On November 14, the launch of Charlie’s Angels started in Russia – a soft restart of the franchise with Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska in the lead roles. The editor watched the film and explains why it is not as bad as they say .
Feminism is, but moderate
The Charlie Angels franchise has been associated with feminism from the start. At one time, the eponymous series of 1976-81 was one of the first, if not the only spy show in which all the main characters were women.
However, both in the series and in the dileogy that came out in the early 2000s with Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu, “Angels” worked in many ways for the male audience. They did not hesitate to show in revealing outfits, make them seduce men on the screen and behave frankly stupid.
A new picture in this sense is a little back from its origins. Now it is rather a youth version of Bondiana, only with women in the lead roles. Objectivization has become much less – such scenes still occur, but catch a glimpse and attention to them is not too emphasized.
Super spies performed by Kristen Stewart and Ella Balinska behave like seasoned professionals, and the level of character development is much higher than in other paintings. Each of the heroines has her own, albeit a small one, but the background is not just functions.
Domestic moments still slip, but they look very organic and even interesting. For example, a wardrobe in the headquarters of the “Angels” or a light flirt with a stranger during a task.
This is probably the reason for such changes in Elizabeth Banks, who became the first female director of the franchise. The new Charlie Angels is largely her author’s project: she single-handedly wrote the script, acted as a director and played one of the roles in the film.
According to the first trailer, it seemed to me that the film would not be very: knowing what forms a feminist agenda could take in Hollywood, I was afraid of an extremely one-sided movie. It’s nice to know that I was wrong – the picture came out quite restrained.
And although almost all men are villains here, and heroines can emerge victorious from a fight even with huge ambals, this does not cause rejection. And besides the introductory scene, no one promotes the fem-message “on the forehead”, it is introduced more elegantly.
Action simple but decent
“Charlie’s Angels” has nothing to surprise in terms of staging battle scenes. The moments with the action look simply ordinary – it is difficult to make any serious complaints against them, but there is nothing inventive or large-scale either.
In some places, the film greatly benefits from unexpected editing. Several completely banal scenes become much more interesting because you do not expect them.
Perhaps the inexperience of the director affected – Elizabeth Banks before that shot only one full-length film, not so big. But such a ragged pace for the most part is good for the picture.
The production of fights has always been a strong part of the series – in the dilogy of the 2000s “Angels” almost did not use weapons. In the new picture, the spies had a lot of lotions, like James Bond, but there are plenty of fights here: they are in almost all key moments.
However, despite the quite decent performance, the fights do not look natural. Girls scatter dozens of men without any problems and almost do not receive damage even after explosions. The picture really lacks a production, for example, as in “Atomic Blonde”, where the heroine Charlize Theron could easily be thrown into the wall or thrown off the stairs – there was no feeling that she was immortal.
At the same time, the action still looks pretty expensive. After leaving the hall, I was sure that the budget of the picture, taking into account many locations and effects, was at least $ 100 million, like modern mid-budget militants.
But the creators spent less than $ 50 million. This means that given the full-scale rental and release in China, the picture has no chance of not paying off. To do this, she will need to raise less than $ 100 million, and the film is predicted to 13 million only at the start in the United States. He can finish the rental with at least 148 million dollars at the box office.
It’s better not to think about the plot
The plot of the new “Angels” is both unoriginal and irrelevant. The role of the villain is played by an analogue of Ilon Mask, while the authors have not studied the subject at all, so the principle of technology in the picture is weakly correlated with reality.
The picture admits many conventions: for example, the heroines may first worry about someone’s death, but at the next moment make jokes about it. But if you just accept all this and not think, you can enjoy the movie.
Actually, Charlie’s Angels is not a franchise restart in the usual sense. The picture is a “rebel” – a rethinking of the universe that takes into account the existence of past films.
The picture came out stylish and youthful: there are enough musical cuts and good jokes, although in a couple of moments the authors clearly went over. The plot of the picture is straightforward, but some moves work perfectly, and the heroine Kristen Stewart turned out to be unexpectedly bright and interesting.
Charlie’s Angels is a high-budget episode of Totally Spies! an hour and a half long.
The new Charlie Angels are a lot like the good old animated series Totally Spies !. He also had three spies who saved the world, and the authors did not think too much about the realism of the stories.
The cartoon was equally popular among both boys and girls – some because of the adventure component, and others because of the role model. This is likely to be the case with Angels: the picture works great for viewers of both sexes.