Charlie's Angels

A hen party posing as a Bond movie, in the style of Vogue magazine and other, similar bullshit. I can totally feel the pain of the staff at the company in charge of producing the trailer as they were trying to figure out how to work with this material: there is nothing, not a single eye-catching moment that you’d love to tell your friends or family about. This is an entirely unnecessary film – it may almost be preferable to watch the nightly footage parliamentary debates, which will do a better job of raising your heart rate as you listen to our hapless prime minister bullshitting self-importantly about his 18-hour daily schedule of working in the nation’s service.  With this movie, however, you will fight boredom for two hours until the ending comes to the rescue. I felt truly sorry for Patrick Stewart having to play along with this crap. (09/03/2020)

An action comedy that isn't and probably doesn't want to be action or funny. An hour and a half long borefest about girl friendship being the most important thing in the world featuring fights and shootouts on the level of Walker, Texas Ranger, hardly any humour and zero audiovisual ideas. Bad movie. And completely unnecessary. (30/03/2020)

I hoped at least for a bit of entertaining action with some cute girls, but that’s not what I got. The car chase shot almost exclusively from inside the vehicle is frustrating. The bad guys escaping thanks to the incompetence of the central team is maddening. Then when the boss says “good work", praising the team… it’s just devastating. Banks directs like a janitor, trampling the legacy of the preceding versions. I didn’t expect anything great, but I’m surprised by how illogically all of the characters behave. Sure, the women help each other out and they’re best friends, which is understandable since all of the men in the movie are either idiots or bad guys. Oh, and one guy cooks for them and gives them massages. At least Stewart appears in a short skirt. (23/02/2020)

I don't think the strong feelings here are all that necessary; Charlie's Angels isn't a particularly bad film, but at the same time, sadly, it's not a particularly good one either. And the much-criticized Kristen Stewart is the most sympathetic of the central trio. I guess it's a shame that Elizabeth Banks wrote and directed the whole thing herself, because at least the action scenes didn't have to look like something out of a TV series and could have been engaging if someone more skilled had taken them on. As it is, a film with a very promising plot and an appealing cast drowns in less than two hours of lukewarm entertainment for the undemanding, which heats up only occasionally. (31/07/2020)

'Bella', 'Yasmine' and 'that tall girl', led by 'Effie', try to dust off the (semi-)forgotten glory of seductively murderous angels, which they manage to do at times thanks to briskly shot action scenes that had (ironically, and not even in the chauvinistic sense at least) proper balls. You get to see some nice locations with the trio, dust off the bad guys' coats, and get some of those plot twists. As for the cast, I was most comfortable with the likeable Elizabeth Banks, the charismatic Patrick Stewart and the pretty much speechless but all the more murderous Jonathan Tucker. The leading trio was bland, but not offensive. Sam Claflin was a moron for most of his time on screen. Even though the film is labeled as a comedy, there are basically no memorable funny moments. If the humor line was on a higher level and the film wasn't made during the "women's film boom" I would have given it a solid three stars, but in this case it's better two. P.S. Lana rulezzz! (16/02/2020)

I absolutely don't understand why this action phantasmagoria with its not so clever script was made at all. Elizabeth Banks probably wanted to please herself and made a movie to her liking, regardless of what the audience would say. It's got no supporting idea or joke. Terrible, boring, lacking ingenuity. (25%) (12/02/2023)