Charlie’s Angels: Silly Reboot Fails to Capture Pizzazz of its Many Precursors

By Thom Ernst

Rating: C+ (mostly because my daughter liked it)

It’s a telling moment when prior to the screening of Charlie’s Angels an on-air radio personality picks up a microphone and polls the audience as to who has seen the original. “Those who haven’t,” she jokes, “I’m judging you. Catch up!”

I get that the role of the screening host is to pump up the audience for a good time, but is keeping up to date on the Charlie’s Angel canon of television and cinema all that essential? Is there some catching-up to do before we can fully grasp the complexities and details of this new Charlie’s Angels? And, if so, exactly what is meant by original?

When you drop the word original in a room where there are likely to be people well into their 50s, you need to be more specific. Charlie’s Angels have been around long enough that the word original is in need of some context.

If original alludes to the 70s television series, then expectations might lean towards something nostalgic and campy. If original means the Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Lucy Lui theatrical version, then bend those expectations toward something grander and more spirited.

However, on the unlikely chance that original means the 2011 single-season follow-up series, then — I’m judging you. Catch up! But regardless of which Charlie’s Angels you identify as the original, expectations should be kept low. This most recent incarnation of Charlie’s Angels is no exception.

For the few oblivious to the Charlie’s Angels template, and the handful who might need a refresher, allow me to quote from the 70s series opening credits: “Once upon a time there were three little girls who went to the police academy and they were assigned hazardous jobs. I took them away from all that. My name is Charlie.”

The diminished credibility of the Angels as “three little girls” is gone but what remains is Charlie as the unseen benefactor behind a team of kick-ass female agents. This time the Angels are Kristen Stewart (Twilight), Naomi Scott (Aladdin), and relative newcomer, Ella Balinska. They have not yet formed into the fighting trio to which the title refers, which makes this Charlie’s Angels somewhat of an origin story. That’s a shame since the Angels’ camaraderie is a signature element goes a long way in making their story work.

In this version, directed by Elizabeth Banks (Pitch Perfect 2), the Angels combine their skills for the first time when a device capable of harnessing electrical energy risks falling into the wrong hands. And while Banks’ direction tends to favour a lighter fare—hardly a villain goes down without mention that he’ll regain consciousness in a few moments—the plot which pits the Angels against an assassin, smarmy businessmen and several international set-pieces, can feel a bit too dense and convoluted for a film so firmly convicted to its PG rating.

But Banks is good at handling the action sequences; they are genuinely fun and well-executed, and Stewart gives the movie one of its better performances as Sabina, the unfiltered, bad-ass Angel. Sadly, Scotts’ turn as Elena, the adorable, somewhat blundering Angel is less affective, edging close to annoying.

Charlie’s Angels is best when the Angels kick butt, but there is little else in Banks’ update to effectively engage an audience ready for strong, positive, feminine role models. Perhaps the intent is to steer clear of sexual politics and allow the characters to have a good time. But, if that’s the case, why remake the movie? Surely, the original Angels would expect more from Charlie’s gang this time around.

Charlie’s Angels might have brought more to the feminist table this time around. Instead, it settles for being just one more entry in a catalog of rehashed action comedies.

Charlie's Angels. Directed by Elizabeth Banks. Starring Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, and Ella Balinska. Opens wide November 15.