Charlie's Angels (2019)

[BetterButter]

Quote

Reboot of the 2000 action comedy based on the 1970s television series. A new generation of private detectives working for the mysterious Charlie.

[Wynterwolf]

OMG this looks FUN!!!  

[SimoneS]

What surprises me is that Kirsten Stewart isn't the Angel in the middle of the iconic shot. However, nice to see Ella Balinska, Black/African American/Biracial actress as one of the Angels.

[AngelKitty]

I just saw the trailer and this looks like a lot of fun. I can't wait. I might even venture out to the theater to see it. 

[Frost]

I was pleasantly surprised!  This does look fun.  I didn't even know there was a remake on the horizon.

[topanga]

1 hour ago, Frost said:

I was pleasantly surprised!  This does look fun.  I didn't even know there was a remake on the horizon.

A reboot of an adaptation.  LOL

It does look fun. And I've always liked Elizabeth Banks and Kristen Stewart, so I'll probably see this one. 

[GaT]

Kristen Stewart is just wrong for this IMO, I just can't with the lip biting, angsty, dour face "acting"

[Cranberry]

It's not a reboot or a remake:

Quote

As Banks puts it, her update isn’t a reboot or a remake of the beloved franchise, but rather a “continuation” that incorporates the events of the original 1970s TV series and the McG-directed 2000s films. And so, she imagines, in the more than 40 years since Charlie assembled his first trio of Angels, he must have given his operation a makeover. “If you were rich in 1976, you only got richer,” Banks, who co-wrote the script, says with a laugh. “Charles Townsend is richer than ever, so he’s grown the business into a global spy agency.”

That's also why there's more than one Bosley:

Quote

“‘Bosley’ is now a rank in the organization, like lieutenants,” [Banks] says. “All of the Angels have been played by different women and have had different names, but the Bosley character was always named Bosley no matter who played him. We thought, ‘Well, that must mean it’s more than a name.’”

I think it looks like a lot of fun. Unless reviews are absolutely awful, I'll likely see this one in the theater.

[stealinghome]

I will definitely be seeing this—it looks like it will be a blast!

[Racj82]

I'll be checking this out on Redbox. Nothing about it screams me giving up 14 dollars and time to see it in theater. I'm sure it will be harmless fun.

[shantown]

Definitely making a point to see this in theatre! I love a good, fun summer action-comedy!

[GaT]

1 hour ago, shantown said:

 I love a good, fun summer action-comedy!

Except that it's not being released until November.

[shantown]

1 hour ago, GaT said:

Except that it's not being released until November.

Well good thing I love a good, fun action-comedy in any season! (Was this trailer released super early? I feel like they release trailers so early these days. Or am I just old? Oh no.)

[GaT]

9 minutes ago, shantown said:

Well good thing I love a good, fun action-comedy in any season! (Was this trailer released super early? I feel like they release trailers so early these days. Or am I just old? Oh no.)

I'm sure it's them, not you 🙂

[KnotsLanding]

This looks REALLY good. Like a proper action film and faithful adaptation unlike the slapstick martial arts thing they did before. I also wish since they claim all of these are connected that we'd have more crossover. Farrah Fawcett (RIP) begged for a cameo and was turned down and so far only Jacklyn Smith is appearing. With this global approach with multiple Bosley's, why not bring in one of the former Angels even if it's just for a small cameo?

Regardless, I hope this goes well. I was so disappointed in the writing and production of the preview reboot tv show so I hope this works.

[Bastet]

12 hours ago, KnotsLanding said:

I also wish since they claim all of these are connected that we'd have more crossover. Farrah Fawcett (RIP) begged for a cameo and was turned down and so far only Jacklyn Smith is appearing. With this global approach with multiple Bosley's, why not bring in one of the former Angels even if it's just for a small cameo?

Kate Jackson would refuse, I'm sure, so Jaclyn Smith will remain the only one of the original Angels to appear, but maybe one of the later ones?  I didn't know Farrah Fawcett had asked and been turned down; I'd heard all three were asked for the first film (which seems like something Drew Barrymore would do) and declined.

I had no idea there was another film coming.  And I can't believe they named one of the characters Sabina. 

