After so many adaptations, for the first time the universe of the Townsend Agency is in the hands of a woman. Elizabeth Banks took on the role of director, screenwriter, producer and actress of the new reboot that no one necessarily asked for, but that eventually manages to bring something new with the comfort in which it exists between action scenes that do not spare the right use of the environment and the scenarios. This new adaptation subverts some industry standards, but in no way gives up what is the franchise's DNA. In other words, sensuality is still present as a weapon in the agents' missions, but in a more intelligent way: flirting more with feminism and unpretentious humor.
Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart) and Jane Kano (Ella Balinska) are two Charlie's Angels who need to set aside differences when embarking on an international adventure with the new Bosley (Elizabeth Banks) and scientist Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott). They must prevent a new energy program from becoming a threat to humanity and find out who is behind such an evil plan.
Actress and director Elizabeth Banks takes over the direction of this new chapter with the mastery of those who know the universe of Charlie's Angels, developing the plot with a lot of reference to the past, which will make the fans of the series and films happy, in addition to updating the story when necessary; after all, both the series and the films of the 2000s have always been a portrait of the time in which they were set and showed women as strong and independent beings from men. And this film, my friends, is more than current in this regard. The Charlie's Angels navigate the waters of the new "wave of feminism" that has taken Hollywood in recent years, and takes advantage of this to assume a distinct place among all the other versions of this story that have already reached the screens. But it shouldn't be a film that needs to remember all the time that this is a story of women who take advantage of a supposedly naive appearance, and of an almost naturalized instinct for men not to feel threatened by the female sex, to fulfill their obligations. Missions and punching armed men and men in suits. In contrast, that is exactly what the film does. In many instances, it is unnecessarily attached to an extremely didactic explanation of the objectives themselves, instead of showing in a practical way what it came from - from beginning to end. Some feminist messages are hammered into the public's head, without any subtlety. Remember Ghostbusters (2016)? The Charlie's Angels are already opening with a guy wanting to disparage women. He's the villain. But everything is conducted in such a heavy and artificial way that in the dialogue the subject practically says that "a woman's place is in the kitchen". Knowing that this is a film that relies on feminism, it becomes a bad start - almost an anvil falling on the head.
Other than that, virtually none of the feature's jokes work, and it becomes excruciating. The feature's humor is generic by inserting ready-made jokes and random reference puns; the most situational comedy that the previous ones created is lacking, mainly when they put men to be easily deceived and manipulated by the protagonists for a mission, something that happens in one or another creative moment in the beginning, but like the action, it does not last. This question of durability has a lot to do with the distribution of the plot cores, which spends a lot of time betting on the dynamics of a novice with two experienced ones in conflict.
In action, the script facilitates or makes it difficult when you want, but you never allow yourself to exaggerate too much or step into seriousness with more consequences, even because of the indicative classification. At times, he flirts with the mockery or that seriousness, presenting real risks to the characters and, in both cases, they are slightly exciting, but he passes very quickly due to Banks' little ability to conduct them on camera, appealing to that logic of a frantic succession of cuts that makes it difficult to understand geographically what is happening. Not to mention that video game identity and its succession of challenges are abandoned, but at least this is consistent with the proposal that is actually linked to espionage, in the assembly of those complex plots of betrayals and interests revolving around technological artifacts or specific documents. Of which a range of people are chasing.
The action and fight scenes rarely get really exciting and need a more precise montage. The script, her first, is inconsistent and incoherent, with narrative arcs that needed a clearer direction. As a consequence, the balance between action and comedy falls short of the potential shown all the time, giving the melancholy feeling that he is one step closer to being great. A possible shortcoming of the feature for some is that when we compare this film to other spy films, we never feel urgency in the situations that the spies go through. But even with this "script problem" at the end, the result is positive. Not to mention that some catchphrases are misplaced and a dance scene, as cool as it may be, happens absolutely nothing. For this reason, the dynamics between the three protagonists suffer. There is an arc over two of them being opposites and trying to get closer which is confusing and not at all cohesive in their development.
