Leave a Comment
Sixteen years after they last graced the big screen, and eight years after a failed attempt to bring them back to television, Charlie’s Angels are back for a new movie directed and written by Elizabeth Banks, and starring Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska, among others. The new Charlie’s Angels movie opens in theaters later this week, but reviews for it are finally trickling in. So what do critics of this outing for the new Angels?
Let’s start off with CinemaBlend’s own Corey Chichizola, who gave Charlie’s Angels 3.5 out of 5 stars in his review. He complimented this movie (which is a continuation of the original TV show and movies, not a straight reboot) for how it fleshed out the main characters and delivered a different kind of action compared to its cinematic predecessors, as well as expressed interest in a potential sequel.
Charlie's Angels is a strong contemporary take on the property, and Elizabeth Banks should be praised for wearing so many hats (and wigs) on the project.
Collider’s Perri Nemiroff also enjoyed Charlie’s Angels, stamping it with a B grade. Acknowledging that 2019 hasn’t been the best year for movie reboots and relaunches, Nemiroff was also pleased with Charlie’s Angels’ casting decisions, including supporting players like Patrick Stewart and Djimon Honsou, though she noted that the story itself isn’t “anything especially revolutionary.”
A highly entertaining action comedy with a winning 'close as sisters' trio that also gives a big boost to the network of Angels. If I could have walked straight from this movie into a second installment of this iteration of the franchise, I would have.
But Charlie’s Angels isn’t getting positive reviews across the board. On the negative end of the spectrum, Matt Singer from ScreenCrush gave Charlie’s Angels a 5/10 score, calling it a “less than heavenly reboot” and saying that while Kristen Stewart manages to make aspects of the movie work, there’s only so much she can do in this “uneven and over-inflated” story.
… Apart from the protagonists’ gender and a couple distinctive moments… there’s not much different here than the dozen other bland franchise entries that Hollywood releases every year. The swagger and style of these Angels as they kick butt goes a long way, but not quite far enough.
Slashfilm’s Hoai-Tran Bui fell into mixed territory with her assessment of Charlie’s Angels, giving it a 6/10 score. Although she found the tone uneven and the pacing initially slow, she found Charlie’s Angels’ attempts to be as relevant as possible to be endearing.
The 'rah-rah' feminism of Charlie’s Angels is simple, to be sure, but effective. Maybe the cynic in you will roll your eyes when Stewart declares that girls can do anything, but the optimist in you would gladly give your life to be part of a crew so cool, so empowered, and so well-dressed.
Finally, Molly Freeman from ScreenRant granted Charlie’s Angels with a 3.5 out of 5 score, acknowledging that the script has its issues, but the performances and reliance on more grounded action help even the scales and make it “a heckuva lot of fun.”
Ultimately, Charlie's Angels refreshes the spy franchise while honoring what came before, offering a much-needed update and paving the way for a whole new generation of Angels. Hopefully, we'll get to see the new Charlie's Angels return in a sequel.
Overall, it looks like Charlie’s Angels is a solid enough action movie to check out if you’re eager to visit the theater, but hardly anything exceptional. We’ll have to wait and see how audiences respond to it, and as far as box office performance is concerned, Charlie’s Angels is predicted to make $16 million domestically on opening weekend, a decrease from the original $29 million estimate.