I'm not an action film fan, so I'm not even sure if I'd see this if it was about "random" women (rather than Charlie's Angels), but because it's CA I will definitely watch it.  I'm not familiar with any of the three main actors other than Kristen Stewart (and I've only seen her in one thing), but I really like Elizabeth Banks and love that we're getting a female Bosley (and a female director).  I'm really jazzed by these quotes from her in the EW article linked upthread:

Quote

...Banks was most invested in showcasing the trio’s teamwork. “It was important to me to make a movie about women working together and supporting each other, and not make a movie about their romantic entanglements or their mother they don’t call enough,” she says. “When I’m at work, I don’t talk about those things. I get on with my job. It felt important to do that for the Angels, to treat them with the respect their skill set demands.”

Quote

That chaos, though, won’t look like the over-the-top sequences of the 2000s films; the director says she took a “grounded” approach to stunts: “I wanted to make them distinct from superheroes, aliens, and mythological creatures that are in a lot of action movies now.”

[Racj82]

22 hours ago, shantown said:

Well good thing I love a good, fun action-comedy in any season! (Was this trailer released super early? I feel like they release trailers so early these days. Or am I just old? Oh no.)

Trailers come out like 6 months in advance these days and drop three of them in that time frame.

[starri]

I am hoping against hope that Jaclyn's cameo means that Kelly is one of the Bosleys.

[JanewayTruLV]

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

Kate Jackson would refuse, I'm sure,

Whatever has happened to her.. She was my idol as a child.. I know she went through some real tough spells , but has suddenly disappeared into oblivion. The last i heard she was going to write a book about her relationship with Farrah and it was due to be released in May.😕

[Kromm]

This looks like liquid sht to me. All cliches, including some total garbage about how these supposedly accomplished talented women obsess over the fashion closet.  REAL progressive of you Elizabeth Banks.  I hope this trailer isn't accurately representing the whole of this and there's less cringe factor to the finished product.

[shantown]

2 hours ago, Kromm said:

This looks like liquid sht to me. All cliches, including some total garbage about how these supposedly accomplished talented women obsess over the fashion closet.  REAL progressive of you Elizabeth Banks.  I hope this trailer isn't accurately representing the whole of this and there's less cringe factor to the finished product.

How does appreciating an overstocked closet of fashionable clothes and disguises discredit any other accomplishments they have? They also had a whole closet of weapons and spy gear they were excited about.

Trailers, even when they sometimes give away a lot of the story, are two minutes out of a 90+ minute film. I wouldn't get so upset by it quite yet.

[BooBear]

2 hours ago, Kromm said:

This looks like liquid sht to me. All cliches, including some total garbage about how these supposedly accomplished talented women obsess over the fashion closet.  REAL progressive of you Elizabeth Banks.  I hope this trailer isn't accurately representing the whole of this and there's less cringe factor to the finished product.

I hated it as well. Who asked for this movie? A remake of a remake?

[Cranberry]

It's not a remake. It's a continuation of the universe... like all the other spy/action franchise movies people keep making.

[Amethyst]

This trailer gave me the same vibes as MiB International, flashy but empty.  It just looks cheesy, and not in the fun way.  Standard trailer fare from any spy/action flick, and the acting (what little there was) wasn't much better. 

[Racj82]

On 6/30/2019 at 5:32 PM, Cranberry said:

It's not a remake. It's a continuation of the universe... like all the other spy/action franchise movies people keep making.

It's a requal as some say these days. It's rebooting a previous franchise while operating as a sort of sequal since it's in the same universe. Which I'm just tired of. 

If we've seen anything this summer, it's that people are growing tired of these lazy retreads. Most of them aren't even bad and I'm sure this will be dumb fun. But, none of these movies are driving me to the theater. 

Actions movies that keep going like this keep going (like mission impossible and furious movies) because they keep upping the ante or pivoting when things are growing stale. This just feels like more of the same based on the trailer. Just even keel. We all know what to expect and won't be much more there.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Racj82

[Kromm]

On 7/2/2019 at 12:01 AM, Racj82 said:

It's a requal as some say these days. It's rebooting a previous franchise while operating as a sort of sequal since it's in the same universe. Which I'm just tired of. 

If we've seen anything this summer, it's that people are growing tired of these lazy retreads. Most of them aren't even bad and I'm sure this will be dumb fun. But, none of these movies are driving me to the theater. 

