#give me kristen stewart the action star!!!!!!

[forsurebuddy]

ngl this Charlie's Angels role is SO against type for kstew and I am fucking HERE. FOR. IT.

[starshipsofstarlord]

Love your writings. Can you do one with Lizzie and reader and doing thirst tweets and the tweets are really dirty and reader is having a fun time watching Lizzie get all flustered until it’s her turn and then she getting all embarrassed?

Tweets For Two

Pairing | Elizabeth Olsen x reader

Summary | reading thirst tweets were supposed to truthful fantasies of the fans, and Lizzie was well aware of that, but she couldn’t help but feel flattered from the comments leaving your mouth.

Warnings | thirst tweets because some of them be requiring a warning, mentions of smut, swearing (that is * out to indicate beeps in video), mentions of threesome

Quick link to my masterlist, if you’re interested in reading more of my crap 😬

“So, how do we do this?” Lizzie laughed, watching as the set workers placed a bucket in front of each of you. She looked at you, her co star and friend for reassurance, watching as you reached forwards, and pulled out a strip of paper, and directed the side with writing towards your eyes.

“We just read the tweets, like this one. ‘Y/n Y/l/n, is one hell of a snack, I could eat her up in more ways than one.’ I mean, okay man, but more ways than one? You really going out there sounding like a cannibal.”

Lizzie’s eyes went wide as they shift to eye you, nervously glancing between you lightly laughing at her expense, and the bucket filled with all kinds of things about herself that she wishes not to read aloud. “Do you want to just read each other’s, it may be better.”

Without any hesitation, she nods, watching as you changed the buckets over, and dipped your hand into the examples including her. “Elizabeth Olsen could tie me to a bed, and leave me there, and that would be enough to make me finish.”

“Oh my god.” Her hands covered over her mouth, as she tried to stifle her nervous laughter, there was just something about hearing you say those words, even if they did belong to another, leaving your mouth, had a delirious affect over her.

Once you had finished folding up the slip of paper, Lizzie took one of the comments regarding you, shuffling her knees together as she thought of the possibilities that were regarded upon the inked text.

“Y/n’s ass. Need I say more?” Out of the corner of her eye, she allowed herself to peek at said attribute of yours, as you shook your head at the statement of the fan, unsurprised by the context, but surprised by how tame it came across to be.

“I do have a great ass.” You agreed with the stranger’s emission of online lust, grabbing another one that concerned the bodice of Lizzie, and instantly snorting at what was written within the quoted scripture.

“Can people stop shipping Lizzie Olsen and y/n y/l/n? It’s making me too hot and bothered to imagine them together, making out, f***ing, and everything in between. Like it’s like, hello, please invite me next time.”

The words alone made Lizzie feel a wetness between her thighs, though she tried her utmost to ignore it. “They think we’re sleeping together?” She asked, wishing that the thought was true, focusing entirely on your response.

“Try not to blush.” You noticed the redness on her cheeks, deciding to point it out, making her even more embarrassed. “It’s more of a fantasy, though I wouldn’t complain. At least they have an imagination, and you know, if it ever does happen liz(y/n/n)lovechild, I will give you a call, so that you indeed can get in on the action.”

Winking at the camera, you expectedly turned to Lizzie, who was fumbling with the slip between her fingers. She was flushed from the words that had left your mouth, and so, she licked her lips, nervously staring at the conjunction of letters.

“Um,- y/n- y/n y/l/n, talented in movies, I - i can only imagine how she is in bed. Like, h-have you seen her in that movie with Kristen Stewart? Hot damn, she’s a hot mess, the hottest.”

A pit of jealousy inclined in the pit of Lizzie’s stomach, though she became noticeably flustered as she spoke, and you were quick to realise it.

“I’m not sure if they’re talking about me or Kristen, but we’re both hot, so either way it works.” You reached in the bucket before you, your eyes scanning over it. “Yeah, let’s pass this-“

“Go on, read it.” Lizzie encouraged, noticing your hesitancy. Gulping, you took a breath in, leaning back as you prepared to speak the tweet.

“I want Lizzie to look at me, the way y/n y/l/n looks at her. Like there’s so much tension, and they’re both beautiful women. If she were to get with anyone that isn’t me, it should be y/n.”

That sparked a momentarily silence in the room, as you allowed the thought to run through your head. “I, that’s enough tweets for one day. Thank you for tuning in, and leaving these... lovely , comments.”

Smiling, the cameras cut off, leaving the two of you in the room as the crew members began to sort out their set. “So, that comment.”

“Yeah, that comment. But, but I agree, it should be you.” She spoke softly, leaving the room so that the pair of you could speak in private.

[hexhate]

How to Do a Love Spell

So you’re looking to ~attract~ someone into your life, and you don’t know where to start. We’ve got you covered! Read on to learn how to do a love spell from home, with a few tips, tricks, and one very important caveat: 

Love magick is POWERFUL! Wield it at your own risk.

When to Do a Love Spell 

There’s never a wrong time to do a love spell, but some periods will be more potent than others. For example, Fridays are ruled by the goddess of love, Venus. So, if you’re looking for that little extra oomph, and your best chance at a WYD text, consider asking Her for help (respectfully, of course). And if you want to get even more specific about it, cast the spell under a waxing or crescent moon when creative lunar energy is at its peak. Otherwise, just pick a time that feels right to you! 

Intuition tends to know best, especially when it comes to magick.

Set Your Intention (and Be Realistic)

At the end of the day, whatever your tools or practice, magick is all about intention. Why are you casting this spell? What do you hope to feel, touch, taste, etc. when it manifests? Take three deep breaths and visualize what you want to attract. This step is very important not just for giving power to the spell, but also ensuring that it manifests in exactly the right way. 

Don’t accidentally attract love if you just want to get laid (and vice versa)! Be specific.

That being said: no love spell is going to end with Kristen Stewart in your sheets if you don’t personally know Kristen Stewart (sorry, boo). That’s the catch when it comes to love magick. It’s not about forcing anyone to love you. It’s more about letting the universe know that you’re ready for the things that are already out there for you, and it tends to work best when you already have a strong connection to someone or something. Trying to do anything else will either manifest nothing (best case scenario) or something you *really* don’t want, like a stalker (yes, even if that stalker is sex personified Kristen Stewart). 

