Kristen Stewart was the only funny character, the movie is a complete mess but I'm not the target, I think this movie is for young people mostly girls.
Not funny.
Not remarkable.
This is a sexist movie where all man are evils.
Sometimes it's a good thing when you have your expectations very low, when I saw the trailer I think this was gonna be atrocious, but i think it was actually fun to watch and Kristen S. is really comfortable here. Plus, I really like Elizabeth Banks! The soundtrack is a win and the action scenes are also very good. Nothing remarkable, but it is entertaining.
I did not laugh one single time during this movie.
Telling that almost all of the bad reviews of this are written by men. Why is every movie about strong women, doing the things and have the cringy dialogue every mission impossible movie has, suddenly a ‘feminist’ movie? Is it a great movie? No, probably not. But it’s fun and if we can all admit that it’s just as decent as a lot of action movies with a male protagonist it will save everyone a lot of time and energy.
I almost liked Charlie's Angels... until I realized not disliking a film isn't the same thing as liking it.
I didn't expect to not dislike this as much as I didn't. (Yes, I know, welcome to my brain.) Elizabeth Banks turns out to be a very competent director and Kristen Stewart (who I usually find extremely overrated) proves she can actually smile, though I'd love for her to find at least one other voice register. I also appreciated the film's albeit heavy handed woman-power slant--it beats the hell out of the alternative.
The problem I had with the Angels is the story and the action. Both were well filmed, yet neither were terribly original. We've seen it all before, and either I'm more intelligent than anyone thinks or the twists were pretty obvious from the outset. Still, none of these drawbacks will prevent you from not disliking the movie!
Rebooting a movie, that was a reboot of an old TV-Show. When will Hollywood learn?
This was just really, really, bad. They took everything that was good with the TV series and the movies and flushed it down the toilet. No wonder Hollywood is going broke. No new ideas, just "updating" old franchises that don't need updating. What about coming up with something new for a change, instead of riding the success of others while trying to undermine their work.
No fun, no charm, no story to speak of, über cringy dialogue, and very, very unlikeable characters. Even the action scenes are stale. If someone would just take some competent writers and directors and give these women a chance on a real movie (Maybe a NEW franchise for a change), I'm sure they would shine, but in this piece of utter crap...they certainly don't.
Elizabeth Banks might be a decent actress, but a particularly good director and writer, she is not.
Wokeness is going to be the bane of Hollywood...
wow that was a plain shitty movie. I seriously hope Elizabeth Banks never gets to direct another movie again
I'm a fan of the old tv show, and even liked the slightly crappy rebooted show that came out a while ago. I even like the McG films from last decade. I hoped I would enjoy this film, but to be honest, it is a bit underwhelming. It tries too hard to be feminist. The action is weak. And the story is a bit of an uneven jumble. I will probably give it another go sometime, but Angels, you really do deserve better.
An odd flick. It tries to be both an old-type movie with pretty girls being an eye-candy, and a progressive modern one with strong female leads. Only it fails to be any of that. Action is nothing special, characters are boring, and there's not a single funny joke.
If it wasn't for Kristen Stewart, I wouldn't even have watched it and that would probably be a better decision.
THIS IS JUST EMBARRASSING! Hollywood come on!
This movie was just bad. Zero redeeming features.
A forgettable action movie with nothing really special about this. At least Kristen Stewart and Naomi Scott are fun.
The film is decent with nice cameos and good action. I expected Kristen Stewart to be spaced out with her mouth open for 2 hrs. She stands out the most. With a slightly odd ball character she plays well.
Elizabeth Banks isn’t bad in the film. I don’t get her off screen though. She made a movie where women are the target audience. Most men in it are sexist idiots.
Yet, when the film bombed at the box office it’s the fault of the sexist idiot men who didn’t see it ? How ? When women are the target audience.
Plus you can’t make an anti men movie and expect them to rush to see it.
7.5/10 - Haha, that was surprisingly entertaining :D
It surprisingly wasn't cheesy at all (well, maybe a few times a little bit but it definitely wasn't annoying IMO - it was more fun than cheesy). It's obviously not something to think about (too) much or take seriously though.
