As a life-long 63 year-old conservative, I watched this movie after reading these reviews with very low expectations, especially after hearing about Elizabeth Banks' clearly offensive comments! Harkening back to the 70s TV show, Charlie's Angels has always had messages about strong, powerful women. So what? And calling this movie a re-make is a bad mischaracterization,as it is set 40 years after the TV show with an agency that had grown with the years. I was happy to see that the movie was actually enjoyable, with the traditional plot twists. Was it great art, no. Was it fun, yes. I have no idea why some reviewers are completely trashing this movie! I recommend you watch this and judge for yourself!
1,227 Reviews
A watchable, but fully unnecessary movie...
paul_haakonsen20 February 2020
Initially I had expected this 2019 movie to be worse than it actually turned out to be. Why? Well, first of all, we - as the audience - didn't really need another attempt to put "Charlie's Angels" to the big screen, it was done with equally little success back in 2000 and 2003. So this was a completely and wholeheartedly unnecessary movie.
Still, I was given the chance to sit down and watch it, so I did. And I must say that it was actually entertaining enough for what it turned out to be - a generic action movie, with a plot and script that had been done so many times before in other movies.
Truth be told, then I must admit that Kristen Stewart actually have managed to shed off her Bella-skin. While she is not an actress that I would rush out to the cinema to watch in a new movie, she did perform well enough in this movie.
The movie actually had a nice enough cast ensemble, which included the likes of Patrick Stewart, Djimon Hounsou, Elizabeth Banks and Nat Faxon.
"Charlie's Angels" is watchable, sure, but this is not a movie that rocked the movie industry, and I am sure it came and went without leaving as much as a dent in the paint job.
I am rating it a very, very mediocre five out of ten stars.
Still, I was given the chance to sit down and watch it, so I did. And I must say that it was actually entertaining enough for what it turned out to be - a generic action movie, with a plot and script that had been done so many times before in other movies.
Truth be told, then I must admit that Kristen Stewart actually have managed to shed off her Bella-skin. While she is not an actress that I would rush out to the cinema to watch in a new movie, she did perform well enough in this movie.
The movie actually had a nice enough cast ensemble, which included the likes of Patrick Stewart, Djimon Hounsou, Elizabeth Banks and Nat Faxon.
"Charlie's Angels" is watchable, sure, but this is not a movie that rocked the movie industry, and I am sure it came and went without leaving as much as a dent in the paint job.
I am rating it a very, very mediocre five out of ten stars.
Enjoyed this more than I should have
javvad23 January 2022
This is the kind of movie you need to walk into with the same level of expectation you walk into a fast and furious movie.
Once that's set, the movie is actually a lot of fun as a casual Friday night movie. The little montages, funny sequences, and action pieces all serve to tie together a convenient plot. But you're not here for the plot, it's like what Tik Tok would be as a movie.
Good fun. Don't judge it too harshly.
Once that's set, the movie is actually a lot of fun as a casual Friday night movie. The little montages, funny sequences, and action pieces all serve to tie together a convenient plot. But you're not here for the plot, it's like what Tik Tok would be as a movie.
Good fun. Don't judge it too harshly.
Well I loved it!
denmark-1691820 November 2019
I'm no movie critic, just a woman who loves going to the movies. And I loved the movie! I was entertained, I loved the twist, I loved the music, the cameos, the clothes (although I'm more of a conservative girl myself), and the action. Of course my husband fell asleep and hated it, but I loved it and I can't wait to go see again with some girlfriends.
really really bad
FeastMode12 March 2020
I recently watched two charlie's angels movies from the early 2000's. figured i'd give them a shot after hating them the first time in theaters. i very much enjoyed them for what they were: ridiculous and outrageous fun. with all the reboots these days i checked and found that a new one was coming out so i added it to my watch list.
this new version is bad in so many ways. it has very little ridiculousness or outrageousness, while at the same time being completely unrealistic. the story was complete nonsense, yet somehow predictable. the dialogue was bad. there was no semblance of characters. most of the comedy was crickets. and there were numerous cringe-y scenes.