Plus, it’s really important to believe your spell will work. If even a fraction of you doubts it, the whole thing might be a wasted effort.

Easy Love Spell (That Really Works)

You never *have* to do a spell according to someone else’s rules. There are a million different kinds of magick out there, and no one “right” way to go about any of them. At the end of the day, the most important thing is setting your intention and believing the spell will work. That being said, some herbs are believed to have specific properties that can attract love and lust into your life. The act of planting these things in the earth, along with an egg, is symbolic of creation. Here’s a simple love spell you can do with that in mind.

You will need:

An egg shell

Cinnamon

Rosemary

Lavender

Rose petals

Soil and a place to bury the egg

Instructions:

Take three deep breaths and visualize what you are trying to manifest. Focus on the feelings and sensations you will have when you meet that person (it doesn’t have to be anyone specific, but that can help)!

Stay present with your intention as you complete the following steps.

Crack and drain an egg. Rinse off the shell.

Take one half of the shell and fill it partially with soil, then fill the rest with your cinnamon, rosemary, lavender, and rose petals.

Bury the egg and say, “Bring me the one I desire. Bring me the (love/lust) I inspire. (Love/Lover) notice me. Walk toward me, so mote it be!” 

The last step is entirely optional. You can say something else that feels more natural or specific to you, or you can say nothing at all! 

Do whatever feels right. 

Don’t Forget This Step!

A lot of people come into witchcraft thinking they can simply *will* all of their desires into existence, and the truth is, it’s a little more complicated than that. The universe is not your servant--you have to put in some of the work! So, as soon as you finish your love spell, TAKE ACTION. Get on your favorite dating app, send that cutie a text, or get out there and start meeting people! 

When you show the stars that you’re willing to meet them half-way, you’ll find things come to you a lot faster.

Print This Spell and Keep It in a Notebook for Future Reference

… or re-blog it for someone else who might need some love in their life.

[ladyonfire28]

Fashion and cinema interview with Noémie Merlant, star of French cinema at the Deauville Film Festival

By Eugénie Trochu l September 7, 2020

A César nomination for Best Actress for her role in Céline Sciamma's Portrait of a Lady on Fire, a notable performance in Jumbo, the original first feature film by Belgian director Zoé Wittock, and now the interpretation of a trans man in Marie-Castille's new film Mention-Schaar, 2020 is dedicated to actress Noémie Merlant. Telling the story of an out-of-the-ordinary couple's desire to have a child, A Good Man was presented at the Deauville Film Festival 2020. The actress, who climbed the steps of the Festival in a Louis Vuitton creation, opened the doors to her preparations. The opportunity for a fashion and film interview, with red carpet tips, best-dressed personalities and celebrities, and her relationship with Nicolas Ghesquière and Louis Vuitton, of whom she is a fan.

You came to Deauville to present the film A Good Man by Marie-Castille Mention-Schaar, what attracted you to this project?

Noémie Merlant: The film tells the story of Benjamin, a trans man and beyond that, the fight of a loving couple to have a child. When I discovered the screenplay, it seemed to me that Marie-Castille's film dealt with a subject that we don't talk about much. An important, delicate and urgent subject. 

I didn't know much about trans-identity and today, thanks to this project, I continue to learn, to question and to dialogue.

I find it primordial and urgent to give a voice to those who do not have one or too little, to always be able to question ourselves, especially as cisgendered, white, hetero-normed people, in order to then be able to take action. All this is a long journey.

When I started this film, I wasn't necessarily aware of all the questions it raised. It allows for dialogue. being able to talk freely is the first step in breaking away from stereotypes.

How did you choose the outfit you were going to wear at the Deauville Film Festival?

I'm in collaboration with Nicolas Ghesquière, he works with me in different events. I admire his work, trust him and appreciate him artistically. His team is also excellent advice and we chose this outfit together. I wanted something strong, powerful and elegant. A mix of feminine and masculine that breaks the codes. I like to choose an outfit that tells something, that gives an emotion in accordance with myself and with the moment that is going to be lived…

What are your favorite looks from the latest Vuitton collection, in which movie would you have liked to wear them?

It's hard to choose! What's for sure is that I love my look from the premiere, which by the way is a look from the fall-winter 2020-2021 collection from the last Louis Vuitton fashion show at the Louvre. The details of this jacket are simply incredible! Knowing Nicolas's passion for cinema, I would love to wear his creations in a sci-fi movie.

Is the fashion aspect important to you behind the screen? Do you pay attention to the clothes your characters are wearing?

My relationship to clothes in movies is different, I don't try to find out if they fit me, but rather if it's something my character would wear. Clothing is what allows me to embody it but also to make it alive and credible on screen. It goes through the clothes of course but also through the hairstyle, the expressions, the attitude. It is a whole. The choice of the costume designer is always important in a film.

One or more fashion tips to give before going up on a red carpet?

Always surround yourself with a trustworthy team that will never let you go out in costume or in a look that doesn't suit you.

The detail that changes everything on the red carpet?

To dare, to but still be yourself.

What's your favorite movie genre?

I like all genres, I don't have a favorite one! From fantasy cinema, to independent realist cinema, to thriller, social film, blockbuster, romantic... In short everything.

What is the best dressed film character in your opinion?

I have several. Legendary outfits that have left their mark on cinema and fashion... I think in particular of :

1- Carrie Fisher in Stars Wars.

2- Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's

3- Kate Winslet in Titanic.

4- Mireille Darc in The Tall Blond Man with One Black Shoe

5- Grace Kelly in Rear Window

6- Diane Keaton in Annie Hall.

7- Jane Fonda in Barbarella.

8- Martin Carol in Lola Montès.

The best-dressed personality on the red carpet according to you and why?

On the red carpet I really like the naturalness and power of Kristen Stewart... I feel a lot of emotion when I see her. Or the elegance and strength of Cate Blanchett and Léa Seydoux. I am also a fan of Timothée Chalamet's red carpets. He plays, he dares, he seems himself.

[kolbisneat]

MONTHLY MEDIA: December 2020

And so concludes another year! Maybe not the most ideal 12 months on record, but certainly memorable. I dunno. Anyway here’s how I wrapped up the year.

……….FILM……….