I was quite surprised but very happy when Charles Xavier (:D) walked in at the beginning. I really like Patrick Stewart as an actor. But for me he's always that good guy (Charles or Picard). Therefore I didn't see that twist coming and my brain still cannot comprehend it :D (But tbh I didn't really like that twist, it somehow didn't feel really meaningful.) Patrick Stewart with glasses was really funny though :D
Anyway, IMO it started off really good but then it didn't quite manage to keep it up (but it also didn't fall off too much).
I also appreciate it that many scenes took place in Germany (Hamburg and Berlin). It's just nice to see a few places I've been to in movies.
The main cast (the two and a half angels) are great as well. I didn't know about Ella Balinska (Jane) before but I liked her very much. She's badass, smart, and pretty - or in other words: awesome! Plus those scenes where she flirted with that nerd/scientist were really great! "You put your mouth on it." xD
Naomi Scott is super cute/pretty and her acting is always a pleasure to watch. However, her character wasn't that interesting. She was neither a real nerd (she could be a cool/smart programmer but that part wasn't convincing and there were also only very few scenes) nor a badass. She provided a bit of fun though. And that scene where she was briefly rapping was one of the best scenes <3
And last but not least: Kirsten Stewart. She's very good at acting out crazy characters :D E.g. that scene at the boat where she makes the faces to the kid was great! She looks quite different from how I remember her though. If it wasn't for her character I might even have some trouble recognizing her :D
"Saint" was also a cool character.
"Good for you."
As a sysadmin I liked the "root access" stuff ("root" is the most privileged account / administrator on Unix/Linux systems). Nothing special but still nice :)
That idea of EMPs to target humans was also nice. IMO that blockchain stuff was pretty BS though (there are few uses for it and it can be especially unsuitable if you want to remain in active control).
That whole programmer stuff didn't really shine but I very appreciate it that she did only program that Callisto thing to "light up and make noises" (I didn't expect it in a movie but I would expect it from a (smart) programmer).
"Hell yeah, give me my wings." :D
PS: This might've been nice to have in 4K. But at least on Netflix it was only available in FHD.
It‘s watchable but unfortunately not very good. The cast is actually not that bad but still for some reason I never really got invested in the characters.
Kristen Stewart has evolved since that Vampire sh*t, good for her...now about the movie: Looks like it was made only for feminists to watch. Not even Charlie is a man now?! Oh Come on! Did you notice not even ONE girl in this movie is evil?
Bubbly Naomi Scott is the only bright spot in this pile of tropes. Sad to see a remarkably well casted film be based on generic bs of a plot and cringe dialog.
As a massive fan of the original movies with Diaz, Barrymore and Liu, this movie coud never stand up to that but it manages to be it's own thing almost like a younger version of the angels. At times it feels more like a live-action Totally Spies movie than a Charlie's Angels due to it's lack of self aware and campy moments, the sexiness of the original movies also gets turned down and replaced with a sense of feminism that at times just feels forced.
The three main ladies do a fair job but never get to shine as distinctive personalities, Naomi Scott is definetly the best of the group with comedic moments and out of all the characters she seems the most real.
Elizabeth Banks should probably focous more on acting and even producing because i don't think directing is for her, there is nothing speacial about this and could have easily been directed by someone with alot more experinced in action scenes and twists.
The Twist at the end was almost expected but it still had some elements of surprise which makes you a bit more enegaged with the action that is developing.
This new version of Charlie's Angels is not as fun and campy as previous ones so I don't see it having any replayability beyond the first watch, which is a diservice to the brand.
The acting was great, but the writing was absolutely horrendous. You couldn't really get behind any of the characters besides "Boz" played by Elizabeth Banks (and even only slightly so).
I wanted this to be good, but it just falls flat.
Charlie's Angels (2019) is everything I expected it to be, and that’s unfortunate. I can't think of a single thing I liked about this. It felt more like 119 minutes commercial to promote the new Charlie’s Angels song by Ariana Grande. This movie is yet another victim of American “wokeness”. Hollywood thinks that filling a main cast with women, having a female director and saying "girl power" enough times is all you need to create an empowering movie. Some women might like that but I’m not one of them.
Everything about this movie was hyper-generic:
the plot / villain - the whole Calisto shenanigans is outdated and tired - oh no, a bad guy has stolen dangerous tech and is going to sell it to another bad guy;
The dialogue is dreadful. I think the screenplay was entirely constructed of viral woke tweets;
the action scenes were pretty average, copy paste from other movies. It was weird to see all these skinny women with spaghetti arms to beat all the big men.
