Kristen and Patrick Stewart aren’t related, but they are the best part of Charlie’s Angels
Film Reviews moviereview
Each successive incarnation of Charlie’s Angels reflects the state of pop feminism in the decade of its release. First came the original 1970s TV version, with its twin peans to women’s lib and sexual objectification; then the early ’00s reboot, less tailored toward the male gaze but still focused on a commercial facsimile of feminism that promised women could have their lip gloss and kick ass too. With that in mind, it’s appropriate that writer-director Elizabeth Banks describes the new Charlie’s Angels as a continuation of the ’00s series rather than a reboot, given that her new movie offers up a similar variety of what can be described as Splenda feminism: sweet enough in the moment, but ultimately a low-calorie substitute for the real thing.
There are a few refreshing story details that make it clear that this is the first Charlie’s Angels to be written and directed by a woman (solely, at least—a handful of women wrote for the ’70s series, and one of the three credited screenwriters on Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle is a woman). A minor villain meets his fate because he took credit for a more competent woman’s work, and the film plays with the dichotomy between invisible and objectified that drives the (overall superior) Melissa McCarthy vehicle Spy. And by this point in action-movie history, the idea that a woman can be a deadly fighter is no longer a revelation—as long as she does it in high heels, of course. The film tries to have it both ways on the latter point, adding a moment where the Angels change shoes before chasing after bad guys on foot while still including multiple fight scenes in sky-high stilettos.
The basic plot of the film is an origin story reminiscent of another decades-late sequel released earlier this year, Men In Black: International. Both revolve around a brainy female scientist, in this case software engineer Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott), who’s abruptly plopped into the world of high-stakes espionage, and finds she has a taste for it. Both women are paired up with a cocky veteran agent that originally sees her as a liability, although by the end of the movie she becomes invaluable to the operation. Actually, in this case, there are two veterans: humorless ex-MI6 agent Jane Kano (Ella Balinska), who handles the ass-kicking, and rebellious heiress/possible borderline personality Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart), whose recklessness makes her perfect for dangerous undercover work.
Together with their own personal Bosleys (first Djimon Hounsou, then Banks), the three of them set out to recover the gadget Elena’s been working on for clueless tech billionaire Alexander Brock (Sam Claflin). The object in question looks like a combination of an Alexa and a Simon game, and has what’s become a stereotypical power for spy-movie doohickeys: It’s a miraculous perpetual motion machine that would revolutionize the energy industry, but also has the potential to become a super-weapon. This one, when reversed, causes what the movie unhelpfully describes as “brain seizures.”
Despite her demonstrated indifference toward blockbuster work—this is the César award winner’s first big franchise role since the end of the Twilight series in 2012—Stewart looks like she’s having a lot of fun in Charlie’s Angels, practically skipping across the screen with a roguish sideways grin and a mischievous energy. Stewart easily gets the biggest laughs in the film, as in the scene where she wordlessly points to herself with a combination of surprise and pride when Scott makes a crack about “lady spies.” She’s matched, however briefly, by Patrick Stewart in a supporting role as one of the multiple Bosleys that work for Banks’ version of the Townsend Agency, here reimagined as an interconnected international network—rather like the Men In Black, actually. Anyhow, toward the end of the movie, the elder Stewart gets a chance to ham it up. And he does so with a version of the terrifying intensity he brought to his role in Green Room, albeit applied toward much campier ends.
In an inverse of Stewart’s performance—which is playfully realized, but limited in terms of action—Balinska is the most skilled onscreen fighter of the three, as evidenced by the wider shots and longer takes when she fights a baddie one-on-one instead of in a group. In dialogue scenes, however, she’s overshadowed every time, and her joke delivery is leaden compared to that of the Stewarts or even Banks. (Scott is somewhere in between, as befits her bland character.) As a result, both the comedy and the action are only intermittently effective, the latter further hampered by sloppy editing (both visual and auditory) and bad CGI explosions. The overall look of the film has the shiny, empty appearance of a newly rehabbed condo, and the quips about women’s love of cheese and gigantic closets have a similarly hollow sassy-greeting-card feel. But the outfits in those closets, it must be said, are fabulous.
141 Comments
They should make a sequel to Spy. that movie was a lot of fun
The movie overall is great, but I love seeing the sheer joy on the face of Jason Statham who spends the entire film making fun of himself.
everyone in that movie is having a good time, the setup and characters are far more interesting then you’d expect from the marketing and i could watch an entire movie of mccarthy making fun of that german henchman. the plot is ultimately nonsense, but its not why you’re there.