Gremlins (1984) Every time I watch this I just marvel at the fact that it was made. The practical effects are fantastic, the characters are so over-the-top that I think the Gremlin-sized mallet is the most believable part of the whole film. It just has that energy of a live-action cartoon and for that, I love it.

Gremlins (1990) This and Aliens fall under the category of sequels I didn’t like at first (for the hard turn in tone) but have come to really appreciate and enjoy. The opening with Bugs and Daffy really sets the tone for the whole thing and in hindsight, I appreciate how it manages to do all the same stuff that was loved about the original while making it feel bigger and different. Not necessarily better or worst, but definitely different.

Happiest Season (2020) It really felt like Harper was written to be the villain, right? Anyway it was a solid Christmas movie for a modern era, Kristen Stewart was a solid lead, and Dan Levy’s comedic timing is unreal. All-around fun watch.

The Family Stone (2005) Claire Danes and Luke Wilson are the only redeemable characters in this movie and while I don’t think they’d work out as a couple, it’s a shame they never get a chance to chat and just say “hey all of our family members are awful, right?!?” Actually Thad and Patrick are decent people, but I suppose they’re overshadowed by everyone else. Oof what a movie.

……….TELEVISION……….

Ted Lasso (Episode 1.01 to 1.10) Never have I more sincerely connected with a character’s outlook than Ted Lasso. It doesn’t matter if you know anything about Premier League soccer, what you get is an optimistic, heartfelt comedy that doesn’t punch up, punch down, or really punch at all. It’s gentle and kind and the sort of tv we need more of right now.

The Queen’s Gambit (Episode 1.01 to 1.07) Dang I thought I knew a little bit about chess but like...none of that helps here. It felt like a Rocky miniseries only chess instead of boxing (and I mean this all as a compliment). Given that the show doesn’t expect a knowledge of the grame, credit to the actors for communicating what’s happening in a game just through facial expressions. Worth checking out.

The Bachelorette (Episode 16.08 to 6.13) You know what, this was a pretty good season! It’s a shame we didn’t get any follow up after the proposal, but it was refreshing to see a group of guys who all got along and were just generally mature!

Mad Men (Episode 7.12 to 1.14) And so ends a pandemic-long viewing of Mad Men. First time watching it and I knew a little of how the series ended and honestly, I think it was fine! We got to check in with most of the cast and while I wish we could’ve kept going with these characters, it really did feel like they were all headed off in different directions anyway. Great series would highly recommend.

Neon Genesis Evangelion (1.07 to 1.11) It wasn’t until Asuka showed up that I realized this show is a metaphor for puberty and thus, is super horny all the time. Viewing through that lense, it’s an interesting allegory and the robot fights are cool.

The Mandalorian (Episode 2.01 to 2.08) For me, this show works best when it’s doing its own thing and just kinda existing in the world. The frog lady stuff, the random tasks, even the first ep did a good job of walking the line between fan service and the confidence to tell a new story. But dang if that last ep didn’t throw it all out the window. I’m just not a big enough Star Wars fan that I need to see all the old stuff again. It’s lazy writing and that’s what bums me out the most.

……….READING……….

Ring Shout by P. Djèlí Clark (Complete) Really great! I don’t read much modern(ish) day fantasy but the ideas and worldbuilding in this are so economic that it felt immediately familiar. Plus who doesn’t love the idea of a sword-wielding heroine cutting down monstrous klansmen?

Illuminatus Part III: Leviathan by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson (Complete) After reading all three parts I can say, with confidence, that I have no idea who 90% of the characters are. Maybe it’s the similar names (John, George, Joe, etc.) or that every character talks like a philosophy student, but I just couldn’t separate them from each other. The plot and illuminati stuff was fun, but I’d seen so many great reviews and high praise that I was expecting it to be more fun.

Richard Stark's Parker: The Hunter by Darwyn Cooke (Complete) Darwyn Cooke’s effortlessly cool style elevates Stark’s pulp story to something that walks the line between classy and cruel. A murderous criminal is a tricky lead to follow but somehow you still want to see how it all shakes out. If you dig this first book then I recommend getting all 4 of Cooke’s interpretations of Stark’s work.

Scott Pilgrim Vol. 6: Scott Pilgrim’s Finest Hour by Bryan Lee O’Malley and Nathan Fairbairn (Complete) Still love this series after all these years and rereading them in color has been great. I still think the “glow”, as a twist/reveal, doesn’t really work and is somewhat convoluted, but it’s one misstep in what’s a consistently great run. The color version only adds to the quality of the book.

Dragon Ball 3-in-1 Vol. 2 by Akira Toriyama (Complete) This is the sort of light-hearted, good-natured comic I like to read around the holidays. There’s just something about a world where a criminal organization can be a mix of humans, bears, and a monster made of jelly that feels right, you know?

……….AUDIO……….

Song Exploder (Podcast) I’ve only listened to a handful of episodes so far but it’s really giving me a new perspective on music and the craft that goes into composing! I recommend starting with songs you like and then expanding from there.

……….GAMING……….

Neverland: A Fantasy Role-Playing Setting (Andrews McMeel Publishing) A small seasonal interlude! I’ve posted a longer recap on Reddit but the group has temporarily resolved the issue of the island flood and have moved on to an escaped Fairy causing wintery havok and significantly dropping the overall island temperature.

D&D Homebrew Adventure (Menace of Merlin) And so concludes the adventure! I think I could’ve made the final showdown against Merlin a little more climactic, but live and learn. Now we’re taking a break as the group makes up new characters to play in this world!

And that’s it! We did it! Goodbye 2020 and here’s to a bigger and brighter 2021!

Happy Thursday!

[msfilmdiary]

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)

Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Nikki Reed, Ashley Greene, Kellan Lutz, Jackson Rathbone, Peter Facinelli, Anna Kendrick, Elizabeth Reaser, Billie Burke, Michael Sheen, Dakota Fanning, Jamie Campbell Bower, Christian Serratos, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Chaske Spencer 

Screenplay by Stephanie Meyer and Melissa Rosenberg

Directed by David Slade

Cinematography by Javier Aguirresarobe

I do not own any of the pictures posted. 

