Rating: Irrelevant, because people have already made up their minds.
Basically: I don’t think this deserves as much hate and vitriol as people have been giving it.
Summary: The Angels tap into the silliness of the James Bond series and make it pretty badass.
A couple of years ago, I got mad at a little movie called Skyfall, because it shat all over one of the longrunning myths of James Bond that the persona James Bond was actually a real person and not a code name that was assigned to several different agents over the course of time. You know, similar to how M went from Dame Judi Dench to Ralph Fiennes. I mean, I guess that’s what the 007 is for, but there’s a lot of plot holes around this if we are to assume that Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig are all one and the same. Like just exactly how old is this guy? Is Goldeneye still cannon- or wait, did M meet James twice and forget about the first time and just exactly how many loves of his life does he have because I saw that Teri Hatcher one and she ain’t no Eva Green.
There are a lot of good things about Charlie’s Angels. What I appreciated most is that there was thoughtful construction of the Townsend Agency and thus the world-building, which if this moves into a series-like territory or magically gets a sequel (I’m not hopeful), this is a really good set up. There were gadgets galore, some bad puns, many different kinds of people and hey, now I get why people like Kristen Stewart. She’s pretty charming in this. The girl power aspect was there and prominent- I think- that didn’t beat me over the head with it, with the exception of a side plot to deliver feminine hygiene products. That’s one of the few not so great things in there and some of the bonding scenes seem forced, but for the most part I found it really engaging, surprisingly funny, and a solid movie.
Anyway. I saw this movie a few weeks ago and I’ve been hesitant to post this considering that everyone is so quick to dismiss any sort of positive praise heading towards this movie. Charlie’s Angels. I’m not going to say it was perfect and I’m not even going to say it’s on par with the Lucy Liu version, but I really liked this despite all the negativity (mostly) from Twitter. It seems to be the same crowd that was intent on giving bad reviews to Ghostbusters, Dark Phoenix, Captain Marvel, and Daisy Ridley in the Disney trilogy of Star Wars.
This is a bad trend that is happening to women’s movies- they’re just not X enough or they’re too X. It can never be serious enough, or no no- that’s too serious. This is too realistic to be fun, but this particular moment that was obviously left in because its badass isn’t realistic enough. She’s too pretty to be a spy, but can’t she at least put some lipstick on? The Rock can leap from a truck to chain up a helicopter, but we can’t expect Ella Balinski to knock a human being unconscious? Why does Dave Bautista get a pass on the ridiculousness in Stuber and but not Stewart in this movie? This Female Protagonist can’t possibly be having the same or more inner turmoil as Some Male Protagonist from the 55th Marvel movie and if she is, this movie is just a sad, unoriginal attempt at something we already saw. We can see that twist from a mile away or wait, this twist doesn’t make any sense! (Note, “twist” is an overused phrase and it’s getting confused with “reveal,” please get your shit together.)
I don’t know where all the hate comes from, but I do want to say that if you’re watching a movie with the intent of hating it or that you feel somehow “oppressed” by it and think that this movie is against you, then why do you even watch movies?