Recensioni degli utenti

As a life-long 63 year-old conservative, I watched this movie after reading these reviews with very low expectations, especially after hearing about Elizabeth Banks' clearly offensive comments! Harkening back to the 70s TV show, Charlie's Angels has always had messages about strong, powerful women. So what? And calling this movie a re-make is a bad mischaracterization,as it is set 40 years after the TV show with an agency that had grown with the years. I was happy to see that the movie was actually enjoyable, with the traditional plot twists. Was it great art, no. Was it fun, yes. I have no idea why some reviewers are completely trashing this movie! I recommend you watch this and judge for yourself!

Initially I had expected this 2019 movie to be worse than it actually turned out to be. Why? Well, first of all, we - as the audience - didn't really need another attempt to put "Charlie's Angels" to the big screen, it was done with equally little success back in 2000 and 2003. So this was a completely and wholeheartedly unnecessary movie.

Still, I was given the chance to sit down and watch it, so I did. And I must say that it was actually entertaining enough for what it turned out to be - a generic action movie, with a plot and script that had been done so many times before in other movies.

Truth be told, then I must admit that Kristen Stewart actually have managed to shed off her Bella-skin. While she is not an actress that I would rush out to the cinema to watch in a new movie, she did perform well enough in this movie.

The movie actually had a nice enough cast ensemble, which included the likes of Patrick Stewart, Djimon Hounsou, Elizabeth Banks and Nat Faxon.

"Charlie's Angels" is watchable, sure, but this is not a movie that rocked the movie industry, and I am sure it came and went without leaving as much as a dent in the paint job.

I am rating it a very, very mediocre five out of ten stars.

I dont get the 1's and 2's. Theyre all literally in a line, so Im guessing theyre mostly trolls. None of the other reviews are actually helpful, so Id figure Id leave a review by someone who ACTUALLY watched the movie. As far as pure entertainment value is concerned, when compared to 8's on here and above, this movie is an easy and obvious 6 or 7. More like a 6.5 But not a 1 or 2, thats absurd. The acting wasnt what the other reviewers are making it out to be; everyone in the movie acted the way they usually do,with the exception of Kristen Stewart, whose acting in this movie was DRASTICALLY better than in Twilight. I dont think the other reviewers understand how acting works. Actors dont choose their script; they ACT OUT a script they are GIVEN. They have to nail a role that ANOTHER PERSON dreamt up. In that regard, Kristen Stewart nailed her character, and thats easily obvious by anyone with a brain. Out of the entire cast, her acting in this movie was easily and obviously the best. She provided an electricity and refreshing atmosphere to a character I havent seen in a long time. Honestly, I feel like the other reviewers watched 30 minutes of the movie, and simply judged Kristen Stewart for being Kristen Stewart in Twilight. Out of the 3 Charlies Angels movie since 2000, this is easily the best one. Easily. The plot ACTUALLY makes sense. No glaringly obvious plot holes. I simply took the movie for what it was; a hollywood action film with women. Oh wait, maybe thats why theres all the bad reviews...you know, cause...well, you know...men.

I'm no movie critic, just a woman who loves going to the movies. And I loved the movie! I was entertained, I loved the twist, I loved the music, the cameos, the clothes (although I'm more of a conservative girl myself), and the action. Of course my husband fell asleep and hated it, but I loved it and I can't wait to go see again with some girlfriends.

I recently watched two charlie's angels movies from the early 2000's. figured i'd give them a shot after hating them the first time in theaters. i very much enjoyed them for what they were: ridiculous and outrageous fun. with all the reboots these days i checked and found that a new one was coming out so i added it to my watch list.

this new version is bad in so many ways. it has very little ridiculousness or outrageousness, while at the same time being completely unrealistic. the story was complete nonsense, yet somehow predictable. the dialogue was bad. there was no semblance of characters. most of the comedy was crickets. and there were numerous cringe-y scenes.