SPOILERS AHEAD 

Eclipse begins with the vampire Victoria attacking Riley Biers in hopes of creating an army of newborn vampires in order to get her revenge on Edward for killing her mate James. Back in Forks, Edward and Bella discuss the complications of becoming a vampire, as well as marriage, to which Bella expresses aversion to because she, now eighteen years old, is so young. Edward, however, refuses to turn her into a vampire until they are married, with his argument being that she would miss various human experiences, including her high school graduation. 

Charlie Swan then begins to investigate the disappearance of Riley Biers, and Edward suspects that the disappearance was caused by newborn vampires. His suspicion is furthered by Riley’s intrusion into Bella’s room. 

Edward now fears for Bella’s safety, to which Bella states that Jacob and his wolf pack would never hurt her, and Edward is ultimately unconvinced. Bella goes to La Push to see Jacob, returning unharmed. Jacob confesses that he is in love with Bella and forcibly kisses her. Furious, she attempts to punch him and sprains her hand in the process. Edward finds out and threatens Jacob, telling him to only kiss Bella if she asks him to. Bella then invites Jacob and his pack members to her graduation party, but when Jacob apologizes for his behavior, she forgives him. 

Alice sees a vision of a newborn army attacking Forks led by Riley Biers. Jacob, Quil, and Embry overhear this, leading to an alliance between the Cullens and the pack. After this, the Cullens and the pack agree to meet to train and discuss strategies. During training, Jasper tells Bella that he was created by a vampire named Maria to control a newborn army. He despised his original existence upon meeting Alice and joined the Cullens in order to be with her. 

Despite her reluctance to marry so young, Bella realizes that spending eternity with Edward is more important to her than anything else and agrees to marry him. Edward and Bella then hid in the mountains to hide from the newborns. During the nighttime, Bella overhears a conversation between Edward and Jacob where they temporarily put aside their differences toward one another.  Jacob overhears Edward and Bella discussing their engagement and takes off. Bella then desperately asks him to kiss her, realizing that she has fallen in love with him. Edward finds out about the kiss but is not upset, and Bella says that she loves him more than Jacob. 

When Victoria appears, Edward kills her and Seth kills her accomplice, Riley. The Cullens and the wolf pack destroy her army, with Jacob facing injuries after saving Leah Clearwater from a newborn. Several members of the Volturi arrive to deal with the newborn army. They also notice that the Cullens are protecting Bree Tanner, who had refused to fight and surrendered to Carlisle and Esme. Jane torchers Bree to collect information, instructing Felix to kill her. Jane then notices that Bella is still human, but the Cullens inform her of Bella’s transformation date. 

Bella then visits Jacob to tell him that she is in love with Edward and that she has chosen to be with him. Although he is upset by her choice, he agrees to stop trying to come between them. 

The film ends with Bella and Edward in their meadow, where she agrees to marry him and then be transformed into a vampire. She explains that she is not normal and will never be and that she has felt out of place her entire life, but she feels stronger and complete when she is with Edward. The film ends with Bella and Edward deciding to tell Charlie about their engagement.  

Now, here’s my summary of Eclipse: Bella, a sweet and mild-tempered girl is forced to choose between two tall, dark, and handsome men while also trying to fight off a newborn vampire army led by the redhead antagonist Victoria. 

Now, I will say that Eclipse is ten times better than New Moon, but it centers around dragged out conversations between Bella and Edward, Edward and Jacob, Jacob and Bella, and so on. This movie really reminds the viewer that there is a love-triangle in Twilight, (although, I think it’s pretty evident as to who Bella will end up with, but that’s just me.) 

Another thing I want to talk about in this movie is the idea of sex and traditionalism. Which, I think, is taken to a whole new level that I was uncomfortable with while watching the film. Meyer is a prominent member in the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, so it’s no surprise that religion influences Twilight. As you may have noticed, there is no drug or alcohol usage, or sex, for that matter, which isn’t my problem with it. 

My problem with it is that it’s made to be this be-all and all-right thing, and that the act before marriage would take away Bella’s purity. Eclipse is the film that I feel completely pushes gender stereotypes to the next level, more than its procedures. I will say, I do believe that at some points Meyer’s Mormon theology in the story is complex and perfectly fits in, but this was different. The topic of sex in both the Twilight novels and the films have always made me uncomfortable, mostly because I think Meyer builds the act up as being such a big thing that has to wait until after marriage, which, in most cases (in modern times, at least) is not the truth. 

I feel that if you’re a Mormon writing about sadistic vampires and shape-shifting wolf men, then you have to be comfortable with the truth of sex. Most teen romances do not portray sex accurately. I know that. But Twilight as a whole, especially Eclipse, pushes the harmful idea that having sex means giving up purity and goodness, which is not realistic, nor is it the truth. 

However, entertainment wise, Eclipse was more fast-paced than both New Moon and Twilight, and had more of an interesting and easier to follow dialogue. This film was definitely not boring. Action happened at every turn, and I believe that it kicked off the storyline for Breaking Dawn–Part 1 and 2. 

Overall, I believe that Eclipse was the kickoff for the series. Although controversial in my opinion, it was action-packed and full of soapy human-vampire-wolf romance, and for nostalgia purposes, it’s crucially significant. 

Overall rating: 7/10

[lastsonlost]

Oh gasps, I'm shocked.

Who would have thunk it?

The story:

Updated with Sunday figures: In the wake of Terminator: Dark Fate’s failure at the B.O., and Paramount’s recent decision to make Beverly Cops 4 for Netflix, we have the further breakdown of cinema IP in Sony’s Charlie’s Angels reboot, which is tanking with a God-awful $8.6M domestic opening, $27.9M worldwide (from 26 markets), 3 Stars on Screen Engine-Comscore’s PostTrak, and a B+ Cinemascore.

The Elizabeth Banks-directed-written and produced pic is also opening in 27 offshore markets,

China being one where it’s also bombing,

with a $7.8M 3-day take in third place behind No. 1 local title Somewhere Winter ($13.1M).

All of this is primed to further spur a WTF reaction and anxiety among film development executives in town in regards to what the hell exactly works in this have-and-have-not era of the theatrical marketplace. Many will make the hasty generalization that old, dusty IP doesn’t work, or is now deemed too risky when it’s not a superhero project. However, moviemaking is an art, not a science, and annoying as it might sound, good movies float to the top, and this Charlie’s Angels reboot didn’t have the goods going back to its script.