it also suffers from what a lot of these female-empowerment movies suffer from lately. the "girl power" theme is just too preachy and in your face. make a good movie with good characters. i obviously wanted to see it knowing most of the cast would be female. but the movie has to not be garbage. don't even get me started on ocean's eight. another example where i was excited for this all female version of the movie. and the movie just sucked. and it as very preachy.
in conclusion, movies that have an agenda are generally worse for it. stop making movies for the purpose of female empowerment, and start making good movies with good female characters (1 viewing, 3/11/2020)
this new version is bad in so many ways. it has very little ridiculousness or outrageousness, while at the same time being completely unrealistic. the story was complete nonsense, yet somehow predictable. the dialogue was bad. there was no semblance of characters. most of the comedy was crickets. and there were numerous cringe-y scenes.
it also suffers from what a lot of these female-empowerment movies suffer from lately. the "girl power" theme is just too preachy and in your face. make a good movie with good characters. i obviously wanted to see it knowing most of the cast would be female. but the movie has to not be garbage. don't even get me started on ocean's eight. another example where i was excited for this all female version of the movie. and the movie just sucked. and it as very preachy.
in conclusion, movies that have an agenda are generally worse for it. stop making movies for the purpose of female empowerment, and start making good movies with good female characters (1 viewing, 3/11/2020)
As a woman I'm embarrassed.
jblue-1138723 November 2019
Is this the best Hollywood can put together for a all female movie. You either gotta be 'bad assed' like Hustlers or funny like Bridesmaids and this was neither. This movie was TERRIBLE! I can't believe they even finished filming it.
Irritating
pennypencil13 June 2022
I don't remember myself ever being so irritated and angry watching a film. But this one did it.. When Charlie's Angels film was released with Lucy Liu, my girl Drew and Cameron D, I felt - yes! Girl power, step forward - puh-leeze! But this.. this!! This is not just one step back, this is several steps back, imho. The whole film fell flat for me: dialogue, jokes, using guns.. not even Patrick Stewart could save the film for me.. delete, delete, delete from my mind and my memory.. gotta watch the true Angels (2000) to restore the balance..
Actually a great popcorn action movie
Joturneruk21 November 2020
When it was announced they were making this movie, I immediately took exception to the news and views never to watch it. I was wrong. I really enjoyed it. Great story, cast, action sequences. There were a couple of cringy moments but the last one was the same. I actually would prefer to watch this one than the Lucy Luo etc one. It's sad it bombed so badly but it was one of those movies that really didn't need to be made. I'm really glad it was and think it's a fun, Saturday night popcorn movie.
A misguided misandric mess
cricketbat24 February 2020
The Charlie's Angels movies in the early 2000s were a lot of fun. This Charlie's Angels...is not. The plot doesn't make any sense, the humor is lazy, and the action sequences are unbelievable--and by "unbelievable," I mean not believable. This movie also seems to have an underlying tone of misandry, as practically every male is predatory, dumb, or seducible (sometimes all three). As strange as it sounds, Kristen Stewart is the lone bright spot in this mess of an attempted reboot.
I thought it was really fun
cornelia-117748 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Ok, in the genre and knowing it should be silly, I really liked the film. The only thing was the killing off of the replacement Bosley when Picard retired. That actor deserved better. But I thought the film was dumb and really fun. And I loved the actresses playing the angels.
Cheap
westsideschl30 March 2020
I had considered four stars.
1. Really weak action scenes. Mostly just flying kicks & takedowns; heavily dependent on camera angle for itsy bitsy believability. Very mundane, seen before, nothing new.
2. Getting really old. The usual car chase that was laughably mundane, and the machine gun - please! Gawd!
3. Usual prop scenes of showing an expensive sports car; club scenes; fashion.
4. Plot nothing new. The same old corporate selling of dangerous device to baddies. Dangerous device could pass as a child's puzzle toy. Dangerous device fails plausibility & middle school science.
