Might want to clap a title on it. Just so people don\'t have to fistfight their phones if they find it without a keyboard.
Surprised for a vaguely positive review of a franchise I keep being surprised other people actually like though... I suppose it benefits from low expectations.
Thank god you commented, I was scrambling myself and unable to edit the review once I\'d realised what I\'d done.
Book me today! I also review weddings, funerals and bar mitzvahs.
\'s the other reason I do it, but I don\'t wanna toot my own horn or nuthin\'.
Sabina appears sexualized in the beginning because it is intended to be shown from the man\'s point of view. Also, that was the whole point of it. It\'s her way of making herself seem unremarkable among the other women in the man\'s life. I have no idea why this matters so much to me.
Leave a Comment:
...er...Charlie's...Banals?
Within the opening line of the movie, Kristen Stewart makes an argument for modern women's lib to a sexist business man. She's doing this whilst slinking around in a mini-dress, giving said man a footjob. I think that summarises my issues with the politics of the Charlie's Angel's Franchise: "Equal treatment and respect for women is great and all, but let's get back to ogling them". It's rather telling that in the same speech, Kristen talks about how "unattractive women go ignored", and the movie proceeds to not have a single unattractive woman in its entire cast. I appreciate the movie for calling attention to social issues, it has its heart in the right place, but its hands are pressed firmly on its crotch.
Sexual politics aside, 2019's Charlie's Angels reboot/continuation is an okay movie. It goes through all the beats of a classic espionage flick; The Angels - a team of lady super spies - are chasing some science Macguffin to stop it falling into enemy hands, which inevitably means globe hopping between tourist landmarks, swanning around opulent locales in expensive clothes, and getting into occasional action chase scenes. Swap out the lead trio with Roger Moore and it would be largely indistinguishable from most Bond movies. It's all very generic and forgettable, but certainly not worse than anything else I've seen, and certainly not the majority of Roger Moore Bond movies.
One thing that does stand out is Kristen Stewart, who gets to play someone a little more silly and lively for once. She's the fun-loving Angel, as opposed to Ella Balinska's serious-business Angel, and Naomi Scott's way-in-over-her-head newbie. Whilst much of the humour reminds me of a skit about movies having all the same jokes now
, it is again as passable and vaguely enjoyable as the plot.
I don't think its a movie you should pay money to watch, but if you bump into Charlie's Angels whilst channel surfing or on Netflix, give it a chance and you'll get a vaguely positive experience you probably won't remember.