And I like that contrary to some of the ads, I like that McCarthy’s character was hypercompetent in the field. There was a lot more that can and was done with than if she was a slapstick-y fool. The kitchen fight scene was legit fun!
That lady has a very strange style of knife fighting.
Yeah, the marketing for Spy really messed that up. It looked like it was going to be just another movie about “ha! she’s a spy?!” but it ruled. Maybe my favorite Melissa McCarthy and Jason Statham roles, and I hope it gets a sequel. IIRC, it did pretty well at the box office.
Everyone is, but these are people I’d expect to have a good time. it would have been easy to make a joke that was basically “Ha-Ha! Fatty Falls down!” instead they made Melissa McCarthy’s character a great spy, and then made Jason Statham the butt of the joke. I just wouldn’t normally take him for a guy who spends much of the movie making fun of himself.
yeah, i think thats a big part of the charm- they flip your expectations and really land it
I don’t know, he comes off as having a pretty good sense of humor outside of stuff like his F&F appearances. He’s priceless in Guy Ritchie’s early stuff.
That’s been my biggest criticism of the stuff that Melissa McCarthy’s done; she’s so, so, so funny, but a lot of the stuff she’s been given to do is “watch me fall down.” I had zero desire to watch Spy and ended up loving the hell out of it.
Anyone who’s seen Crank knows Jason ain’t afraid to show his ass.
So long as it’s the edit that shows all that guy’s dick pics for ages. I’ve seen a TV version where that bit is cut out and it was lame.
“During the threat of an assassination attempt, I appeared convincingly in front of Congress as Barack Obama.”“In blackface? That’s inappropriate.”
Knowing what’s coming with his “sometimes a man just has to go to sea” line was a priceless setup.
With even more Jason Statham. Maybe have every other character except Melissa McCarthy’s go into the Face-Off machine and have everyone played by Jason Statham.
oh oh oh that is awesome idea
Goddamn, that movie was fucking hilarious. I could watch Jason Statham and Melissa McCarthy trade barbs for hours.
I wanted more Michael McDonald with painfully embarrassing gadgets.
Jason Statham rightly gets a lot of love, but Allison Janney also absolutely slayed as their boss.
She’s a national treasure.
For as broad as that movie was, some of the little touches are what gave me the biggest laughs – like her breaking that wooden silhouette in half.
No—then we’d have to deal with a rash of “Spy vs. Spy” articles.
That scene in Paris with the German techno band ridiculousness was peak chef’s kiss.
When she takes the mic, I was embarrassed how much I laughed
Don’t be—it was amazing watching someone dressed as the apex of American mom grab a microphone from the zenith of modern European cheesiness.
we’ll get one 5 years too late and it will be awful, as all years-later comedy sequels are.
A spin off with Jason Statham’s character is required.
I watched Spy on Netflix knowing absolutely nothing about it and (stupidly, I admit) thinking it was one of those cookie cutter, Big Bang Theory type “comedies”. I don’t think I have even been more pleasently surprised by a movie. Legitimately one of the funniest movies this century.Her berating the Swedish dude all movie is goddamn amazing.
Spy was great. I’d watch a sequel just about Rose Byrne’s hair.
I find Paul Feig’s desperate attempts to ride the feminist train all the way to box office relevance forced and disingenuous, but with that being said, I thought Spy was pretty good. The cast certainly helped that one, and the fact the movie was much smarter than the trailers suggested.
Sir Patrick is the villain, isn’t he. Just guessing based on trailers.
Didn’t see the trailers but as soon as the review said that P. Stew got to ‘ham it up’ I thought ‘big villain reveal monologue, right?’
The review doesn’t help by saying he has a “terrifying intensity” near the end of the movie.
Comparing it to when he played a Nazi is also a bit of a hint.
I didn’t even see him in the trailers and commercials. All I saw was Elizabeth Banks about twelve times a second, plus three other women here and there. Who’s directing this movie again?
When you’ve got multiple Bosleys, one of them’s got to be the bad guy. And, well — without wanting to sound like That Guy* — a movie which “reflects the state of pop feminism” in the 2010s and has a choice between making an elderly white guy, a woman or a black man a villain sure as shit isn’t going with Options B or C.*Because if true, it honestly doesn’t bother me at all. Really, I genuinely mean that. Sorry if I sound sarcastic.
