Charlies Angels 4K 2019 Ultra HD 2160p

The whole world knows about this trinity of fighting beauties who work for Charlie and are called Angels. This time you will find a completely new team of girls who have to go on a dangerous mission and remind everyone what real heroines should look like.

Charlies Angels 4K Review
Programmer Elena (Naomi Scott) is working on an innovative technology that allows you to draw energy from almost the air. At the very deadline, she finds in her development a vulnerability that could allow attackers to use the device as a weapon, but of course, no one listens to it. Then the girl turns to the Townsend agency, not knowing that this is a top-secret organization of spy girls known as “angels”. Elena does not know that they are trying to kill her - and someone is very influential. With no other choice, she teams up with agents Sabina (Kristen Stewart) and Jane (Ella Balinska), as well as their boss Bosley (Elizabeth Banks), to sort out this confusing matter.

Elizabeth Banks continues the pilgrimage to fossil television franchises, whose commercial potential has not yet been completely destroyed by merciless time. In 2017, she played the sworn enemy of the Power Rangers. Now, as a director, producer and screenwriter, he is putting on his “Charlie's Angels” - a film based on media franchise with half a century of history and at first glance perfectly meeting the industry’s demand for a lively “female” action movie, where strong heroines with fists and lead make their way through the harsh patriarchal world. But this is only at first glance.

The fact is that the success of Charlie's Angels, both the original 1976 series and, to an even greater extent, the 2000 film, was based on ideals that were not at all progressive. This movie is essentially exploitative, and it exploits, of course, the sexuality of its heroines: you just remember how zealously the restart of the zero shoved Lucy Liu's buttocks into the wide-angle lens of her camera. Elizabeth Banks refuses to exploit the franchise and not only continues the traditions of her predecessors, but argues with them: they say, you can remove the fervent fighter action movie without your tight leggings.

That's just in his protest never goes to the end: no matter how Kristen Stewart throws liberal speeches and no matter how much Banks tries to turn the cliche of the genre, changing the gender of the archetype of “girls in trouble” (although, if you think about it, Bill Murray is already so she was a “girl in trouble”), she remains faithful to many clichés of conditionally “girlish” cinema, derived, of course, by male producers. She screams Girl Power! pink fonts for a sweet pop, and her attempts to express herself with the text are not much smarter than the idiotic and sexist van liners that Banks puts to the mouths of his villains ("Angels always lacked men!").

The new Charlie Angels, no matter how modern they try to seem, is the same clumsy action from the zero, where the plot is explained by technical idle talk (“we need a reverse blockchain relay” or something like that), where Newton does He didn’t invent gravity, and hacking a computer is easier than going for bread. And if someone more creative was in the director’s place, all this funny flair could easily be used for the benefit of the film - look at least at Kingsman or the third John Wick. But Banks, who had previously shot only “Perfect Voice 2” (a film that is remembered only because he treacherously stole the box office from “Mad Max”), obviously does not attract the great action director and work with such a glamorous plastic can not.

The battle scenes here look like about the remaining 99% of the boring Hollywood scuffle - from that category of films where someone like Gerard Butler usually plays - and successful concepts are crumbling with banal cinematic grayness. Modern Angels look worse than their predecessors, filmed two decades ago by not the most prominent director McG: they generally very nice aged with their terrible chromakey, stupid slow-mo and absolutely fantastic villain Crispin Glover, voluptuously inhaling the aroma of hair torn from heroines (here they tried to replace him with the identical character of Jonathan Tucker, but it turned out, of course, so-so). It’s unlikely that Banks will be able to recall and revise it with the same trepidation after a dozen or two years: watching it now, what is there, is quite painful.