it also suffers from what a lot of these female-empowerment movies suffer from lately. the "girl power" theme is just too preachy and in your face. make a good movie with good characters. i obviously wanted to see it knowing most of the cast would be female. but the movie has to not be garbage. don't even get me started on ocean's eight. another example where i was excited for this all female version of the movie. and the movie just sucked. and it as very preachy.

in conclusion, movies that have an agenda are generally worse for it. stop making movies for the purpose of female empowerment, and start making good movies with good female characters (1 viewing, 3/11/2020)

I don't remember myself ever being so irritated and angry watching a film. But this one did it.. When Charlie's Angels film was released with Lucy Liu, my girl Drew and Cameron D, I felt - yes! Girl power, step forward - puh-leeze! But this.. this!! This is not just one step back, this is several steps back, imho. The whole film fell flat for me: dialogue, jokes, using guns.. not even Patrick Stewart could save the film for me.. delete, delete, delete from my mind and my memory.. gotta watch the true Angels (2000) to restore the balance..

Is this the best Hollywood can put together for a all female movie. You either gotta be 'bad assed' like Hustlers or funny like Bridesmaids and this was neither. This movie was TERRIBLE! I can't believe they even finished filming it.

I absolutely loved Kristen Stewart in this movie role! I felt like it was so perfect for her. She was the star of this film for me.

Otherwise I thought it was a fun action movie and was surprised to see the bad reviews here.

I had considered four stars. 1. Really weak action scenes. Mostly just flying kicks & takedowns; heavily dependent on camera angle for itsy bitsy believability. Very mundane, seen before, nothing new. 2. Getting really old. The usual car chase that was laughably mundane, and the machine gun - please! Gawd! 3. Usual prop scenes of showing an expensive sports car; club scenes; fashion. 4. Plot nothing new. The same old corporate selling of dangerous device to baddies. Dangerous device could pass as a child's puzzle toy. Dangerous device fails plausibility & middle school science. 5. Acting & dialogue - sad.

When it was announced they were making this movie, I immediately took exception to the news and views never to watch it. I was wrong. I really enjoyed it. Great story, cast, action sequences. There were a couple of cringy moments but the last one was the same. I actually would prefer to watch this one than the Lucy Luo etc one. It's sad it bombed so badly but it was one of those movies that really didn't need to be made. I'm really glad it was and think it's a fun, Saturday night popcorn movie.

The Charlie's Angels movies in the early 2000s were a lot of fun. This Charlie's Angels...is not. The plot doesn't make any sense, the humor is lazy, and the action sequences are unbelievable--and by "unbelievable," I mean not believable. This movie also seems to have an underlying tone of misandry, as practically every male is predatory, dumb, or seducible (sometimes all three). As strange as it sounds, Kristen Stewart is the lone bright spot in this mess of an attempted reboot.

Not quite sure why this movie is getting all the hate. Watched it with some friends as a rental just looking for a fun girls night in. The movie delivered everything you promised. It's not Schindler's list, but not everything has to be. The movie was enjoyable overall and we all had fun watching it. Pretty clean content-wise which is, frankly, refreshing. I recommend it if you're looking for a light, easy to digest movie for a casual night in.

I heard bad reviews, but finally gave it a watch and this movie stands on it's own so well! I really don't understand the hate. The characters, style, stunts and jokes are so great. The actors did such a good job with their performance, it never feels forced. The plot isnt that special but thats kinda of the thing with these types of movies and in the end it really surprised and comes together in a great way.

11 out of 10. Because I watched it yesterday with M.

I can't believe this, watched from the start till the end and everything is just felt flat, Kristen Stewart trying so hard to be funny, (and fail), the opener is so boring, dialog line so generic, story is weak and mainstream, action scene is boring. big names like Sr. Patrick Stewart & Djimon Hounsou not effective to the movie. I just can "Feel" the movie man... the good point of this movie are just the girls are pretty, that's all. nb: best scene : last / end of the movie (before credit)

Unfortunately I see the movie as a missed opportunity. I don't feel it is as fun as it could be (quite silly a lot of times though) and unsure of the mood and tone of the film. It seems all over the place - and therefor feeling quite uneven. Maybe though you don't care and just are here for the fun ... hopefully it works for you, but as I said be wary and aware that it just might not.