As a lot of time is spent on these aspects, even to develop them carefully and provide for the renewal of the franchise, there is little left to actually take advantage of the dynamics of the three together in the adventure, which mixes action with comedy. Even if they spend a lot of time together, the proposal to still be a team in formation is not as skillful as it would be if this stage had been skipped. It is that tiredness syndrome of original films, which, even though it is understandable in view of the history to be considered, is a safe game that is more exciting for continuity than when it is really happening. Because the three when together are great, they have very distinctive chemistry and personalities that complement each other and can be pillars for a new, more promising film sequence. Naomi Scott plays the innocent but fearless Elena, a scientist at a company about to launch an energy-generating device capable of revolutionizing the world, which upon discovering its risk of being used as a weapon, becomes a target to be saved by Jane and Sabina. Ella Balinska makes an impressive debut. Imposing, not only does she own the best action scenes, but she shows layers behind her character's calculated coolness. However, the show itself is by Kristen Stewart. Fitting like a glove on a paper with a more comical approach, she conquers the audience with charm, obstinacy and assertiveness, delivering her lines with such sagacity in her voice that steals every moment she appears. Sabina has a very unique personality and the actress does well by not letting her performance fall into the caricature.
However, feminism is not always presented organically in the plot. Elizabeth Banks ends up playing it safe and uses a lot of discourse to play with everyday situations, with which the public will certainly identify. As a joke, this feature works. But, in a broader sense, it gives a banal air to the film, as if it were just another one trying to surf in this "fashion". The biggest problem with Charlie's Angels is its script. In the direction, if Banks demonstrates a certain immaturity in the sense of an unnecessary stretch in the script, with revelations stuck in twists that leave something to be desired in the sense of holding the viewer within the story. Fat is noticeable when the weave stretches and ends up yielding to joints that leave little to the imagination and fall into repetition, easily avoided if the final cut was less passionate about the idea of taking extremely seriously what could - and should - be mere trickery to arrive at the idea that, in the end, men are naturally not more reliable or valuable than women.
In addition, the director and screenwriter does not create moments that resonate with the audience (such as there is no great scene of memorable action), she also does not compromise, leaving everything on automatic. She delivers (or her team) good photography, good art direction, and especially good costumes. It is also always good to highlight the soundtrack of the always great Bryan Tyler and the music score, especially the partnership between Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus and Lana Del Rey, who recorded a collaboration entitled "Don't Call Me Angel", shown in the final credits. Of the feature. But what doesn't really go round is the text. We waited, but the film never took off, perhaps out of insecurity. The film is fully aware of the franchise's tacky and absurd approach, which is a good sign. By bringing elements from previous works, "Charlie's Angels" conquers fans of the old ones and expands the universe.
Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart) and Jane Kano (Ella Balinska) are two Charlie's Angels who need to set aside differences when embarking on an international adventure with the new Bosley (Elizabeth Banks) and scientist Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott). They must prevent a new energy program from becoming a threat to humanity and find out who is behind such an evil plan.
Actress and director Elizabeth Banks takes over the direction of this new chapter with the mastery of those who know the universe of Charlie's Angels, developing the plot with a lot of reference to the past, which will make the fans of the series and films happy, in addition to updating the story when necessary; after all, both the series and the films of the 2000s have always been a portrait of the time in which they were set and showed women as strong and independent beings from men. And this film, my friends, is more than current in this regard. The Charlie's Angels navigate the waters of the new "wave of feminism" that has taken Hollywood in recent years, and takes advantage of this to assume a distinct place among all the other versions of this story that have already reached the screens. But it shouldn't be a film that needs to remember all the time that this is a story of women who take advantage of a supposedly naive appearance, and of an almost naturalized instinct for men not to feel threatened by the female sex, to fulfill their obligations. Missions and punching armed men and men in suits. In contrast, that is exactly what the film does. In many instances, it is unnecessarily attached to an extremely didactic explanation of the objectives themselves, instead of showing in a practical way what it came from - from beginning to end. Some feminist messages are hammered into the public's head, without any subtlety. Remember Ghostbusters (2016)? The Charlie's Angels are already opening with a guy wanting to disparage women. He's the villain. But everything is conducted in such a heavy and artificial way that in the dialogue the subject practically says that "a woman's place is in the kitchen". Knowing that this is a film that relies on feminism, it becomes a bad start - almost an anvil falling on the head.
