women and men. More importantly, the music improves as the movie progresses, and there was a fun, random, nonsensical dance sequence. Cheese! I love cheese.