Very good actors involved, paper characters though. Action is decent enough and there are some extras during the credits - if you are still around.

Sharknado was better.... Disappointed and I like Anna!!!

Now I'm a huge fan of the last two films with Cameron, Drew and Lucy so instantly I was a little nervous for this reboot with three new Angels.

Sadly this reboot is nothing like the previous two films. I struggled to see any strong chemistry between the girls, and just felt like they were three different individuals doing their own thing on the same mission. I applaud Elizabeth Banks for having her hands all over this project, but she needed to take about 100 steps back from the acting part, and maybe some of the script writing too. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Elizabeth Banks but her as Bosley... Ugh! The movie is about Charlie's Angel's.. Not Bosley's Angels. Elizabeth's character was there in ever scene, every mission, every single moment, that she was almost trying to be one of the Angels. Going back to this being Charlie's Angels.. The movie barely even mentions him and you have to wait till a end credit scene to hear the famous line "good morning Angels".

I can see where Elizabeth was heading with this film making it a strong female message but this is such a iconic franchise that some changes should not have been made.

Surprisingly Kristen Stewart was actually decent in this film and was the glue to the film. I was left heartbroken and devastated with how this reboot turned out.

Ignore the haters and accept the entertainment for what it is. I had a good time all the time in this movie. Also, never been a fan of Kristen Stewart but this movie made her shine more than the robot roles I've seen earlier. Don't understand why anyone bothers whether whatever gender a movie is made by or for. As I understand, this was made by lots of women and that just proves that we don't always need men in charge like most narrow-minded people thinks.

Boffin Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott) becomes a whistle-blower when she realises that the product she has been helping to develop has a serious flaw. Angels Sabina (Kristen Stewart) and Jane (Ella Balinska) investigate and learn that the invention -- a revolutionary new power source -- has the potential to be weaponised. Even worse, the prototypes have been stolen and are being offered to the highest bidder.

McG's two Charlie's Angels movies embraced the silliness of the whole concept, going for big dumb fun (albeit a bit too dumb in Full Throttle). In contrast, this feminist revision of the franchise attempts to be sassy, sophisticated, smart and stylish, with a massive dose of girl power designed to appeal to a woke #metoo audience.

Gender politics aside, it still ends up being dumb, but not much fun, thanks to a terrible script, clumsy execution, and humour that falls flat on its ass.

To be fair, I found the three main girls to be both attractive and likeable (even Kristin Stewart wasn't as irritating as I thought she might be), but affable eye-candy only gets you so far when virtually everything else about the film stinks. Writer/director Elizabeth Banks has thrown together a mess of clichés and bad gags for her script and clearly has no idea how to construct a film involving guns, fast cars and martial arts, making the movie a two-hour long exercise in action awfulness.

At the end of the film, Elena is recruited and trained as an angel, thereby paving the way for a sequel... one that I imagine will never happen given the general response to this massive misfire.

I really don't get the hate. It's a good action movie. Sure the device behind the plot is kinda goofy but you don't watch die hard for it's deep philosophical musings. Also I disliked Kristen stewart coming into this movie but she actually gave a surprisingly good performance. She was actually one of the most entertaining characters and I've definitely changed my opinion about her.

Very enjoyable. Classic story, a lot of girl power action, some weak comedy. This movie is really entertaining and fun to watch. Also Ella Balinska.

Honestly if a movie wants to push an agenda and make factoids about being sexist in the first 8 seconds. "it takes a man 7 seconds longer to perceive a woman as a threat in comparison to a man." if this is in fact true, i'd like to know the odds of the average woman being able to defeat the average man in a fist fight, because that is what this statement was referring to by a little girl. and it's probably a 95/5, and that not including weight relative, that number would be more like a 99.99/.01 Unless a woman has a weapon or you know if fact, that she is a trained fighter, a man shouldn't perceive her as a threat. what a joke