To be fair, Jumanji seems to have done this somewhat better.  The whole notion of taking something nobody THOUGHT they needed an update to, and cleverly sitting it on top of the original without totally relying on it. 

But that seems to be the exception, not the rule.  It's okay to answer the question "who said we needed this?" with "you will, after you see this".  But really, the chances don't seem to me to be any better than the risks you take introducing a new franchise. Nobody NEEDED a remake of Jumanji. Or Charlie's Angels.  Or almost any of these "requals". Or usually wanted them.  Them working isn't due to a built in audience usually, it's the same kind of hit or miss as any movie.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Kromm

[WritinMan]

This looks really bad. And I thoroughly enjoyed the two movies that came out in the early 2000s.

[topanga]

19 hours ago, Kromm said:

But that seems to be the exception, not the rule.  It's okay to answer the question "who said we needed this?" with "you will, after you see this".  But really, the chances don't seem to me to be any better than the risks you take introducing a new franchise. Nobody NEEDED a rename of Jumanji. Or Charlie's Angels.  Or almost any of these "requals". Or usually wanted them.  Them working isn't due to a built in audience usually, it's the same kind of hit or miss as any movie.

I ask myself "Who asked for this?" so often these days, with all of the remakes, reboots, continuations, and multiple sequels that come out these days. 

And I guess the answer is, "we did" because they tend to be successful. 

I still don't like the lack of originality, but I've given up on being outraged by it. 

[Trini]

I'm all for female-led action franchises, so I have no problem with another Charlie's Angels. What does give me pause is Stewart, who seems to be trying to prove something ... that I don't think she needs to prove?

[Robert Lynch]

3 hours ago, Trini said:

I'm all for female-led action franchises, so I have no problem with another Charlie's Angels. What does give me pause is Stewart, who seems to be trying to prove something ... that I don't think she needs to prove?

Kind of like Anne Heche did in the 90s..

[Trini]

19 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

Kind of like Anne Heche did in the 90s..

Were you referring to her personal life? Because I was talking about her film roles. But perhaps both are applicable.

[ramble]

This looks like utter crap to me. Maybe I’ve reached remake/reboot/sequel overload but I feel like I’ve been there, done that multiple times and nothing about the trailer made be think it’ll be better than previous similarly made things. Also KStew is one of those actors who causes me to grit my teeth until I have a headache. 

[stealinghome]

I saw this earlier today and thought it was quite fun and enjoyable. The twists were pretty predictable and I think the screenplay wasn’t super sharp overall, but I really enjoyed the actors’ chemistry (surprisingly, as I’ve never liked KStew in much of anything before) and the tone was perfect. Just good clean fun. I know the box office has been bad but I kind of hope we get another one—I’d go see it!

[Cranberry]

It hasn't come to my local theater yet but I plan to see it when it does. I'm amused by the Rotten Tomatoes reviews, which are 54% positive from critics but 79% positive from audiences. It seems that most people who are paying to see it are enjoying it.

[Racj82]

On 11/25/2019 at 4:40 AM, Cranberry said:

It hasn't come to my local theater yet but I plan to see it when it does. I'm amused by the Rotten Tomatoes reviews, which are 54% positive from critics but 79% positive from audiences. It seems that most people who are paying to see it are enjoying it.

Audience ratings mean nothing. They usually in the b rating anyway. 

This movie is getting largely ignored as it should. Because it's a lazy, predictable movie that is also a sequel people were not asking for.

Banks doesn't know how to direct action yet either. Really badly cut.

Oh well. I'm sure it will be on Blu Ray by February at the latest. Everyone can find out for themselves then. No need to spend money on it now.

[shantown]

10 minutes ago, Racj82 said:

Banks doesn't know how to direct action yet either. Really badly cut.

So you saw it? What is your audience rating?

[Racj82]

1 hour ago, shantown said:

So you saw it? What is your audience rating?

25 percent I guess.

I agree that Stewart is actually the best part of this movie. But, there isn't really anything here. It's predictable in all the obvious ways, not as funny as it thinks it is either. I think there is a real franchise that could be generated from this IP but this isn't it.