The three leads have absolutely no chemistry or star power. The characters were not likable and lacked personality. I just didn’t see where they had enough of a developed relationship. The Angels seemed dysfunctional, like mediocre spies who had no idea what they were doing. Kristen Stewart looks so damn awkward in all movies she's in. And the comedy (if you can call it that) just fell flat.
Charlie's Angels (2019) follows the ‘focus more on the politics not the plot movie’ rule, so it has one reason to exist - to empower women. But that’s the most frustrating part - it paints gender politics so simply: women = strong, men = bad. I mean, they even had a German security guard to harass one of the main characters because she looked hot on the security camera, I’m hard pressed to believe German men act like that at work. I thought we are past having characters saying stuff like "Women can do anything" as though it's some kind of revolutionary statement. Why don't instead of writing these dumb pseudo-empowering one liners, write engaging and realistic character arcs for women? Also, I hate movies that feel like they are punching you in the face over and over to get their point across.
One more thing I extremely dislike - they visit like 15 different countries in the film. But you barely notice because everywhere people speak ... English. Yes, even German security employees communicate with each other in English. It happens a lot when Hollywood makes movies in foreign countries.
This is so awful it's embarrassing.
Banks has written a script so bad not even Patrick Stewart can deliver his lines convincingly.
Either the costume designer for this had a stroke or Banks simply raided her wardrobe from The Hunger Games franchise and the score is so insufferably dreadful the musical director should be beaten to death with his/her own limbs.
The whole thing is so juvenile I really think they missed the mark rating in at PG13 as that excludes most of the target audience.
Women deserve better films than this, don't give them this. We're not helping women, whatever the hell that means, by giving them the most basic, bare bones, modern, disgusting trite nonsense this is. There's an eyerolling "girl power" montage right before the main titles appear. For no reason. It's not a commercial on television, it's not an advertisement, it's just a random clip show of girls doing stuff. It's just gross. There's no point to it other than flaunt, "Aren't I doing the female sex a positive by saying how good it is to have a vagina?!" All of the male characters are very comically sexist, white, and troublesome, outside of Patrick Stewart of course. The action is tired, a lot of it borrowed from stuff like Now You See Me and Mission Impossible, except much more obnoxious, thanks to Banks needlessly making all of our three new leads as insufferable as possible. Stewart especially I've never hated this much, not even back in the Twilight days. None of her jokes make any sense, she babbles every line, and she does it every time she opens her mouth. I was able to endure fifty minutes or so before realizing I didn't even know any of their names or what was going on because the film's priorities lie in all the wrong places, establishing the organization and the villain rather than our leads. There's even a humorous piece during the first major car chase where one of them asks, "Who is that? Why is he shooting at us?" And I was like, "I'm asking the same thing!" The first line in the film is, "I think women can do anything." Is this really a debate we're still trying to have and the media trying to push on to the general American public? Women in the west are the most freed and supported than at any other point in human history. How fucking ironic that this film that wants to act as a female power move is funded in part by China, a place that has internment camps for Muslims; they show happy Muslims in the film in that opening montage. Hey Banks, why don't you use some of your money you had to make this movie and go help out those people instead of sucking more Hollywood dick to get to make the Invisible Woman film you're now directing? I guess virtue signalling is more important. I only get heated about this because how hypocritical the people who are making this film are being. Glad this shit bombed.
I'm not a big fan of Kristen Stewart and thus did not plan on watching this movie. Then there were the bad reviews and bad word of mouth. But then I DID watch the movie and was very pleasantly surprised. Kristen actually looked like she was having fun in that roll and i found myself enjoying the movie. Although there was the obvious person who turned out to be the bad "person". You should give this movie a chance - it did not deserve all the bad press it got. Don't always believe what you hear or read.
can you pass me the battery acid? i need to get this sour taste out of my mouth
It's so painfully mediocre. Amazing actresses but unfortunately, the characters do not have much of a personality. The fact that they're trying to pass this off as The Feminist Movie of the year feels absolutely unnecessary. As with a lot of films which just so happens to star an all women main characters, not every movie has to be that deep and not every movie starring a group of women has to have some kind of weird white feminist nonsense. Sometimes, people just want to see a bunch of bitches kick some butt while looking cute because that's the reality of it! Also...sometimes reboots are just not necessary either.
