Charlie’s Angels 2019 reboot doesn’t deserve all the hate

Charlie%E2%80%99s+Angels+2019+reboot+doesn%E2%80%99t+deserve+all+the+hate

Khrystyna Stets, Broadcast coordinator

*Spoilers ahead

The Charlie’s Angels 2019 reboot came out last month on November 15 and flopped financially. The budget was 60-75 million dollars, with the movie only cashing in roughly 31 million dollars. The movie is currently at a net loss of 30 to 45 million dollars, compared to the 264.1 million dollars the 2000 Charlie’s Angels movie made.

As the movie begins we are introduced to characters Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart), Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott), Jane Kano (Ella Balinska)Bosley (Elizabeth Banks), and John Bosley (Patrick Stewart). Sabina and Jane are Angels who work for the organization, Charlie’s Angels. In the beginning, Elena is an engineering scientist who wants to come out and tell the public the truth about a product her company has made and is planning to release, Calisto. The Angels and Elena (soon to be an Angel) need to fight through their mission of stopping Calisto from getting into the wrong hands.

The acting and cinematography of the movie were extremely engaging and benefited the development of plot throughout the movie. From an audience perspective, cast members seemed devoted and excited to their roles.

Director Elizabeth Banks said she wanted the movie to reflect on the power of women and the
feminist movement. She said her plans included desexualizing the angels and making the movie more focused on how truly powerful women can be. However, somewhere along the line, I feel like that lined slightly got blurred.

There is a clear lack of male characters throughout the film, who tended to be villainized. Portraying the male characters as antagonists was an unnecessary change to the plot to convey the feminist message. Banks could have incorporated different genders to different roles and still emphasized a feminist theme in the movie.

Adding more glamour to the female characters and making their beauty and brilliance shine through would have been a great addition. Certain scenes could have used that ideology; however, I think without it, it’s still a good watch.

“The film is stuffed with noble intentions… But Banks’ vision of women-empowerment plays more like a checklist of topics from the feminist discourse of the past few years than a coherent movie, let alone a crowd-pleasing one,” Slate writer Inkoo Kang said.

Changing from its predecessor, the reboot of Charlie’s Angels features Charlie (the owner of the company) as a female. Again, Banks emphasizes the feminist movement in this change, but the new movie loses a connection to the original, which would have benefited the film.

This movie is satisfactory, but lost much of the connection and charm from the original Charlie’s Angels. I would recommend this movie; it is not perfect, but it provides an enjoyable and thrilling watch for its viewers.