He’s got an accent, so obviously.
Ella Balinska’s mom is Lorraine Pascale of Food Network Seasonal Baking Championship fame. That’s all.
Yeah, I only found that out a few days ago. You can see where she gets her looks from. And possibly her cooking skills.
“Bland” sounds like one of the names they’d give to Ann on Arrested Development.
Her?
Egg?
I don’t want you to get her all glittered up for Easter.
I’m pretty sure both Maebe and Michael refer to her as “Bland”.
Apparently you’re right, according to this: https://apps.npr.org/arrested-development/joke-146.html“Blank” might be my favorite.
this felt like half of a review
And in SERIOUS need of being looked over by an editor.
Aw, look who thinks the A.V. Club employs editors.
Remember when AV Club comments weren’t about the syntax and grammar of the piece and were actually thoughtful about the piece’s subject?
No.
Yeah, me neither. What’s this guy talking about?
Yes, thus thisismyusername’s “half a review” comment.
I think you misread Dawsboss’s comment.
Old AV Club comments made fun of everything.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaait a minute. Ella Balinska is the engineer, and Naomi Scott is the veteran agent? That doesn’t sound right.
This seems like the kind of movie you find on a streaming service 2 years from now and you’re like “What? When did this get made and why?” Then you go back to forgetting it ever existed
It’s on Amazon Prime right now, that’s where I saw it.
“With that in mind, it’s appropriate that writer-director Elizabeth Banks describes the new Charlie’s Angels as a continuation of the ’00s series rather than a reboot”Just wanted to note, the original films were explicitly a continuation of the 70’s series, just with the original Angels having long since retired and new ones brought in. Also, io9’s review hasn’t posted yet as of this writing, but I’m gonna bet on it being super ultra positive about the movie.
they’re super ultra positive about every movie
Is there something io9 doesn’t love?
restraint, as far as i can tell
Gave this a Muttley chuckle, have a star.
They didn’t like Gemini Man.
as someone who hates everything, that’s better than hating everything.
Honestly, I kinda envy their ability to find joy in things.
Heads up, y’all swapped Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska on accident in your description of the plot. Scott plays the scientist and Balinska the MI6 agent.
“Kristen and Patrick Stewart aren’t related, but they are the best part of Charlie’s Angels”Parts. Kristen and Patrick Stewart aren’t the same person, therefore they are the best *parts* of Charlie’s Angels.
aren’t you such a pluralist today
Stewarts pluribus unum.
No fight scenes set to The Prodigy and 100% more Kristen Stewart.Yeah, that’s gonna be a no for me, dawg.
100% more of zero is not one
At least it sounds like Patrick Stewart gets to have a fun heel turn like Sam Rockwell in the old one. That was the movie that made me really take notice of Rockwell.
That was the film that taught me the unmatched power of Sam Rockwell plus evil plus dancing.
Not Confessions of a Dangerous Mind?
I haven’t seen that film, but that sure looks like prime Rockwell.
This and The Way Way Back make for a great Rockwell double feature.
Sam Rockwell in Moon trying to get Sam Rockwell to dance:
The movie was smart enough to know when you cast Sam Rockwell, he gotta dance. It’s law.
Isn’t it “paean”? “Pean” sounds like a word a little kid would use for “penis”.
I think it’s “paella”.
“Patella.” The word you’re thinking of is “patella.”
ACKSHULLY it’s “Nutella.”
I think you’ll find it’s Pattinson. This is a stealth Twilight reboot.
Enrico! Paella! Enrico! Paella!
Hey, it’s Enrico Palazzo!
Let’s call the whole thing offal.
Pi-jae-ya.
“Splenda feminism: Sweet enough in the moment, but ultimately a low-calorie substitute for the real thing.”Not sure what this means. What is “real” feminism? Is it the bit about high-heel shoes that makes it artificial?
Real feminism is the kind that a True Scotsman would support.
Real feminism in terms of storytelling is creating strong females. Ellen Ripley and Furiosa never needed us to tell us they were strong women. They just were strong and women.
There was no chance that this was going to be any good.
Aren’t Patrick and Kristin father and daughter?
She’s a little young to be his father.
Yeah. She’s obviously his aunt.
Guys, they’re clearly identical twins.
But if they keep aging at the same rate, she’ll catch him sometime around 2025.
Not for nothing, but when was the last time you saw the 2000 version of Charlie’s Angels? You said it was less tailored to the male gaze but, as CinemaSins so handily pointed out this morning, half their solutions are to use dude’s horniness against them. They dress up in Oktoberfest outfits and dance for two random guys. Cameron Diaz dances in a pair of little boys ninja turtle underwear. There was an awful lot of male-gaze going on in that one.
hate these all female reboots
Yeah, the all-male Charlie’s Angels was much better.
That would be the joke.
I dont understand. Could you explain jokes to me?
I can’t.
Presumably not a franchise film unless it’s really big at the box office but Kristen Stewart is appearing in this big budget remake of Leviathan that was made in 2017 but coming out in 2020.
Don’t insult Leviathan like that. The only thing this has in common with Leviathan is that it’s underwater. This seems more like Deep Star Six…
Don’t get me wrong, I liked Leviathan. Must have seen it at least half a dozen times on VHS. Calling something a remake usually is the insult because those rarely come close to matching their predecessor, never mind surpassing it (see for example Charlie’s Angels or based on this review perhaps not).Also to be fair … like Leviathan, Deep Star Six also had a Robocop alumnus blowing up on screen; in this case the great Miguel Ferrer while this has T.J. Miller. Again not a fair contest really.
Splenda feminism: sweet enough in the moment, but ultimately a low-calorie substitute for the real thing.Is anybody going into a Charlie’s Angels movie expecting real insight into feminism? The whole tv/movie franchise has been about hot/funny/fun in every incarnation.
True!
If every incarnation of Charlie’s Angels is not sufficiently feminist, maybe Charlie’s Angels has nothing to do with feminism and never did? As female representation on screen increases, we’re approaching the point when 50% of movies aren’t quite feminist enough.
❤️ ❤️ ❤️ I’m a very naughty and lewd girl! Please punish me… >> miranda.24sex.best ❤️ ❤️ ❤️
Crispin Glover would make a great Bosley. Just saying.
Then the early ’00s reboot, less tailored toward the male gaze… I’m sorry, did we watch the same movie?Because other than Sam Rockwell dancing to a remix of the Godzilla theme, pretty much ALL I can remember from that turd is Cameron Diaz shaking her ass at the camera, Lucy Liu being a dominatrix to a whole office and Drew Barrymore’s gratuitous underboob cleavage/knocking on a kid’s door naked.So when its sequel centered its ad campaign around the lady’s asses, I felt comfortable skipping it.
It took three people to write “Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle.” Think about that.
Yeah. And the guy that came up with the “Charlie’s Angels:” bit wasn’t really pulling his weight.
Well, I’m thinking the keyboard they were using was HUGE.
the early ’00s reboot, less tailored toward the male gaze
As I didn’t actually see the film in full, all I knew about it was that it featured some of them dancing in their underwear and putting some sort of Pussycat Dolls-esque performance, so now I wonder just what the tv version could have been getting away with in the seventies.
It might not be super racy by today’s standards but “jiggle TV” as it was known, shocked people at the time (female protagonists in bikinis, or in nothing but a towel, or other sexy outfits, running around with bosoms bouncing…) It was ratings gold for ABC, but controversial.
The reboot had a scene where Cameron Diaz danced in her underwear for three minutes for no real reason so I don’t know where they are getting this from.
Cameron Diaz REALLY likes–no, wait, hear me out–she REALLY likes to just find reasons to dance in her movies, whether it makes any sense or not.
I suspect Cameron Diaz was on drugs around then. I appreciated her effort into attempting to be a comedienne when she wasn’t to the manner born, but it devolved into demented mugging (why her role in Vanilla Sky was actually pretty effective).
See also: The Sweetest Thing. The outtakes of Christina Applegate are delightful. The ones of Cameron Diaz are embarrassing.
The sweetest thing is an underrated comedy for sure. Christina Applegate is a treasure in everything she is in
If you consider pot a drug it’s pretty established she’s usually on drugs
Yes, running around a mile a minute with a deranged look on your face is really consistent with pot use, well reasoned.
So now they’ve remade Charlie’s Angels with all women? The feminists are out of control.
Kristen Stewarts obvious joy in the trailer was what sold me on this movie. I don’t think I’ve ever seen her looking that happy and lighthearted. As somoene who grew up with the 70’s show and watched them replace Angel after Angel, there’s literally no sacred cow here. If the movie is semi-decent then it does justice to the franchise.