I loved this movie! I see many bad reviews, but I didn't see anything bad. Will definitely watch it again
I like everything about the movie BUT Naomi Scott character. Her character is kinda insufferable. I couldn't relate or sympathize with her. Maybe it's a me thing, because I always dislike newbies characters that are always messing up with the mission...
Edit: Reading the comments, we can easily see that men don't like women, they like h0l3s. They cannot say they dislike the protagonists, who are all women, without disrespecting them.
It was so weird to see him without his wheelchair
worse than I expected in terms of what counts and how it counts. Here the good women, the bad men. At least the bad guy's killer was very good at his thing. The bad guy is an insult to the series
It just doesn't flow well and everything feels forced and unnatural; which is a tremendous shame.
Not Sure this gets the hate that it does,Kristen S can actually be funny,who knew? It has a fresh feel but I also like the nods to the previous films that was a nice touch and all in all it’s an entertaining watch,I give it a solid 7/10
I watched because I wanted a dumb action movie, and I got one. It's quite entertaining, the action scenes are nothing to write home about, at times cringey dialogue, some glaring mistakes here and there (standing still so the villain can get away lol), but overall a fun watch. Go with low expectations and you probably won't be dissapointed.
Great selection of actresses, but what a horrible plot. It's weird how they managed to combine a lack of sense AND not being funny.
This movie is almost as sexist as it is boring - and it is a borefest...
I hope Patrick Stewart got well compensated to star in this piece of sh**...
Elizabeth Banks attempts yet another reboot of the Charlie’s Angels franchise with this dumpster fire of a film. When a whistleblower reaches out to the Townsend Agency to expose a fatal flaw in a new clean energy devise a hit is put out on her and the angels have to protect her and find out who’s behind the attack. The plot is incredibly trite and formulaic, and sexist as all hell. Instead of empowering women it just de-empowers men; portraying them as useless idiots who use and abuse women (with one or two exceptions). Still, at its core it’s an action film and delivers some pretty good action scenes. But unfortunately Charlie’s Angels just won’t get out of its own way with all its politicking and just be fun.
Unseen. Undivided. Unstoppable.
More like: Incomprehensible, Illogical, Idiotic Formulaic Frustrating Film Fluff
Bad movie, very bad, first and foremost you can see from the trailer what a bad movie it will be, that's why I didn't go to the cinema and saw it on a streaming platform, but it's also boring, a little action not of note 6 or 7. More than 4 stars don't know how to give this movie, which had two excellent movies behind it.
Fun spy romp. You know the genre and setting going in, you know to expect cheesy dialogue and good action and it delivers.
The cast chemistry was spot on and you can tell they had fun filming it. There were these moments where the conversations between the characters felt very authentic too.
Great Saturday night film
So bad it was good! Did black Bosley really have to die?!? Hounsou is way to good for this. But Charlie’s Angels is my favorite franchise of all time. So I still liked this and I’ll rent the sequel if there ever is one. I hope there isn’t one though because this was bad.
I enjoyed this movie. Easy to watch and a good cast.
Sorry i could not enjoy this movie at all, worst movie i saw in 2020.
Very excited to see the movie, finally watched it and really enjoyed the storyline with some twists.
I actually liked this quite a bit. Was the acting perfect, heck no but it kept me entertained and after all isn't that what Charlie's Angels has always been... entertaining. I legit hope they make another movie with this cast as well
lmao, the movie left me thirsty for more explosive action, wish Elizabeth Banks, the director, blew up an entire building in downtown or two.
anyways, trust the reviews. it is so bad lol
What a great time. For a concept that is just about feeling overdone. Banks breathed a lot of life into this. I could happily watch a sequel to this.
All that and I still hate so many of the decisions. I hate who the villain was. I hate how there wasn't a third angel (turning this into a sort of origin of the new trio).
I loved how Patrick Stewart is basically canonically all the Bosleys we've known. It's one person and he was the first. I like that Bosley is a rank. I hate how they pretend it's a name like Doctor Who saying "I'm the Doctor". It's grammatically deceptive. I liked the links between all the versions of Charlie's Angels. All that was done well. The acting was excellent. While I was upset there weren't three angels. At least Kristen Stewart and Ella Balinska were pretty good as the primary Angels of the movie. I also really really liked the humor. Between the writing and the timing and the acting it was just such a fresh take on the jokes. It wasn't the stale old rhythm we're used to in action-comedies.
