A brilliant scientist invents Calisto -- a sustainable energy source that will revolutionize the way people use power. But when Calisto falls into the wrong hands, the Angels must retrieve it before it can be used as a weapon of mass destruction.
Directed by Elizabeth Banks, Charlie's Angels is her sophomore feature film, after her directorial debut with Pitch Perfect 2. The decision to have Banks at the helm does seem peculiar given that her experience is more focused on the comedy genre (30 Rock, Scrubs, Modern Family, The 40-Year Old Virgin, Role Models, and The Lego Movie, for example) than action/adventure. However, Banks has not only directed but also written the screenplay, as well as producing and starring in the film. Clearly, this has been a passion project for her.
Starring Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, and Ella Balinska, Charlie's Angels is a hodge-podge of mediocrity. With cinematographer Bill Pope involved, there was still high expectations despite the uninspired trailers. Pope was the Director of Photography for such films as Baby Driver, Alita: Battle Angel, The Matrix, Scott Pilgrim vs The World, as well as Spider-Man 2 & 3. His back catalogue stands testament to his talents behind the camera, and yet, Charlie's Angels felt mundane and pedestrian.
This is largely to do with the writing and direction of the film. There is a clear gloss-factor to the film; a sense of sterility and over-manufactured production quality that saps any sense of authenticity from the scenes. The premise is the typical espionage story, which generally of no significance. Successful spy flicks work because of the fight choreography and action set-pieces, nonetheless, Charlie's Angels script manages to come up with high-energy set-pieces that are conventional and lifeless. There is no originality in the action, and what choreography there is, has been heavily diluted and altered with effects and quick cuts in the editing process. There are no John Wick-style long takes with wide shots to enjoy here. Everything is much closer, with a visual style that chooses to cut away from the action to focus on up-tight shots of specific elements of the action.
With routine action sequences and hacky fight choreography, Charlie's Angels has failed to meet expectations in the one area that it should have excelled in. Giving credit where credit is due--if you are comparing it to the television series or films directed by McG--this new iteration of Charlie's Angels does still have a mix of very attractive women kicking ass in espionage missions. Regardless of how clean and well shot the action is, there is nothing that one could deem memorable, and that comes down to a lack of character development in the script.
What the film does get right, is its cast. Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, and Ella Balinska do have some great organic chemistry together. Whether individually or in a team situation, this trio carries this bland continuation of the Charlie's Angels franchise. Kristen Stewart manages to come off quite charismatic and personable and injects some much-needed humour into the film's two-hour runtime. Unfortunately, the script lets her down, along with the editing (yet again), which seems to combine a lack of timing with ill-conceived dialogue and poor delivery, amalgamating into a series of quips and one-liners that fall flat over and over again.
Naomi Scott brings a dewy-eyed naivety to her role that works well visually, but Banks' script throws Scott in a passive role that gives the audience nothing to engage with. Balinska is perhaps the most competent performance of the three, doing many of her own stunts, and bringing confidence and assertiveness to the team.
Charlie's Angels is as "paint-by-numbers" as you can get. Clichéd, formulaic, and the epitome of cookie-cutter Hollywood blockbusters, the film is flashy and keeps moving from start to finish. Despite this constant movement and acceleration, there is nothing along the journey that captures the eyes, minds, or hearts of the audience, and we are left with a film that is so forgettable that not even Patrick Stewart can save it.
Inoffensive and slickly produced, Charlie's Angels will certainly kill two hours, but I wouldn't specifically seek it out.