Totally agree with you! Even the Drew Barrymore’s versions were not Oscar quality, but they were fun. From the trailers and the fact that Elizabeth Banks always made fun and enjoyable movies, I think this one is gonna be good like the previous ones too.
Was Tessa Thompson a brainy female scientist in “MIB International?” I don’t remember that part, but maybe I’ve just completely forgotten it.
Huh, I thought this was a TV show until I read this.
Wait is patrick stewart the secret bad guy? Can we have one spy movie where it’s not a double cross. Just one.
Clearly, the good guys have gone rogue because of how shittily they were treated the last time we thought they went rogue because of how shittily they were treated the time before that.
“Each successive incarnation of Charlie’s Angels reflects the state of pop feminism in the decade of its release.”Fucking WHAT?What in the world have you been watching? Charlies Angels was all Eyecandy right from start! Yes, it was always woman, but the women were placed to attract MALE audience.I do remember Farrah Fawcett Mayors, the hottest Woman that TV had to show. If i try to remember her i see her big broad smile. Also playing with male “weaknesses” / “the weapons of women” to gain their targets.And now, what we do have here?Those persons are males played by women. Playing it cool, doing tough male actions, moving Bosley also to be a woman. The only thing missing are beards.How stupid is that? Bosley was never an alpha male, he was more a loyal servant, doing chores for the girls, his position was one usually women had: a Secretary!Remember the last Ghostbusters Movie? Same concept. Take a movie with a male crew and just replace it with woman.Did it work? NO! Will this Charlies Angel work? No, it will bomb.And NO i am not right wing woman hating incel, i am totally on medicare for all, unions fair treatmen of workers. Womens right(Yes).Do not even try to blame male readers here, watch how the movies succeeds. Did it attract a big feminist audience? Did this mutilation pay out?
I hate to admit it since I know it was trash but I honestly really like those McG movies… and I am sure I’ll give this version a try.
I saw it last night and thought it was delightful! Yes, it’s silly – it’s Charlie’s Angels, after all – but it’s fun and Kristen Stewart’s comedic timing was a huge surprise to someone used to only seeing her in a few indie films and some awkward live performances. It was absolutely predictable with zero surprises, and I do wish that a few of the other lead performances were stronger, but it was an enjoyable way to spend two hours, and the cameos at the end were fun.Plus it had that sort of Buffy Season Seven “we’re all the Slayer now” thing going for it, which was the only good thing that Buffy had going for it in Season Seven, so.Edited to add: it’s worth the price of the ticket for the Ben Affleck joke alone. Dang, Elizabeth Banks. I guess someone’s off the Christmas Card list. (and yes, the whole audience laughed loudly at it.)
YES! Exactly what I expected from Elizabeth Banks’ movies: fun and enjoyable to watch. Also, Kristen Stewart being all loose and fun? Cannot wait to watch it. Thank you!
Kristen Stewart was SO funny. She’s found her calling in films like this, I think.
Re-watched Adventureland recently. Enjoyed Kristen Stewart’s performance in that one.
I’m still going to see this, right? I’m still going to see this.
Has the headline been changed?Well it does mean the other angels are less good then Kristen. And sorry not even Patrick will get me into this… “movie”. You just devalued the movie and the other two actresses yourself.:)
Hey let the feminists stream into this movie and make it a phenomenal success.But don’t blame others if it bombs. It has to attract an audience and if it does not have one, its not my fault or other “womanhaters”. Its just a bad movie (yes even with patrick) and even “normal” men don’t have much interest in it.
I and other womanhaters will not be in front of cinemas and keep anyone from watching. We will be watching movies with better stories, better drawn strong female characters like “Sarah Connor”, “Alita” or hey, Miss Marple Margeret Rutherford.
More fun than Full Throttle, less fun than Charlie’s Angels 2000.Except for Kristen Stewart, whose detached delivery of pretty much every line stole the show.
I will agree that Ella Balinska was the least charming of the three but I thought Naomi Scott was the most engaging. Kristen Stewart was hit or miss but at least it looks like she’s having fun? The movie as a whole kind of took itself too seriously for my taste which made it less fun for me. Say what you want about the McG movies, but those were a blast. Or maybe Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu are charasmistic actors that made them really enjoyable. Still unsure of this latest trio.