Other than that, virtually none of the feature's jokes work, and it becomes excruciating. The feature's humor is generic by inserting ready-made jokes and random reference puns; the most situational comedy that the previous ones created is lacking, mainly when they put men to be easily deceived and manipulated by the protagonists for a mission, something that happens in one or another creative moment in the beginning, but like the action, it does not last. This question of durability has a lot to do with the distribution of the plot cores, which spends a lot of time betting on the dynamics of a novice with two experienced ones in conflict.
In action, the script facilitates or makes it difficult when you want, but you never allow yourself to exaggerate too much or step into seriousness with more consequences, even because of the indicative classification. At times, he flirts with the mockery or that seriousness, presenting real risks to the characters and, in both cases, they are slightly exciting, but he passes very quickly due to Banks' little ability to conduct them on camera, appealing to that logic of a frantic succession of cuts that makes it difficult to understand geographically what is happening. Not to mention that video game identity and its succession of challenges are abandoned, but at least this is consistent with the proposal that is actually linked to espionage, in the assembly of those complex plots of betrayals and interests revolving around technological artifacts or specific documents. Of which a range of people are chasing.
The action and fight scenes rarely get really exciting and need a more precise montage. The script, her first, is inconsistent and incoherent, with narrative arcs that needed a clearer direction. As a consequence, the balance between action and comedy falls short of the potential shown all the time, giving the melancholy feeling that he is one step closer to being great. A possible shortcoming of the feature for some is that when we compare this film to other spy films, we never feel urgency in the situations that the spies go through. But even with this "script problem" at the end, the result is positive. Not to mention that some catchphrases are misplaced and a dance scene, as cool as it may be, happens absolutely nothing. For this reason, the dynamics between the three protagonists suffer. There is an arc over two of them being opposites and trying to get closer which is confusing and not at all cohesive in their development.
As a lot of time is spent on these aspects, even to develop them carefully and provide for the renewal of the franchise, there is little left to actually take advantage of the dynamics of the three together in the adventure, which mixes action with comedy. Even if they spend a lot of time together, the proposal to still be a team in formation is not as skillful as it would be if this stage had been skipped. It is that tiredness syndrome of original films, which, even though it is understandable in view of the history to be considered, is a safe game that is more exciting for continuity than when it is really happening. Because the three when together are great, they have very distinctive chemistry and personalities that complement each other and can be pillars for a new, more promising film sequence. Naomi Scott plays the innocent but fearless Elena, a scientist at a company about to launch an energy-generating device capable of revolutionizing the world, which upon discovering its risk of being used as a weapon, becomes a target to be saved by Jane and Sabina. Ella Balinska makes an impressive debut. Imposing, not only does she own the best action scenes, but she shows layers behind her character's calculated coolness. However, the show itself is by Kristen Stewart. Fitting like a glove on a paper with a more comical approach, she conquers the audience with charm, obstinacy and assertiveness, delivering her lines with such sagacity in her voice that steals every moment she appears. Sabina has a very unique personality and the actress does well by not letting her performance fall into the caricature.
However, feminism is not always presented organically in the plot. Elizabeth Banks ends up playing it safe and uses a lot of discourse to play with everyday situations, with which the public will certainly identify. As a joke, this feature works. But, in a broader sense, it gives a banal air to the film, as if it were just another one trying to surf in this "fashion". The biggest problem with Charlie's Angels is its script. In the direction, if Banks demonstrates a certain immaturity in the sense of an unnecessary stretch in the script, with revelations stuck in twists that leave something to be desired in the sense of holding the viewer within the story. Fat is noticeable when the weave stretches and ends up yielding to joints that leave little to the imagination and fall into repetition, easily avoided if the final cut was less passionate about the idea of taking extremely seriously what could - and should - be mere trickery to arrive at the idea that, in the end, men are naturally not more reliable or valuable than women.
In addition, the director and screenwriter does not create moments that resonate with the audience (such as there is no great scene of memorable action), she also does not compromise, leaving everything on automatic. She delivers (or her team) good photography, good art direction, and especially good costumes. It is also always good to highlight the soundtrack of the always great Bryan Tyler and the music score, especially the partnership between Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus and Lana Del Rey, who recorded a collaboration entitled "Don't Call Me Angel", shown in the final credits. Of the feature. But what doesn't really go round is the text. We waited, but the film never took off, perhaps out of insecurity. The film is fully aware of the franchise's tacky and absurd approach, which is a good sign. By bringing elements from previous works, "Charlie's Angels" conquers fans of the old ones and expands the universe.