5. Acting & dialogue - sad.
I don't understand the bad reviews. I totally enjoyed the movie.
almillisor13 February 2020
I almost did not watch this movie because of the reviews. I am glad I had nothing else to watch. I watch movies purely for entertainment, I watch documentaries to learn something and nature shows to learn about the world around me. This show gets a 10 for production quality a 10 for acting and a 10 for the beautiful people in it. What more is there?
New generation
rlsmrsodom18 February 2021
Missed opportunity
kosmasp4 August 2021
Unfortunately I see the movie as a missed opportunity. I don't feel it is as fun as it could be (quite silly a lot of times though) and unsure of the mood and tone of the film. It seems all over the place - and therefor feeling quite uneven. Maybe though you don't care and just are here for the fun ... hopefully it works for you, but as I said be wary and aware that it just might not.
Very good actors involved, paper characters though. Action is decent enough and there are some extras during the credits - if you are still around.
Very good actors involved, paper characters though. Action is decent enough and there are some extras during the credits - if you are still around.
For those who liked the movies
Valenbon16 November 2019
Awful
tawfichathat-114 February 2020
Fail Jokes, Wasted Big Name, Flat Story, Zero Chemistry, not enjoyable -__-
rocks_schatzy14 November 2019
I can't believe this, watched from the start till the end and everything is just felt flat,
Kristen Stewart trying so hard to be funny, (and fail), the opener is so boring, dialog line so generic, story is weak and mainstream, action scene is boring. big names like Sr. Patrick Stewart & Djimon Hounsou not effective to the movie. I just can "Feel" the movie man...
the good point of this movie are just the girls are pretty, that's all.
nb: best scene : last / end of the movie (before credit)
Surprisingly solid
fwpickering22 September 2020
I heard bad reviews, but finally gave it a watch and this movie stands on it's own so well! I really don't understand the hate. The characters, style, stunts and jokes are so great. The actors did such a good job with their performance, it never feels forced. The plot isnt that special but thats kinda of the thing with these types of movies and in the end it really surprised and comes together in a great way.
A chick fighting film with an undeserved popular franchise title
olivewahh13 November 2019
Now I'm a huge fan of the last two films with Cameron, Drew and Lucy so instantly I was a little nervous for this reboot with three new Angels.
Sadly this reboot is nothing like the previous two films. I struggled to see any strong chemistry between the girls, and just felt like they were three different individuals doing their own thing on the same mission. I applaud Elizabeth Banks for having her hands all over this project, but she needed to take about 100 steps back from the acting part, and maybe some of the script writing too. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Elizabeth Banks but her as Bosley... Ugh! The movie is about Charlie's Angel's.. Not Bosley's Angels. Elizabeth's character was there in ever scene, every mission, every single moment, that she was almost trying to be one of the Angels. Going back to this being Charlie's Angels.. The movie barely even mentions him and you have to wait till a end credit scene to hear the famous line "good morning Angels".
I can see where Elizabeth was heading with this film making it a strong female message but this is such a iconic franchise that some changes should not have been made.
Surprisingly Kristen Stewart was actually decent in this film and was the glue to the film. I was left heartbroken and devastated with how this reboot turned out.
Sadly this reboot is nothing like the previous two films. I struggled to see any strong chemistry between the girls, and just felt like they were three different individuals doing their own thing on the same mission. I applaud Elizabeth Banks for having her hands all over this project, but she needed to take about 100 steps back from the acting part, and maybe some of the script writing too. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Elizabeth Banks but her as Bosley... Ugh! The movie is about Charlie's Angel's.. Not Bosley's Angels. Elizabeth's character was there in ever scene, every mission, every single moment, that she was almost trying to be one of the Angels. Going back to this being Charlie's Angels.. The movie barely even mentions him and you have to wait till a end credit scene to hear the famous line "good morning Angels".