<Maybe somebody should have been working on a good story instead of pushing an agenda.

We’re going to break down for you what went wrong in another graph, but we don’t want to bury the success of Disney’s release of Fox’s James Mangold-directed Ford v Ferrari, which looks to be coming in at $31.5M, well ahead of the $20M+ many were seeing, with an awesome A+ CinemaScore and 4 1/2 stars and a 68% definite recommend on Screen Engine/Comscore’s PostTrak. After a franchise-laden summer which buried originals, now an original pic is sticking it to the IP.

When it comes to the bombing of Charlie’s Angels, the takeaway is this is what happens when you have IP, but there’s no reason for telling the story.

In the walk-up to developing Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, and in the wake of its near $1 billion success, a fever broke out at the Culver City lot in the post-Amy Pascal era to reboot former Sony franchises or extend them, i.e. Zombieland: Double Tap (well over $103M at the global B.O. now), the upcoming Bad Boys 3, and, of course, Spider-Man, the latter electrified by Disney’s Marvel. Development studio executives define their being by getting films greenlit, and whenever that happens, it’s 90% of the job.

And the pressure is on to fill a 10-12 picture annual slate in a world where Disney vacuums up all the best IP. A third Charlie’s Angels with McG directing and Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu starring, wasn’t made immediately after the second chapter, 2003’s Full Throttle, as the sequel turned out to be 29% more expensive than the 2000 original at $120M, and also made less worldwide, $259.1M to $264.1M. With Elizabeth Banks coming off her hot feature directorial debut with Universal’s Pitch Perfect 2 (which over-indexed in its stateside opening at the B.O., going from $50M projections to $69.2M, and finaled global at $287.1M); after she expressed interest in September 2015 in taking on a Charlie’s Angels reboot with a modern feminist spin, there was no question in Sony’s mind that the project should move forward.

<Yeah Sony, how's that working out for you? You think they would have learned their lesson...

Guess not.

Back to the story.....

However, there were script problems, I hear, that could never be resolved. A few months after Banks boarded, Evan Spiliotopoulos came on to write. By the time cast was assembled in July 2018, Banks had penned the latest draft off a script by Jay Basu (The Girl in the Spider’s Web), and earlier drafts by Craig Mazin and Semi Chellas. Andrea Giannetti oversaw the project on the lot. However, I hear that the script for Charlie’s Angels didn’t really attract top talent, i.e. Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone and Margot Robbie (a trio that would have potentially jazzed up business). Hence, why the production opted to go with largely a fresh face cast outside of Kristen Stewart. While we overwrite that stars mean nothing at the box office, they do, sometimes, when it comes to propping IP, and unfortunately and arguably, no one in Middle America knows who British actress Ella Balinska is, and they’ve only became recently acquainted with Naomi Scott from Disney’s Aladdin and Lionsgate’s Power Rangers. Stewart, who is hysterical in the movie and even needed more funny bits, is in a different place in her career professionally, publicly, and privately. It’s unfair to think that she could delver her Twilight fans now.

Had she done Charlie’s Angels promptly in the swell of the Twilight whirlwind (like Snow White and the Huntsmen) then maybe it would have popped.

But she has largely been dormant from popcorn wide releases for the last seven years since 2012’s Twilight: Breaking Dawn – Part 2, busy excelling and wowing in specialty awards season and festival fare like Clouds of Sils Maria, Still Alice, and this year’s Seberg, to name a few. Stewart needed to be paired with equal or bigger-name actresses.

was a one quadrant movie, eyed at women 13-39, especially given its lack of action scenes, and wisely limited their exposure to what I hear is 50%, with co-finance partners 2.0 Entertainment and Perfect World. Sony claims the budget is $48M net; we’ve heard in the mid $50Ms. Tax incentives were taken in the pic’s Berlin and Hamburg shoots. Perhaps Sony should have spent more, because Charlie’s Angels biggest problem is that it has very low-octane, we’ve-seen-it-all-before action scenes. Heck, there’s more action in a 1980s Chuck Norris movie. After watching Charlie’s Angels earlier this week, I put the first two McG movies on Netflix, and it was like watching Star Wars in comparison to this reboot, with his sharp production design, camera movements, unique action, and comedy set pieces, and, of course, the first movie blasted Sam Rockwell out of a cannon. Understand that the first two movies in the series were able to compete and hold their own in an action space where, yes, Mission: Impossible and Fast & Furious (the first two films came out in 2001 and 2003) also thrived. Mission and Fast sequels distinguish themselves on multiple 10-minute action sequences that we’ve never seen before on screen; it doesn’t matter who the villain is. This Charlie’s Angels doesn’t have that. And not even a super-duper hit song “Don’t Call Me Angel” for the movie from Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus, and Lana Del Ray can trigger lines at the multiplex; the music video clocking over 116M views on YouTube, per entertainment social media monitor RelishMix.

Some will claim that Banks’ version was never intended to emulate the meat and potatoes version of McG’s films; that this version was expected to be more comedic, and more feminist. Unfortunately, after McG set the table here with the franchise as an action film, you can’t reverse it. You can only outdo him. And with a franchise movie like Charlie’s Angels, you can’t make it for a one quadrant audience.

The film arrived on tracking with a $12M-$13M start, and really never budged, but sank. That means marketing didn’t work. I heard that a $100M global P&A was first planned on Charlie’s Angels, with the studio now reducing that overall cost greatly to around $50M and pulling back on expensive ads. Another hurdle in activating the young girl demo is that much of the pic’s cast isn’t on social media. RelishMix says that Banks is the social media star with over 6.6M followers across Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, with Scott counting 3.4M.

Sony kept pushing Charlie’s Angels, which in hindsight means there were development issues. In May 2017, a release date was announced for June 7, 2019. When the cast was locked down in July 2018, Charlie’s got moved to Sept. 27, 2019. In October 2018 when Warners pushed Wonder Woman 1984 from the first weekend in November to summer, Charlie‘s took over the autumn spot, which was the same exact place the original 2000 opened. However, when Terminator: Dark Fate moved onto the same first weekend in November, Charlie‘s relocated to this weekend as they vied for a China release which they ultimately got.

