The is a huge number of “Charlie’s Angels” fans and it is hard to come up with an approx number. It’s understandable that every time when there’s a new installment, it will cause confusion and frustration that will lead to a silent protest against it by not watching it in the movie theaters. Critics can also attack it the same as the viewers. But let’s agree on one thing – there is one common power that might divide all of us but makes us humans – a personal opinion that will never match with others. This is why I was curious to see how bad “Charlie Angels” was based on public opinion and was pleasantly surprised; it is not as bad as it was portrayed, not even close.
Elizabeth Banks’ written/directed “Charlie’s Angels” takes a much higher aim when the team of Angels from around the world must come together to stop the threat that comes from an anonymous individual. As they learn that Calisto, an energy conservation device, can be used as a mass destruction weapon, the team will stop at nothing to save the world. However, as they dig deep, they realize that the enemy they are about to face is clever and vicious and is determined to finalize the deal. And for that, an almost Terminator version of an assassin is sent who is strong enough to defeat any Angel.
It all starts with a team of Angels, led by senior operative John Bosley (Patrick Stewart), who with the help of Sabina Wilson (Kirsten Stewart) and Jane Kano (Ella Balinska) captures a very charismatic international smuggler, Jonny Smith (Chris Pang) in Rio de Janeiro. A year later, Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott) meets with operative Edgar Bosley (Djimon Hounsou) in Berlin to report an issue with the device she helped to invent. The Calista may cause fatal spasms and she wants the Townsend Agency to help her expose this fact to the public. However, when an incident occurs at a café where she had her secret meeting, Elena learns that she put a target on her back by her organization that wants to silence her.
Not wanting to reveal much, after epic fighting scenes and a car race, “Charlie’s Angels” will take the audience all over, starting with the beautiful Istanbul. Despite the fact that we may predict which direction the film heads towards, it offers some twists and turns at a desert towards the end of the film. In reality, what the film avoided is being a cheesy franchise that’s aimed at the younger generation. In fact, the one who will give a chance to the new installment will be rewarded as it does not shy away from being considered worthwhile.
Elizabeth Banks, who directs the film, does an amazing job behind the camera putting all the details together. Especially tackling the film such as “Charlie’s Angels” means any director should be ready to get criticized whether he or she fails or succeeds. And Banks seems to be not afraid of that, doing the best she can to deliver solid directorial work. As for the cast, whether it is Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, Alla Balinska, Patrick Stewart, Sam Claflin or Jonathan Tucker, all of them deliver the best work they can, which is admirable.
In the end, “Charlie’s Angels” does not deserve to be called a bad movie because it’s simply not. It all comes to the mindset and how we tune ourselves before beginning to watch the film. If we are prepared to dislike it before it even starts, then the result won’t make anyone wait. However, once you give it a chance and forget all other versions you have seen before, Banks’ version will come to you as a gift you had no idea were expecting. Of course, it’s far from being great but certainly not as awful as many claim. To realize that, it’s not my place or anyone else to assure you about that, as you, my dear movie lover, are fully capable to draw your own opinion after watching it, which, I sincerely hope, you will at some point.