Charlie's Angels (2019) - Review

 

“Charlie’s Angels” isn’t “Mission Impossible.” While that might seem obvious, there really isn’t a way to keep the identity of the series, in any off its incarnations, and be as serious as something like Cruise’s spy series.

That is part of the charm though. Given all of the dark and self-serious spy series or action thrillers in existence these days, it’s refreshing to see something as openly cheesy as Elizabeth Banks’ (“Wet Hot American Summer,” “The LEGO Movie”) “Charlie’s Angels.” There’s an open reverence to the past eras of female-led spy series, and the film has a retro-futuristic look to much of its sets.

It’s just all around a fun movie to watch and to experience. Banks proves to be a surprisingly excellent action director. A sequence in a rock quarry is one of the film’s best, as it dips and flows from character to character and moment to moment with surprising competence.

Also surprisingly competent is the cast, especially the main three. Naomi Scott (“Lemonade Mouth,” “Aladdin (2019)”) is charmingly innocuous for most of the film, and her slow evolution from bumbling scientist informant to full-fledged Angel is entertaining to behold. Ella Balinska (“Casualty”) has a stern presence that works well with her character’s demeanor, but absolutely stealing the show is Kirsten Stewart (“Twilight,” “Zathura”). Her wise-eyed crazed persona is excellently utilized here, and she’s a charmingly chaotic delight.

Elizabeth Banks’ role as one of the many Boselys is fine. She leans more into the cheesy side of the character’s persona, as do the rest of the film’s many Bosleys. The supporting cast is otherwise enjoyable, but no one particularly stands out to a major degree.

While everything is shot well, with competent electronic music thumping underneath some surprisingly entertaining action sequences, the plot is the film’s biggest kneecap. It’s a deep-fried bundle of cliches. Some moments come and go seemingly because the genre requires it, not the story.

Some plot moments are so out of left field they seem shoved in at the last minute, and then the film’s twist initially seems well thought out, until there’s a twist with the twist that ends up turning what could have been an interesting story take into a mediocre “oh, okay” moment.

Even some of the lines of dialogue are less clever than it seems the writers thought. Evan Spiliotopoulos (“Beauty and the Beast (2017),” “The Huntsman: Winter’s War"), David Auburn (“Proof,” “The Lake House”) and Banks create a charismatic film that has handfuls of humor that work and some handfuls that don’t. It's not that the jokes flop, it's just that there are some that get slight chuckles or none, surrounded by other jokes that are far better.

Pacing is surprisingly strong, despite what initially seems like an overly edited studio flick. The film flows briskly and keeps pace throughout, never dropping or dragging, even when it seems close to buckling. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the editing, as a few scenes have bizarre cuts where things just seem oddly set up or cut too quickly.

The film’s best aspect is without a doubt its atmosphere. This new “Angels” film has such a great sense of fun and delight, and it even manages to be silly in a few spots. There doesn’t seem to be a reason for it, other than to just create a more fun film to watch.

That’s where the film shines, as pure escapist fun. The plot has problems, and not all of the jokes work, but the chemistry of the cast, its sense of excitement and fun and the surprisingly excellent pacing end up creating a simple and silly fun time at the movies. It's less jiggle, more filler and just a basic fun time with some Angels. 3.5/5