Charlie’s Angels drew a 66% female crowd, split between 36% over 25 and 30% under 25. But both demos respectively graded it low at 68% and 79%, with men at 35% giving it a 68% grade on PostTrak. Diversity breakdown was 52% Caucasian, 21% Hispanic, 14% Asian/Other, & 13% African American. Charlie’s Angels best markets were on the coasts and big cities. But again, nothing to brag about in Friday’s $3.2M gross, which includes $900K from Thursday and Wednesday previews.

Says RelishMix, which also foresaw this disaster approaching on social media chatter, “Angels is the latest example in a ‘woke’ effort to reboot a franchise that many were not all that interested in to start with. In fact, many references to the 2000 version get a call-out as a reason this one doesn’t seem to compare – whether it’s the cast or the action teased from the film.

And, as observed with other recent films, some action/adventure, unfortunately fans say they’re steering clear of this one because of its ‘girl power’ messaging.”

[darringauthier]

Charlie’s Angels (2019)

Genre: Action/Comedy

Who’s In It: Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, Ella Balinska, Patrick Stewart, Djimon Housou, Sam Claflin, Jonathan Tucker

Who Directed It: Elizabeth Banks

Plot:  When a young systems engineer blows the whistle on a dangerous technology, Charlie's Angels are called into action, putting their lives on the line to protect us all.

Running Time: 118 Minutes 

IMDB Score: 4.8

Metascore: 52

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 52%   Critics 78%

Why I Watched It: It was one of those why nots, I watch a lot of movies and sometimes the reason is just because.

How I Watched It: Amazon Prime Canada 

Random Thoughts: So these numbers are interesting or weird however you want to look at it.  Very rarely is the IMDB numbers the lowest but you can see how mixed this film was and is.  Now there’s a reason I never talk box office in reviews cause that doesn’t matter however you can talk about a film under performing for me I walk into every film with an open mind, good buzz bad buzz, great box office a film tanked, I walk with an open mind and judge it by my standards but I do like stats and I do like to see what other people think,  So here is a case where the numbers don’t say a lot.

I’m not going into the whole “Woke” side argument.  I will say this I do think Elizabeth Banks might have bitten off more than she can chew here, she directed it, co-wrote and is acting in it and it should be pointed out she hasn’t directed a film like this before, an action film with set pieces.  Didn’t films and different budgets require different skill sets and even though I don’t think Banks has a director is bad I’m not sure she’s a good action director.  I will also say I’m surprised they didn’t go for a bigger name lead cast, sure they have Stewart who’s a name but she’s now made her bones as an indie darling not a face of a big blockbuster.  Please don’t bring up Twilight we’re all past that now.

So this is a reboot, there’s no connections to the two other shows or the two other movies.  Pretty much stand alone so you can go in cold.

What I Liked: The cast is game and my favorite is Kristen Stewart who is just having fun, she’s loose and gives a nice quirky funny performance.  There’s a few names in the supporting cast and on the whole the cast do a good job,no one will walk away with an Oscar but everyone is committed and everyone tries.

I should say this on paper is more of an action film but the tone is light and more inline with a comedy but it’s really not that funny.  I smiled a few times and like I said the tone is light but the action is serious.

What I Didn’t Like: They should have leaned more on the comedy or the lighter stuff cause when this film tries to be an action film it’s not very good, it’s not terrible but Banks as a director doesn’t know how to shot a proper action scene or to set and frame it.  The fights and set pieces are flat and at times just too slight to actually care.  You either have to ground or action or go over the top and make it fun just look at how the Fast and Furious films are done.  Here Director Banks kind of sits in the middle and it’s not compelling or engaging. 

I mentioned some names in the supporting cast it’s a shame these characters aren’t in it more.  Patrick Stewart is fun and Djimon Hounsou is barely in it.  Banks as an actor is good and I liked her but again she’s not in it much.  So let’s tackle the Angels, here there’s two and the other one is the client, that right there is dumb and isn’t handled well at all, they don’t seem like a team they’re a duo.  Also the three don’t have chemistry, the thing about the other Charlie Angels, TV shows and movies it’s all about the three leads and star power here sadly not so much.

The film also has huge pacing and tone problems the ending is all over the place, there’s a couple of violent and jarring deaths that are not only not earned but don’t fit the tone of the rest of the film.  I think the film is caught in between being a big blockbuster and a smaller more fun film and it hits neither.

I haven’t mentioned a plot and I don’t want to, it’s a mess and way more complicated than it needs to be.  It’s one of those simple plots that they try hard to make more complicated but in the end they make it nonsensical. 

Final Thoughts: It’s not bad and to be fair my oldest daughter liked it enough, It was a decent watch but in the end it was too slight and too long for me.

Rating:4/10

[cheermeupthankyou]

Brie Larson vs. The World: A Letter for Humanity

So I’d like to share and say hmmm in terms of adoration mm yeah Chris Evans what a husband material hubba hubba Chris Hemsworth funny dude even Taika Waititi oh Jodie Comer- in lesbians for her Armie Hammer Jake Gyllenhaal oofers eye candy Margaret Qualley mah babies Mackenzie Davis Wynonna Ryder and Kristen Stewart of course all them Marvel girls from A for Angelina Jolie Blanchett Danai Debicki Saldana Evangeline Karen Scarlett etc etc etc to Z for Zendaya Star Wars gang Daisy Felicity Oscar Lupita um yes please all the heroines we love Gal Gadot Amber Heard les cheveux roux madmoiselles Chastain Amy Adams the veterans Patricia Clarke Bullock Paulson Weaver Gillian Anderson Moore Lawless Mirren what goddesses they are even the young’uns newcomers Diana Silvers Billie Lourd Hunter Schafer such gems Thrones crew Gwendoline Emilia Lena Kit Sophie Maisie err pretty much everyone of them yes even the Night King give me the shivurs Aubrey Plaza Anna Kendrick Sarah Carter yas yas yas even some voice actors Ashly Burch Elizabeth Maxwell Hannah Telle j’adore Fab Five queers heck even politicians like AOC or Kamala Harris or Brian Sims gets me giddy wonderful wonderful insanely talented amazing great people.

But 

then 

there’s

Brie Larson. 

