Skip to main content

The New "Charlie's Angels" Reboot Doesn't Feel Like "Charlie's Angels," For Better and Worse: Review



If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of Hollywood execs hard at work at rebooting your favorite franchise. In an age where IP is more valuable than any movie star or original idea, everything from the past will eventually get slapped with a new coat of paint and trotted out once more for the consumption of modern audiences. This week's edition: Charlie's Angels. I'm not opposed to reboots and remakes in general, but when this reboot was announced, I couldn't help but give a vaguely melancholic shrug. It really cannot be overstated how much I loved the 2000 version and its 2003 sequel as a child. My obsession with those films led to countless viewings, a love for the original 1970s TV show, and a lifelong standom of Lucy Liu, Cameron Diaz, and my all-time fav Drew Barrymore. If Hollywood so desperately wanted to squeeze new life out of this franchise, why not do a sequel to those movies and bring back Lucy, Cameron and Drew? I would have been first in line to buy tickets to that movie, but instead we got this movie, a shiny globe-trotting reboot from Elizabeth Banks. I wasn't exactly disappointed in this movie because I wasn't expecting it to be anything more than a brand extension. It's just hard to muster much enthusiasm for something that looks and feels so different from what it was that captured my attention in the first place. My feelings about this movie are complicated for reasons that I'll explain in depth below, but to put it succinctly, I'll quote Taylor Swift and say "it isn't love, it isn't hate, it's just indifference."

In the '70s Charlie's Angels, the Angels were private detectives. In the '00s movies, they were private detectives but, confusingly, they never used that term (In one scene, Lucy Liu attempts to describe her job to her boyfriend and the best she comes up with is that she's "one third of an elite crime-fighting team backed by an anonymous billionaire"). In the 2019 version, they are spies, or, more specifically, they're "lady spies". It may have been a slow evolution, but it's a significant change. Global espionage is what this film's  dealing with, a long way from Kelly and Kris posing as ice dancers to catch a murderer. 

Banks' screenplay is more concerned with piling on generic spy movie tropes than it is with trying to engage with the iconography of this particular franchise. Though nods to the earlier incarnations are present, the classic theme song is only heard very briefly, no attempt is made to include Charlie's famous opening narration, and you'll have to wait until mid-credits scene to hear a "Good morning, Charlie!" When they tried to reboot Charlie's Angels for the small screen in 2011, one of the reasons I thought it didn't work was because it relocated the action from Los Angeles to Miami, where it was too removed from the sunny SoCal tone. This movie primarily takes place in Hamburg, Germany, which should tell you something about how it fits in with the rest of the franchise. 

The Townsend Agency is now an international NGO that many units of Angels that each have their own Bosley (Patrick Stewart, Djimon Hounsou, and Banks herself play three of the Bosleys). It's a way to build out the world, but it's not actually all that interesting. Full Throttle makes a similar mistake in thinking that we care at all about the larger organizational structure of Charlie's Angels.


Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Ballinska are well-cast the Angels, even if their characters are all a little bland. Stewart plays Sabina (a name is distractingly close to that of Kate Jackson's Sabrina from the original show) and it's her who impresses the most. She tosses off her dialogue with the coolness of a cartoon cat.

There are some changes that I did think worked for the better. It was high time that a woman got behind the camera of the franchise. Banks has all but done away with its more cheesecake-y tendencies. The Angels are still gorgeous women, but the camera is less leering than it was in the '70s. And Banks has found ways to incorporate female character who aren't just the primary Angels in ways that are clever and wise. 

But it's when the film overtly engages with its feminism that it reveals its shortcomings. It's about the empowerment of women, but it's still just an explosion-filled action flick. There are overtures made to the existence of a global network of sisterhood or something, and it's all well and good, but it's so surface-level. It's like having Jasmine in the 2019 remake of Aladdin (where she was played by Naomi Scott) sing a stupid power ballad about how she won't be speechless - feminism that's marketable to the masses. Don't these studios know that 2019 audiences can smell this kind of corporate cynicism a mile away? 

Speaking of 2019 audiences, what was up with all the guns? There are so many guns in this movie, which is an odd choice since the '00s Angels made a point of saying that they didn't use them. The gun discourse in the US has evolved so much since then that bringing back those weapons now makes it feel out of touch. Maybe I'm overthinking this. After all, the single most iconic image of this franchise is the silhouettes of the Angels holding guns.

The action scenes, in general, are fine, if that's important to you (No gravity-defying fight choreography this time around). The second half of the movie is much tighter and more enjoyable than the messy first half. And there a couple of moments of genuine humor, and one or two things that might make Charlie's Angels superfans happy. So, if you're reading this wondering if you should see the movie, I'd say it's worth your time. 

But it raises an interesting question about what happens when a franchise you once loved gets rebooted past the point of caring. This is the third time Charlie's Angels has been rebooted in less than twenty years. How much can the brand be stretched until it stops being Charlie's Angels? And when it reaches that point, when its only fans have never even heard of Farrah Fawcett, what then? When a society recycles its cultural output so often and so freely, what, if anything, has lasting value?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ranking the "Mission: Impossible" Films Worst to Best

The Mission: Impossible movies, based on the 1966-73 television series, are about Ethan Hunt and the Impossible Mission Force doing something that seems impossible at first, but always ends up being possible. Tom Cruise stars in all the films as Ethan, and other members of the team are Luther (Ving Rhames) and Benji (Simon Pegg). I like the Mission: Impossible movies because each film has a different director and thus each one has their own distinctive feel. Sure, there are a couple of constants (Cruise is in them all, they all are spy/action movies, and they all have people wearing masks - a nod to the TV show), but going into a Mission: Impossible movie you are never quite sure what you are going to get. Sometimes it's a silly fun spy franchise, other times it feels like nothing more than an excuse for Tom Cruise do to some sort of crazy stunt. Since the first film was released in 1996, there have been five movies, with a sixth on the way. Here's how I would rank the movies …

Hollwood Surprises No One at Most Self-Congratulatory Award Show of Year: Golden Globes Review

Golden Globes 2017: Review

The Golden Globes are the most pointless award show all season. They are not given by critics or people working in the industry, but rather the HFPA, a group of 89 foreign journalists who are notoriously susceptible to bribes. They nominate sometimes awful films and performances in hopes big stars will show up to their party. It is necessary when selecting a host to find someone who wouldn't feed into the HFPA's already inflated sense of self-importance. Why Amy Poehler and Tina Fey were the ideal hosts for this show is because their jokes, while very funny, were also pointed attacks at the HFPA, the individual stars in attendance, and the celebrity complex as a whole. Ricky Gervais had the same basic idea, except less mean and thus less funny. I was nervous when in August when they announced Jimmy Fallon, the talk show host with a reputation for being nice, as the host of this year's Globes. Turns out I was right to be nervous that Fallon wouldn…

Ranking the Films in the "Vacation" Series

Ranking the Films in the Vacation Series

I love the Vacation movies. They are a rumination on one man's attempts to create lasting memories for his family, like the ones he remembers from his childhood. What he does not realize is that people tend to romanticize their memories, so any attempts to recreate perfect moments will only end in frustration, heartache, and probably injury. Because we know how Clark's (Chevy Chase) struggles will end, it is funny when the Griswold family's misadventures all reach the same inevitable conclusion. Over the course of five movies, the audience has gotten to know exactly what to expect from their plans, and the fun part is watching the silly, bizarre, or sometimes downright cruel snags in the road.  Here is how I would rank the five films in the series from worst to best: