Birds of Prey finds catharsis in its brutality

Margot Robbie in Birds of Prey. Image courtesy Warner Bros.

Somewhere between the innumerable mangled limbs and supersized bursts of energy that coat the surface Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn is unbridled rage against an oppressive society. While the film doesn't have the depth to tackle the depths of the cause for its rage, it has plenty of grit and tenacity that nearly make up for it. This is a film dedicated to vengeance and the unlikely friendships that arise from that pursuit.

Birds of Prey picks up sometime after the conclusion of Suicide Squad. Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) is single after breaking things off with the Joker and struggling to cope with life without per pudding. Despite her best efforts to start over, she soon finds herself in the sights of aspiring crime lord and professional chauvinist Roman Sionis (an enthusiastic Ewan McGregor) and his psychotic underling Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina). Roman threatens to kill Harley unless she can find a diamond in the possession of young pickpocket Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Basco). Also on the case are Detective Renee Montoya (Rosie Perez), who is working with lounge singer Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), and the mysterious Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who is out for revenge. Roman soon double crosses Harley, and it's up to her, Renee, Black Canary, and Huntress to protect Cassandra and stop Roman from becoming the most powerful villain in Gotham.

Birds of Prey is the most brutal of the D.C. films. Every fight scene functions as an excuse to break somebody's legs or take a wild swing at a skull with an aluminum baseball bat to inflict as much pain as possible. The film gets pretty hardcore, culminating in an absolutely vicious final kill that leaves folks cringing from the delirious excess of the endeavor. Birds of Prey combines the grounded violence of the Batman flicks with the Looney Tunes shorts it references to create this bizarre concoction of cartoonish human pain. The surreal violence fits the reality of Harley, who serves as the protagonist and the film's narrator. Harley's world is vicious and silly, heightened even more by the heartbreak from ending a long-term relationship. This is a breakup movie at its core, so it makes sense for Harley Quinn to shuffle through anger and grief to find some value in her self after shedding the last vestiges of her relationship. It takes a while, but in the case of any breakup Harley realizes she's better off alone than with a man who treats her poorly.

Even taking account Harley's role as a twisted narrator, Birds of Prey makes a few unnecessarily uncomfortable narrative choices. One scene, in which Harley is nearly date raped (Black Canary reluctantly comes to the rescue), is a bothersome trope that is ultimately unnecessary to serve either of its purposes. Removing Harley's filter for a moment, the scene exists as a character development arc for Black Canary to showcase her battle against her conscience and her adeptness as a brawler. Both are either referenced or made evident frequently before and after and could be introduced independent of an attempted rape. Adding Harley's filter back though reflects the film's underlying complication with its critique of societal misogyny. Birds of Prey is not subtle with its depictions of gross men doing gross things, but the film misses out on exploration of the nuances that allow these things to happen. There is a lot of potential for Harley to wail on a dude cutting in front of her in line or interrupting her in the midst of a speech, which would be as cathartic as beating up a pair of attempted racists. Birds of Prey had a lot of options it could take to emphasize its points about misogyny, so resorting to rape attempts to prove the point is cliché and dents some of the film's thematic resonance.

But there remains satisfaction with aggressors, especially as the film's female stars come together to fight against an army of male oppressors. The final fight has a few nice little moments to show the characters bonding amid the cascade of bullets and broken bones that add a feminine touch to the carnage. The sequence and the final cool down before the credits roll merges the raging sexism and Harley's personal journey to a logical conclusion. In a world in which men are obnoxiously dominant and perpetually dangerous, it makes sense for women to band together to help and protect one another. Birds of Prey isn't a paragon of feminism, but it at least allows viewers to blow off a little steam by living vicariously through its female heroes and anti-heroes.

Review: Three out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 109 minutes

Genre: Action

tl;dr

What Worked: Margot Robbie, Ewan McGregor, Huntress

What Fell Short: Tropes

What To Watch Instead: Mad Love

Great cast can't prop up portentous Just Mercy

Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Foxx in Just Mercy. Image courtesy Warner Bros.

One of the worst things a film can try to be is powerful. Films can convey a lot of weight and impact on the viewer through acting, writing, and message because the filmmakers driving it have something of import to say. But a powerful film should be naturally so, delivering messages of great import through the craft. For films like Just Mercy, the attempt at gravitas comes across as trying too hard and results in a film that is more didactic than memorable.

Like most films of its ilk, Just Mercy is based on the true story of Bryan Stevenson (played by Michael B. Jordan), an idealistic Harvard attorney who dedicates his life to helping prisoners in need. Assisted by the tenacious Eva Ansley (Brie Larson), Stevenson picks up the case of inmate Walter McMillian (Jamie Foxx), who is on death row solely due to the testimony of erratic witness Ralph Myers (Tim Blake Nelson). Stevenson spends years fighting against a corrupt system spearheaded by a spineless DA (Rafe Spall) to save McMillian from state-instituted death.

Just Mercy never lives up to the sum of its parts. The talent is there and Jordan, Fox, Larson, and Nelson all do good work in their respective roles. Stevenson's story is almost too perfect to craft a fine courtroom drama reminiscent of The Verdict. Yet the film doesn't dive into the material with nuance or an eye for dissecting the depth of the issues that cause a Walter McMillian to be put on death row with little evidence. Just Mercy thrives above the surface, giving the audience something to feel good about without challenging preconceived notions. Everything about the film is too easy and too direct; the line between evil men and the good folks contains no room for grey. The audience isn't granted room to consider the roots of the racism that drives the villains or the virtue of its central character, and without that room for ambiguity the film lacks the teeth it needs.

The actual horror about what happened to McMillian happens in the procedures director Destin Daniel Cretton and his co-writer Andrew Lanham don't choose to explore. Institutional racism is dangerous because it his hidden within minutiae constituting the law. Racists are terrible people worthy of condemnation, but they get away with their racism because the law both protects and supports their view. Just Mercy focuses on the individuals with barely a glance at the system that enables them. Viewers should be bothered by this topic because of its subtlety and how easily it pervades society. Saying racism is bad like Just Mercy does is an easy win; pushing into a person's biases is far more challenging and much more rewarding if done well.

Films like Just Mercy can at least be watchable with the premise and the cast it has in tow and can be more so with good writing. Cretton and Lanham miss heavily on the writing though, in particular when it comes to their central characters. Despite the talent on hand, none of the performers are provided a character to play. Each person is a collection of speeches designed to make the audience either nod in agreement or hiss in anger, sort of like a wrestling match about racism. Building the film around multiple speeches provides the important veneer of power Cretton and Lanham strive for, but at the expense of legitimate character growth and storytelling. Nobody really grows or changes in the film; they start off with an important speech and end with a similar important speech with the journey in between not actually mattering. Stevenson in particular is granted little change; he starts the film as idealistic and angelic and ends the film in the same state. His main flaw is youth, which he overcomes by getting older. I can guess the reason for this view of Stevenson is due to the real-life Stevenson serving as a producer and writing the source material, which explains why a biographical film leans heavily toward the hagiography. (That Just Mercy gives him the cinematic equivalent of a halo in the third act is a little much). It's difficult to succeed with an overly perfect lead character, which is apropos for a film like Just Mercy that tries far too hard and falls short because of it.

Review: Two and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 136 minutes

Genre: Drama

tl;dr

What Worked: Cast

What Fell Short: Characterization, Dialog, Depth

What To Watch Instead: The Verdict, Fruitvale Station

Little Women is an exquisite exploration of family, growing up

Saoirse Ronan and Timothée Chalamet in Little Women. Image courtesy Columbia Pictures.

Little Women is simply extraordinary. It's riveting and enchanting, sweet and bittersweet, buoyed by an incredible level of brilliance in nearly every facet. The film is far too good to be described as simple comfort film – it's much too intricate for that – yet it is comforting to watch a film as exquisite and charming as this. 

Based on the eponymous novel by Louisa May Alcott, Little Women centers on the March sisters over the course of seven years in the 1860s. Jo (Saoirse Ronan) is an aspiring writer living in a tiny apartment in New York City. Oldest sister Meg (Emma Watson) is a married mother of two with dreams of wealth and comfort. Amy (Florence Pugh) lives with Aunt March (Meryl Streep) in Paris and wants to marry into wealth to support her family. Beth (Eliza Scanlen) is at home in Concord, Massachusetts with matriarch Marmee (Laura Dern), living a quiet life while fighting against an unspecified condition. The March sisters find a friend in their whimsical neighbor Laurie (Timothée Chalamet) and a patron in Laurie's grandfather (Chris Cooper) as they grow up through times hard and good.

Little Women is a fundamentally excellent film; everything in this film works, and it works to a brilliant degree. There are no glaring flaws with the writing, directing, acting, cinematography, editing, or soundtrack. Every emotional beat is struck with the perfect amount of force to wring out the desired effect. Writer/director Greta Gerwig has created a film that is legitimately outstanding, building upon the existing material to create a lovely, relatable story of family and growing up. 

   

The main drama in Little Women is rooted in the difficulties of both, shown through quotidian anecdotes from the March sisters' childhoods. A day at the beach is nearly as memorable as Amy burning Jo's novel or Meg's wedding to the kind John Brooke (James Norton), with each moment adding more layers to the March family dynamic. All of these small moments in the March women's lives build up to a remarkable portrait of sisters navigating into the confusing world of adulthood, reconsidering their youthful ambitions. The March sisters all have dreams of becoming an artist – whether it be a writer, musician, actor, or painter – that either fall apart or come close to doing so. The film isn't about settling for something short of your dreams; rather, the characters look within themselves to find what matters to them and who they want to be. Amy, Jo, and Meg all go through this process of self reflection and come out of it knowing their course as they establish themselves as adults. 

There's nothing overly complex about the film's storytelling, but Gerwig does something quite clever by jumping between the past and the film's present without clear demarcations. Little Women might start a story in Paris and quickly jump back to Concord to link that specific moment with a memory. Aside from linking the past and present directly, this adds a little verisimilitude to the storytelling. Memories can pop out of nowhere with little provocation, so the film doing the same feels true to life and serves as a subtle method of drawing a closer connection with the March sisters. The audience is living life through the eyes of the family, adding to the weight of the hard times and the joy of the good times. If done poorly, this could alienate the audience by confusing them, but Gerwig handles this beautifully. She shows a talent for guiding multiple narratives and has faith in her storytelling to keep the audience invested despite the frequent time skips.

What's most endearing about Little Women is the decency coursing through this film. There is so much kindness and caring shown by the main characters its impossible to avoid investment in the lives of the March family. Every character has a few flaws to keep them human, yet the flaws never overshadow how much everyone cares for one another. Gerwig doesn't force her characters to do the right things at all times, yet they care enough to feel contrition for their actions and use that to grow into more mature, kinder people. Jo and Amy have the most turbulent relationship of the four sisters, but the film ends with them respecting each other for their wisdom and talents, along with forgiveness for transgressions fueled by immaturity. Adulthood can have that affect on families – the squabbles of the past become less and less important as siblings grow up and find perspective – and Little Women shows how captivating growing up can be.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 134 minutes

Genre: Drama

tl;dr

What Worked: Writing, Directing, Acting, Storytelling

What Fell Short: A bit of drag in the third act

What To Watch As Well: Atonement, Frances Ha

Holy Cats! This Broadway adaptation terrible!

Francesca Hayward and Robbie Fairchild in Cats. Image courtesy Universal Pictures.

Reason and sanity are not things to be found in Cats. Rather, the loopy, unfortunately and mildly enchanting Broadway adaptation is all things and no things at once. Somehow, despite a brilliant lack of cohesion or basic plot logic, this film drew a bunch of famous folks – Idris Elba! Taylor Swift! Judi Dench! Jason Derulo! – to lend an air of respectability to the lunacy. Perhaps I'm missing something indelible about a show that ran for many, many years on Broadway. Or maybe the film adaptation is the fever dream of ego-driven idiots.

 

I think Cats is about a talent show in which the winner is reincarnated or something along those lines. Aside from the stars mentioned above are Jennifer Hudson, Ray Winstone, Ian McKellen, Rebel Wilson, and James Corden. Ballerina Francesca Hayward serves as the audience surrogate exploring what tries to be a mystical world of feline majesty. Everyone is dressed like a cat, they have weird cat names and do quasi cat things that are far sillier than ever intended. There are many songs tossed in because this is a musical, including a song Swift sings that is well outside her capabilities. Then everything ends on a rather banal shot meant to mean something important to director Tom Hooper and Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Cats is an audacious calamity, wrong on almost every front and on nearly every level. Sometimes the film is bizarre and accidentally enchanting, littered with impeccable scenery devouring by Elba, McKellen, and Wilson. It tries to hit so many tones and have so many layers it misses all of them, dashing through emotions at unimaginable speeds and with no control. Cats is madness with a $90 million budget and a director with no clue what to do with it, the perfect recipe for an expensive cluster best viewed on hallucinogens.

With two hours of screen time to fill though Cats can't keep the insanity rolling. It's in those moments where the film's legitimate incompetence comes to light, bringing the terrible fun to a frustrating halt. Like the CGI, which looks dreadful and incomplete, as if they gave up about three quarters of the way in. Hooper fails wildly staging the musical numbers, most notably in the two renditions of Memory. This is the showcase song, and the film has the very experienced Hudson on hand to sing it. This should be the easiest win for this film, but it ends up completely mucking the whole thing up. The emotions wrought from the song land with a thud, due to a mix of Hooper failing to establish the right tone, strange choreography choices in the second version, and general framing and editing flaws that fail to convey the song's melancholy. Hudson is game and tries her best, but it's hard to succeed when everything around you is en fuego as it is in Cats.

If any one thing kept this film going though, it was the audience at the screening I attended. I've never sat with an audience as splendidly sincere and sarcastic as the one who soldiered through Cats with me. Every little cat pun or dumb, awkward cat movement garnered a wicked groan or one of those “I cannot believe this is happening” laughs. Some folks applauded after a few of the musical numbers – Memory was not one of them – because somehow applause is the only acceptable way to appreciate insanity, even if no one behind it is around to hear it. It was a hoot to watch it with folks, a shared experience that will be difficult to replicate in the future. Too bad this five-star audience had to sit through a one-star film. 

Review: One out of Five Stars  

Click here to see the trailer. 

Rating: PG

Run time: 110 minutes

Genre: Musical 

tl;dr  

What Worked: Audience 

What Fell Short: Everything Else 

What To Watch Instead: Singing in the Rain, Umbrellas of Cherbourg

Richard Jewell a deep character study undermined by politics

Sam Rockwell and Paul Walter Hauser in Richard Jewell. Image courtesy Warner Bros.

What's worrisome about Richard Jewell is how far down the rabbit hole director Clint Eastwood fell. The numerous splendid moments of filmmaking and the brilliance of the dive into the film's central figure is nearly overlapped by a pervading sense of paranoia from the director about bureaucracy conspiring against an average white man. This is Eastwood's millstone, an inability to see the humanity driving the institutions he fears.

Richard Jewell stars Paul Walter Hauser as the eponymous security guard, an unremarkable man who saves hundreds of lives after discovering a bomb at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. Despite the act of courage, Jewell's grandiose dreams and odd past behavior draw the attention of FBI agent Tom Shaw (Jon Hamm), who suspects Jewell planted the bomb himself to become famous. Shaw leaks the investigation to tenacious reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), which instantly turns Jewell from a hero to a villain. With the help of attorney Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell) and his mother Bobbi (Kathy Bates), Jewell fights against the forces opposing him to clear his name.

Eastwood and screenwriter Billy Ray dive incredibly deep into its central character to reveal a man whose shining moment of competence nearly ruins his life. Underneath the hushed voice and abundances of “sirs” is a man with a healthy ego and aspirations for mild greatness as a law enforcement official. Jewell is a legitimate hero who saved multiple lives, but Richard Jewell isn't afraid to show the human side – especially the ego – pushing that heroism. In an era defined by heroes who are so far above human realism they are barely relatable, it is pleasant to see a man's flaws result in an act of courage. To paraphrase an Emerson quote, the difference between a hero and ordinary folk is five minutes of courage, and the film mines a lot from that idea.

The humanity Eastwood and Ray provide for Jewell are not afforded to the forces opposing him. The battle in Richard Jewell is the fight between a decent guy and powerful institutions – government and the media – out to ruin his life, but the humans representing those forces come across as cartoonish in comparison. Shaw's motivations are flat and uninvestigated, his presence more stereotypical than nuanced. The film's portrayal of Scruggs, whose name was not changed for this film, is far more concerning. She's not only depicted not simply as a woman who is willing to sleep with a source for information, but a terrible journalist and even worse human being, celebrating the deaths of innocent people to advance her career. And despite the film's take on her reporting, her article was correct and had additional sourcing the film implies did not exist. 

Neither Shaw nor Scruggs should be a villain in this film. They were two people doing their jobs in the aftermath of incredible act of violence and terror, consumed by a need to rush for truth and information. They were human, yet Eastwood and Ray cannot find that humanity. This is becoming a trend for Eastwood, who took a similar approach with Sully. In both film, the actions of the main characters are impugned by governmental investigation to the point the terror of the initial actions are overshadowed by the bureaucracy. Even if the case against Richard Jewell was untrue, the idea the government overstepped by conducting an investigation is ludicrous. Yet this is the worldview Eastwood presents in Richard Jewell, a fever dream in which good white men are persecuted for their good deeds. These ideas permeate so deep into this film it overshadows some stellar filmmaking. The sequence when Jewell first finds the bomb through the inevitable explosion is filled with brilliant tension worthy of Hitchcock. Eastwood plays with the audience's knowledge that the bomb will go off, throwing in some hints of a timeline to mess with perspective and keep the actual moment of detonation a shock to viewers. That moment should be the film's centerpiece, yet Eastwood gets so lost in the ensuing legal issues the power of that moment becomes window dressing. Richard Jewell is a good film, but Eastwood pursuit of victimhood prevents his film from becoming anything more than that.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 129 minutes

Genre: Drama

tl;dr

What Worked: Richard Jewell, Paul Walter Hauser

What Fell Short: Secondary Characters, Politics, Lazy Foreshadowing

What To Watch As Well: Shattered Glass

Mystery abounds in brilliantly fun Knives Out

Daniel Craig, LaKeith Stanfield, and Noah Segan in Knives Out. Image courtesy Lions Gate.

At the center of Knives Out is a murder most foul. Legendary mystery writer Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is discovered dead by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas) the morning after his birthday party. The suspects are Harlan's flesh and blood. Could it have been his daughter Linda (Jamie Lee Curtis), or her husband Richard (Don Johnson), or his son Ransom (Chris Evans)? Was it Walt (Michael Shannon), or his wife Donna (Riki Lindhome), or his son Jacob (Jaeden Martell)? Or maybe it was his daughter-in-law Joni (Toni Collette) or granddaughter Meg (Katherine Langford)? Everyone has a motive and opportunity, and it's up to private eye Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig, sporting a brilliantly absurd southern accent), Lieutenant Elliot (LaKeith Stanfield), and Trooper Wagner (Noah Segan) to determine what caused Harlan Thrombey's demise.

Saying too much more would ruin the fun writer/director Rian Johnson has with Knives Out. This movie is a blast from start to end, zigging and zagging and zigging again from one deliriously clever twist to the next. Johnson weaves his tale tightly, providing the audience nearly exactly the amount of information to make the final big swerve ending nearly perfect. This is an incredibly difficult trick to pull off in a genre notorious for hiding vital information from the viewer just for the sake of maintaining the mystery. That isn't Johnson's style though. Rather, he employs storytelling and filmmaking sleights of hand to retain a scintilla of ambiguity, just enough to keep the audience from knowing for sure what led to Harlan Thrombey's demise. You could watch Knives Out for days on end to find the little Easter eggs and hints Johnson throws in to throw viewers off. He borrows liberally from films like Rashomon and The Maltese Falcon as little tricks, playing on audience expectations from years of precedent, only to upend the expectations early on because it's far more fun to play with a genre than adhere to the rules strictly.

Johnson fortunately carries over the mystery genre tradition of the terribly wealthy family being terrible. The characters (and cast by extension) in Knives Out are an absolute hoot, dropping bon mots and retorts with the perfect amount of spite and malice. They are designed to be perfectly detestable, wrapped up in their world of wealth yet trying ever so hard to think they've earned anything despite starting at third base. It is so, so much fun watching these folks squirm during Benoit Blanc's interrogations or realize everything they'd planned for in life has gone to pot. The Thrombeys deserve the worst, and yet there is something sad about the entire affair. The film depicts a family that long ago gave up on ever actually liking one another, effectively waiting for their patriarch to die to inherit their slice of Harlan Thrombey's millions. Johnson's sense of humor doesn't completely cover the sadness of that scenario; avarice tore the Thrombey family asunder and nothing can ever repair that lost connection. Harlan Thrombey's legacy is a family with motive to murder him, which is both tragic and apropos for a genre dedicated to greed.

It is easy to read the tragedy in Knives Out, but Johnson and company are far, far more interested in putting on one helluva show than reflect on the sadness of being. This is one of the most purely fun films to come out this year, balancing entertainment with a fun little mental puzzle to keep viewers enthralled and engaged in the action on screen. Almost everything works about this film – from the writing and directing to the casting and right into the spacing, lighting, and even costumes. Every little thing in this movie means something, every frayed thread on a sweater or confused memory leads to something big and interesting. Knives Out is a piece of exquisite filmmaking that never fails to entertain its viewers, which is about as high of praise as a film can get.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 130 minutes

Genre: Crime

tl;dr

What Worked: Script, Acting, Daniel Craig's accent

What Fell Short: One reveal is a little too obvious

What To Watch As Well: Brick, Murder on the Orient Express

Action falls short in Charlie's Angels reboot

Ella Balinska, Kristen Stewart, and Naomi Scott in Charlie's Angels. Image courtesy Columbia Pictures.

Some credit is due to the new incarnation of Charlie's Angels for being somewhat different than the eponymous television series and recent movie franchise. This new version uses the previous versions as a launching pad to tell a contemporary story about surviving and thriving in a male-dominated world. But there's little else beyond this worth writing home about, as the positives are often undercut by a film with a lot of nagging gaps and unmemorable action sequences. Charlie's Angels isn't a bad film; it's just incomplete.

Charlie's Angels stars Kristen Stewart and Ella Balinska as Sabina and Jane, two agents in the international Townsend Detective Agency. Sabina and Jane are assigned to protect Elena (Naomi Scott), a brilliant programmer turned whistleblower against her boss Peter (Nat Faxon). Elena wants to inform company owner Alexander Brock (Sam Claflin) about a potentially lethal flaw in their new product, but the situation quickly becomes dangerous, leaving the three alone with a new Bosley (writer/director Elizabeth Banks) to investigate what went wrong. Meanwhile, the original Bosley (a wonderful Patrick Stewart) is just starting retirement, but becomes suspicious about potential wrongdoing in his old organization.

Charlie's Angels has some wonky bits that course through the script. There's a twist, and a twist upon the original twist, and neither twist is developed particularly well. Rather, they come across as inorganic to the narrative, existing for the sake of existing because fulfilling the first twist violates one of the film's reason to be. Eliminating the thematic dissonance that first twist brings, the film telegraphs both twists poorly, missing an important beat or two in the order of presentation, as well as a flashback that does not fit the rest of the film.

Generally it seems like there is a scene or two that is missed to tie this twist together. The rest of the film has this feeling too, that there's just something incomplete about Charlie's Angels. Where this strikes most is in the film's character arcs. Banks' script is missing a few key moments of growth in the relationship between Sabina and Jane, with the film jumping from mild hostility to emotional dependence without tying the two elements together. There's not a moment where the two depend on each other, including the action sequences where it would fit naturally to have such a moment. The issue falls with a script that tries to wring so much out of the two-hour run time it can't find time to connect the characters, sequences, and intrigue into a cohesive unit. Charlie's Angels would be a better film with either more time to develop the characters and story or removing some elements in favor of a more linear plot.

The film's script is imperfect, but it's not a bad baseline for the film to build on. Banks has a lot of fun with Charlie's Angels as a concept, creating a fascinating world with a female-oriented spy agency can infiltrate all aspects of society. Female unity is a key theme for this movie, with women uniformly looking out for one another through dangerous situations and chauvinism both brazen and subtle. Sabina is also a fantastic character, a queer lead unashamed of her broad sexual preferences and yet does not fall into the bisexual trope of being overly flirtatious. Sabina is written well and performed even better by Stewart, who expresses more zest and glee than usual while tossing in some pretty solid line deliveries. At the least Banks has a strong sense of humor, writing in some solid little quips and a keen understanding of exactly how long to let a running joke go before cutting it off.

Banks is very good as a comedic writer/director, but her action chops need work. Charlie's Angels suffers from uninspired action sequences that lack excitement and panache. There's nothing awe-inspiring or innovative about the fights on screen, nothing to thrill audiences or give them their money's worth. Even the comedic fight scenes involving Elena fall short, a missed opportunity for the film to showcase a little slapstick. Banks' innate sense of humor keeps Charlie's Angels from failure, but the lack of action and inconsistent character development dooms the film to mediocrity.

Review: Two and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 118 minutes

Genre: Action

tl;dr

What Worked: Kristen Stewart, Patrick Stewart, Humor

What Fell Short: Character Development, Action, Plotting

What To Watch Instead: Charlie's Angels