As I hinted before I hated how Bosley turned out the be the bad guy. I mean the very first Bosley the one who was in the TV show and in the first two movies (canonically) it doesn't make sense for him to be the bad guy. I went from thinking "Man they're kinda wasting Patrick Stewart here but I guess it's ok because the movie is rather entertaining even without him" to "oh good grief again the 'inside man goes evil' bad guy". The Elizabeth Banks red herring was equally annoying. Because while she made more sense than bloody 1st Bosley even when I thought it was her it felt reductive. People have to come up with better bad guys than face-heel turns. It's cliché and passé at this point. It's phenomenally boring. It brings down what is otherwise a VERY entertaining action film that does so many interesting things like avoiding getting bogged down in character backstory details while still developing them. Aside from the major choices the worst scene for me was Jane crying over Sabina. (Yep I went back and rewatched it) that crying was abysmal. I understand why she's crying and I support that but it wasn't even good "ugly crying". It was just... bad.
Soundtrack was good though. Not the same tired recycled at least.
If you watch this with any intention of it being a serious movie then you're in for a bad time.
This film clearly achieves what it set out to, which is just a silly movie.
I agree with the other comment here about Kristen Stewart, she certainly did look comfortable and that made for, imo, the best film I have seen her act in.
Unlike another comment here, I did laugh out loud at a few parts of the film.
It's not a great film, it's not intended to be and I've said this so often before, if you watch it with high expectations then you're only letting yourself be disappointed and that's on you !
There is no stripping in this movie
Thats what missing
If you have seen the older movies there is a lot of dancing in the two older movies
Fantastic cast. Lots of action. Great idea. But, it couldn't touch the TV series from the 70s. Where is the quiet grace of a Jacyln Smith, the steady determination of a Kate Jackson, or the naive sexiness of a Farrah Fawcett (actually I think Farrah is a one off)? I give this film a 6 (fair) out of 10. [Playful Action Adventure]
it's a fun movie.well it's worth watching
Solid script... Could have used alot better comic relief than the short haired angel essentially making faces but I bet some girls in the target audience would appreciate that. Honestly the script is loophole free as far as I could see until I lost track of how much sense things made in the end.
Its an enjoyable time passer obviously with a purpose of empowering young women and letting them take the lead role of an action film. Its not a comedy, idk who went to see this expecting it to be haha funny when its historically a female 007 type movie.
I'd say it was good at what it set out to do and surprisingly it flowed very fluently again, without major holes until the end where we see unexplainable murders (ex: okay why is no one freaked out / why is this man beating this woman up in front of a crowd and people just watching type holes start popping up everywhere)... However it concludes before that type of stuff matters enough to ruin the film by way of absurdity for me. Acting was absolutely average and chemistry was lacking... But again, not bad enough to get in the way of the film.
Overall better than expected, definitely nothing much to take away from the movie, but it was solid for what it was and what it intended to be, a new Charlies Angel movie.
Its the type of movie that you appreciate or are surprised to notice you've stay tuned to through for 3+ hours, when it comes on MTV or ABC in a few years packed with commercials. Probably because it's easy on the eyes and ears, Visually appealing, nothing audio or visually unattractive.
The action isn't that great and the comedy (if you can call it that) falls flat. Men are treated like idiots/objects in the movie which is not equality, just makes it silly. Should have just been women good at being agents without disparaging men needlessly. The older Charlies Angels movies were far better in that regard. The feminism may be an interesting theme, too bad that the movie was bland, unfunny, totally witless and ludicrous. The screenplay was atrocious as it only shows action sequences that are repetitive and it does not have any good story at all.
Overall, it just shows that indeed women can do anything - awful or outstanding - as shown by this poor popcorn film.
this movie made my gay heart VERY happy. noah centineo wasn't that fun but that's all really. loved everything else.
Not a lot going for it. Hamburg looked good, Istanbul OK. But as for the movie just a story. A story that has been told heaps of times and generally better.
Shout by LILITH MEPPADATHBlockedParent2019-11-15T11:44:57Z
Even when the action and soundtrack was better,it was unenjoyable due to non-funny humours and laggy depthless story.