[KnotsLanding]

On 11/25/2019 at 3:40 AM, Cranberry said:

It hasn't come to my local theater yet but I plan to see it when it does. I'm amused by the Rotten Tomatoes reviews, which are 54% positive from critics but 79% positive from audiences. It seems that most people who are paying to see it are enjoying it.

I've noticed this too. I went with a group of people and they went in not expecting to enjoy it as much as they did. I feel marketing is what did the film in. They should've been clear it was a sequel tying in the original films and series. I would've used Jacklyn Smith, Patrick Stewart and some of the bigger named stars more for promo and had they gotten one of the movie angels to cameo it would've literally been perfect. I also feel it would've done better in the spring. November is a very odd choice for an action film centered around women.

My least favorite Angel was Naomi Scott's character, but the other two were fantastic. I have never enjoyed Kristen Stewart but she was so much fun here! Definitely the Farrah of the new bunch. I also was stunned by how good Ella Balinska did in the action sequences. She certainly didn't feel like a newcomer. I kept wanting to see her get together with Stewart's character. 

I also love how they expanded on universe in a way that had this been successful they could've continued the movies and potentially do a sequel series. 

[Kittykat00]

This has a 3.9 on IMDB 😪 is it worth watching at all?

[stealinghome]

Yes.

[Racj82]

On 11/29/2019 at 8:30 AM, Kittykat00 said:

This has a 3.9 on IMDB 😪 is it worth watching at all?

Nope. But, when it hits Blu Ray soon check it out. There are always fans of something no matter how bad. You might enjoy it.

[pigs-in-space]

I watched this tonight and I have to say I might have horrible taste or whatever, but I enjoyed it a lot. But then I also enjoyed the Ghostbusters remake that people also seem to hate. 

This is shallow, but Ella Balinska was gorgeous. The scene where she took off the "bowl cut" wig...I would have been star-struck too.

[ursula]

Just watched it on Amazon Prime. I can see why it bombed. It took itself seriously and not in a good way. 

Spoiler

Black dude died first, and all the nonwhite leads were “not too black” so it reeked of white feminism. 

The leads didn’t have the chemistry of Drew, Lu and Diaz and the feminist manifesto was flat out hypocritical considering how often the women’s bodies are objectified in shots.

Edited August 10, 2020 by ursula

[DollEyes]

My verdict: it sucked like a hooker in a hurry. Unlike the 2000 and 2003 versions, this one not only took itself too seriously most of the time, it's attempts at humor were lame, at best-and don't even get me started on the  lack of chemistry between the leads, the colorism and the overreliance on cameos.

 It was full of great actors, but it stuck them with a shitty script and Elizabeth Banks' direction didn't help matters either. This reboot was just a waste of time, money and talent.

[Trini]

So this wasn't groundbreaking, but I thought it was cute and fun. I thought it could have used more comedy, but I didn't need it to be as ridiculous as the previous films. Think I'm pretty tired of 'the threat is coming from inside' plots, though. The cameos were fun. Wouldn't mind a sequel; I liked how they made the Angels parts of a larger, global organization.

[PurpleTentacle]

Finally got around to this. It wasn't as terrible as I thought it was going to be. It was just pretty bland throughout. Which in some ways is worse. Terrible spy movies can be really fun.

I think the early 2000s movies had it right with going totally camp. This should have continued that trend just updated a bit.

The Blockhain... this movie is so terminally 2019...

While it was obvious what was coming, I think it's pretty respectless and nonsensical to turn a character that has been a force for good for over 40 years into an evil sociopath with little to no motivation. Here the writing just flat out failed. If I had written this, I would have made his motivations less self-serving. Like him thinking that in this modern world the Angels Organisation wasn't enough and their stance against killing targets was keeping it back, that to keep the world safe you had to eliminate threats. That way his actions would make sense, but he would still obviously need to be stoped. But I guess in this feminist girl boss movie, the man just had to be totally unredeemably evil.

Also a bunch of Banks-Bosley's actions didn't make sense. All for the sake of not revealing the super obvious twist too early. For example at the quarry, she was on the coms with the angels, so why leave without saying anything? Why not a short "I'm sorry angels, something important came up. I have to go. You are on your own, so act accordingly."

I will also agree that Kristen Stewart was the best part of this movie.

Overall, I probably won't remember this in about a week.