I can see where Elizabeth was heading with this film making it a strong female message but this is such a iconic franchise that some changes should not have been made.
Surprisingly Kristen Stewart was actually decent in this film and was the glue to the film. I was left heartbroken and devastated with how this reboot turned out.
It's a lot of fun
sodapop321320 November 2020
People need to chill out. This movie is a lot of fun and the 1st movie I absolutely love Kristen Stewart in. Her character is surprisingly funny. It's a good popcorn movie. Just don't take it so seriously. The three main actresses play well together and Elizabeth Banks is always great.
It's a good time!
daianausagi14 February 2020
It's fun and funny! It's not an amazing "it's my favorite movie of all time" type of movie. It's a good time, a good laugh and a great distraction. I really liked it, my boyfriend did, too. Don't watch it expecting anything over the top, watch it expecting to have fun.
I enjoyed it.
flyingdragons-2239827 November 2019
Good morning, Charlie. Bad movie, Elizabeth.
BA_Harrison27 November 2019
Boffin Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott) becomes a whistle-blower when she realises that the product she has been helping to develop has a serious flaw. Angels Sabina (Kristen Stewart) and Jane (Ella Balinska) investigate and learn that the invention -- a revolutionary new power source -- has the potential to be weaponised. Even worse, the prototypes have been stolen and are being offered to the highest bidder.
McG's two Charlie's Angels movies embraced the silliness of the whole concept, going for big dumb fun (albeit a bit too dumb in Full Throttle). In contrast, this feminist revision of the franchise attempts to be sassy, sophisticated, smart and stylish, with a massive dose of girl power designed to appeal to a woke #metoo audience.
Gender politics aside, it still ends up being dumb, but not much fun, thanks to a terrible script, clumsy execution, and humour that falls flat on its ass.
To be fair, I found the three main girls to be both attractive and likeable (even Kristin Stewart wasn't as irritating as I thought she might be), but affable eye-candy only gets you so far when virtually everything else about the film stinks. Writer/director Elizabeth Banks has thrown together a mess of clichés and bad gags for her script and clearly has no idea how to construct a film involving guns, fast cars and martial arts, making the movie a two-hour long exercise in action awfulness.
At the end of the film, Elena is recruited and trained as an angel, thereby paving the way for a sequel... one that I imagine will never happen given the general response to this massive misfire.
McG's two Charlie's Angels movies embraced the silliness of the whole concept, going for big dumb fun (albeit a bit too dumb in Full Throttle). In contrast, this feminist revision of the franchise attempts to be sassy, sophisticated, smart and stylish, with a massive dose of girl power designed to appeal to a woke #metoo audience.
Gender politics aside, it still ends up being dumb, but not much fun, thanks to a terrible script, clumsy execution, and humour that falls flat on its ass.
To be fair, I found the three main girls to be both attractive and likeable (even Kristin Stewart wasn't as irritating as I thought she might be), but affable eye-candy only gets you so far when virtually everything else about the film stinks. Writer/director Elizabeth Banks has thrown together a mess of clichés and bad gags for her script and clearly has no idea how to construct a film involving guns, fast cars and martial arts, making the movie a two-hour long exercise in action awfulness.
At the end of the film, Elena is recruited and trained as an angel, thereby paving the way for a sequel... one that I imagine will never happen given the general response to this massive misfire.
As fun as the originals
Rebekahjanel20 December 2020
i didnt get passed the first scene
professionalcritic-2686720 February 2020
Honestly if a movie wants to push an agenda and make factoids about being sexist in the first 8 seconds. "it takes a man 7 seconds longer to perceive a woman as a threat in comparison to a man." if this is in fact true, i'd like to know the odds of the average woman being able to defeat the average man in a fist fight, because that is what this statement was referring to by a little girl. and it's probably a 95/5, and that not including weight relative, that number would be more like a 99.99/.01
Unless a woman has a weapon or you know if fact, that she is a trained fighter, a man shouldn't perceive her as a threat.
what a joke
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