I was a music photographer and journalist for a while, I interviewed people and got the chance to meet some renowned humans (Feist, Au Revoir Simone, Kina Grannis, YYYs, Sean Lennon to name a few) it was my job to recognise their backgrounds and learn people’s personalities and identify situations.

While there are so much amazing people that I mentioned above who has done so many great things, I have never seen someone MOST relatable like Brie, so  humble and hardworking in the harsh -no privacy- industry of entertainment, who just bases her life out of goodness and excitement of life and purity. She’s like most of us, she’s awkward and shy, loves pets, video games, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Sailor Moon, fan girls towards other celebs, music nerd and an actual nerd, and just loving life in general. 

So it does break my heart that people are targeting her as the subject of everything that’s negative just because she wanted to set a stigma that women can be powerful and is their own person, and she’s had it rough before (as I read/listened/watched her interviews) Here’s a narrowed down of her life:

- Her parents were constantly fighting when she was young, leaving her into a broken home, around 7 years old she moved to LA living in a studio apartment with her mom and sister with the 3 of them with only 1 murphy bed. She’s estranged with her dad until now.

- She’s definitely an introvert, type of girl who sits on the far upper left or right corner in the theatre thinking that she doesn’t block anyone’s view (she actually said this on an interview), had social anxiety attacks since she was young but she knows she loves acting and wants to entertain people, starting with singing in her early years. She prefers doing stuffs alone and creating arts just to keep her mind at ease.

- Because of her passion in acting and her social condition, she was home schooled and focused in acting schools more, thankfully her mother supported her to go to acting schools and just going on auditions. Her singing career didn’t go as much as she hoped, to make ends meet she started DJ-ing just to earn money. Keep in mind Brie did not come from a prestige family with access to Hollywood unlike some of her Marvel co-stars. She started from zero.

- She actually auditioned for Twilight and was told, “Don’t ever bring Brie Larson back here again” for whatever reason. Was also told she wasn’t “sexy enough” for some stuffs she auditioned.

- Even though she loves acting, knowing she’s an introvert, it is the only reason why Brie has never considered blockbuster movies because she was afraid of getting recognised worldwide that it would leave her having no privacy at life at all. Due to this, she accepted mostly indie movies (Most recognisably Short Term 12 or The Glass Castle) but even by doing indie movies she didn’t earn enough money that sometimes she would cry in her kitchen telling her mom that she doesn’t have any money just to buy food. 

- She did the movie Room which won her first Oscar for best actress, but in the process in doing so it broke her in half because of her childhood past and trauma. Whilst doing The Glass Castle she also said it was rather personal that she played a character with a broken relationship with a father (Played by Woody Harrelson) is because she never had father-daughter relationship. All the stuffs she did were mostly personal because she felt connected to them. Even Captain Marvel, because she felt that it was a moment in her life where she needs the change to be stronger for herself and Carol has changed her for that.

- Her road into becoming Captain Marvel was almost like a brick to brick road built up for her, as she has acted in movies with most of the Marvel casts. In 13 Going On 30 with Mark Ruffalo, with Chris Evans in Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Scarlett Johansson in Don Jon, Tom Hiddleston and Samuel L. Jackson in Kong: Skull Island and Joe and Anthony Russo in Community. A few reasons she accepted the role of Captain Marvel;  One being when she saw Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman, she admitted that even as the movie was just about a few minutes in, she couldn’t stop crying and she asks herself as to why that is, and she realised that this is the stuff I need, we don’t have this enough, where a powerful strong woman was depicted on screen; The other, for the most realistic reason that she did need the money while she was given the opportunity;  The SIMPLEST reason is just to MAKE PEOPLE HAPPY that the character is going to be brought to life; The MOST important of them all is that she wants to break the barrier of herself. She wants to be more out there, spreading positivity and setting an example to people to be stronger for themselves, that people can change for the better, in which in this case: Brie was a completely non athletic person with asthma, she trained for 9 months, almost 3-5 hours a day for 5 days a week at the gym with constant crying because of her hard work and changes to herself, vomited mostly at the gym and also puked during her pilot training. She had bruises all over the place because she did most of her stunts and training (Per her saying, it was ignorance at first because she thought everyone on Marvel was doing their own stunts when they’re not, but she did most of them herself that she was allowed to). 

- Now that she has recognition, she’s actually doing more activism and be a spokeswoman into helping people. She even promotes people’s brand and stuffs via her Instagram just to help out simple things. 

Please remember, she’s human. She has flaws, but I have never seen her doing/saying anything fatal that depicts resent. Never. And no, Brie is not the first female ever trying to set examples for people, but she is the current one getting the most hate for it just because of Captain Marvel— a film about a female superhero, setting an example for people to be stronger, she did it just to make people happy and half the world is angry at her. WTF. Believe it or not, this is girl actually CARES about people, she would care about you if you actually DO CARE about all the good things that does matter. Being of who she is, Brie is capable of empathising with people, which is something most people don’t have.

Brie wanted to be a better person, SHE DID. When in fact Brie has successfully done that, now people are hating her even more because she’s just a “bigger easier target” because of her role and apparently it is easier to hate someone else than just to be nice or appreciative or grateful in general. 

If you’re reading and you’re hating, can I just ask, what has Brie Larson done to your life? And maybe ask yourself what have you done that matters in your life? We can just be nicer to other people, it’s really not that hard to try, you know. Life is just about being kind to each other, there is no point in throwing hate because it’s not your cup of tea, having an opinion to your taste is fine, but giving hate comments about is just being an asshole. Imagine being in her shoes and dealing with all those that wasn’t necessary in the first place. It does take mentality of the size of the Jupiter with that amount of hate, and Brie Larson is still dealing them. Just think if that was you, could you be able to handle it as far as what she’s gone though? Really think about it. Not one human in the world wants to be hated for even the smallest reason, not even you.

As to those who feel like they wanted a change in their lives, if Brie can do it, SO CAN YOU. Stay calm, just be nice and kind to others— even to those who treated you unjustly. Let the action speaks louder than any words will ever do. And be happy of life.

My adoration for her is at the apex at the moment. She is IT.

So I’m just here spreading the love for Brie.

[buddaimond]

Kristen Stewart is having a huge moment in her career with Charlie’s Angels coming to theaters in November and Underwater coming in January. But so far the 29-year-old has been focusing her energies on promoting her independent movie Seberg, the tragic story of American actress Jean Seberg whose life was essentially destroyed by late ‘60s FBI surveillance when she supported the Black Panthers and had an affair with one of their leaders. Stewart is keen to spread the word about Seberg on the 40th anniversary of her death at age 40.

In Venice, at the world premiere, she admitted “we should definitely know her for more than her short haircut and movies.” Stewart then moved on to the Toronto, Deauville and London Film Festivals. Though her biggest splash was made at the Zurich Film Festival, where she gave a Masterclass, a press conference, and where I sat down with her for an exclusive interview. Seberg comes out through Amazon in December.

COLLIDER: You seem to be doing more promotion for Seberg than Charlie’s Angels. Is there a reason for that?

KRISTEN STEWART: It’s funny you mention that as I was thinking about that this morning. Maybe it’s just been a minute since I was really proud of a smaller movie that I’ve done. I’d like people to see this one and unless you go to festivals and engage with the cinematic culture that could give you that opportunity to be seen, there’s no way to do that. So I support this movie, I think it’s good, and I think it’s a good time to tell the story. It’s been cool to travel with it because I also just love the festival vibe. I like traveling around and talking to people about movie stuff. It doesn’t feel like I’m selling a film. It feels like I’m supporting it and getting it out there for sure, but not in a way that it feels like my job. It’s a nice way to complete the experience of making a film. You get this opportunity to articulate the reasons why you made it and it completes the process.

How did you come to work on the film, which is the second film by Australian, London-based theatre director Benedict Andrews? It’s about the life of Jean Seberg but is not a straightforward biopic as it concentrates on the fraught period of her life.

STEWART: I spent a bit of time on the jury with Cate Blanchett in Cannes (2018) and I’d just met Beno and was thinking about working with him and she immediately said, “Do it!” She’d worked with him on stage, he’s done a lot of opera, a realm I knew very little about. His first film Una was so incredible and so contained, just an undeniably original movie. When we had our first meeting about Jean he felt so precious and particular and his protective nature felt really contagious and he made me want to get to know her. At that point I’d only seen Breathless and learning about the story I was wildly blown away by the fact that we don’t know what happened to her and why she receded and became somebody we lost too early.

Is it possible now for an actress or even a woman who is political to be blacklisted by the US government as Seberg was?

STEWART: No, I don’t think so. A lot of people are speaking against Trump, a lot of people are speaking against things they’re not into and they’re speaking very loudly. There are just too many of us now.

Seberg was also crucified because of her sexuality, for being with a black (married) man. Your life has been in the tabloids so you must be able to relate to that.

STEWART: Yes of course. I come from a staunchly moral country as if we all share those rules. As if there could possibly be a set of rules that applies to everyone and their own individual happiness, which is absurd. But at least we’re talking about it a little more than we ever have.

It’s actually a good time to be a woman in this business with #timesup.

STEWART: I think it’s such an exciting time to be a woman who’s allowed to make films right now. There are so many stories that are going to be unearthed that have otherwise been ignored for a long time. Not that some of those stories won’t be told by men. There will be a trickle down effect. Some of my favorite experiences have been with male directors. We’re just becoming more honest about the female experience and that’s very exciting.

How was it making Charlie’s Angels directed by Elizabeth Banks, who also plays Bosley in the film? Was it fun?

STEWART: It was really fun. Liz is really funny. It was her idea to revive the movies. I’d never worked with her before but I’ve always been a huge fan. Tonally we’re so different—she can squeeze a joke or a laugh out of anything and I’m the furthest from that. So I was so shocked that she saw me like that, like, “Hey you’re a goofball and I think we should play around together because nobody does that with you.” And I was like, “What? But you’re right, nobody ever does that with me.” So she got in there and it was this really tender act and I was so thankful and ultimately she wrote a really warm, grounded—also very silly, stupid, sometimes slapstick—but also really well-intentioned movie. It’s rad. She took this story we’ve grew up with and took the superhero aspect out if it and made the girls really relatable and accessible but also very aspirational. There’s this network of women across the globe who are connected and are really unstoppable. So it’s not like there are these three unattainable women who can fly or do kung fu while suspended in the air. No, these girls are actually smart and it’s about women who are friends and who are good people working together. It’s like a women-at-work story that’s also absurd sometimes. It didn’t lose the kitschy thing because she’s fucking silly.

Are you a goofball yourself?

STEWART: Mmm, sometimes.

Did you enjoy the comedy/action?

STEWART: My character is wily. I’m the really irresponsible older sister who takes care of these girls. Sabina would take a bullet for you but she never really knows what time it is or where she’s supposed to be. So it was fun to be just a dumb-ass.

Do you want to do more of the fun dumb-ass? I guess it has to be with exactly the right person like Ellzabeth?

STEWART: I would love to play around a little bit more. I like serious movies but yes of course.

You’ve directed a short film and a few music videos and now you’re about to direct your first feature The Chronology of Water based on the memoir by Portland-based writer Lidia Yuknavitch. Why has this story captured your imagination so much?

STEWART: It was such an incredible experience reading the book. Sometimes you encounter material that articulates something you aren’t able to yet feel within you and it’s striking as hell when someone does it for you. It’s an exceedingly cool time for women to tell stories right now, the perspective is changing and I thought this was so real. This woman is a brilliant writer and uses language and plays with words in a way that I’ve never seen before. Also there’s a coming-of-age story embedded in this thing that is so confronting and not just raw for the sake of being startling, but is actually real. I don’t think it’s impossible for the male perspective to tell epic female stories, it’s just that this is so embedded in this book about a woman processing pain and shame and repurposing it and creating art as savior. It’s sort of this art-as-savior and swimming-as-solace story. It’s a real-word, body-fuck story. The way she inhabits a body and the way she speaks about it is unlike anything I’ve ever read. So I want to see it; I’ve never seen that in a movie.

Are you writing the script or are you working on it together with Lidia?

STEWART: It’s definitely a collaborative process, but I’ve adapted it. It’s such a choose-your-own-adventure story. Whoever would have ended up making it, it has to be your own take on it. There’s so much to be had, it’s so non-linear, it’s so transient. It’s like water; it’s impossible to slip down the same stream.

Will you star in it or will you stay behind the camera?

STEWART: I’m not really right for it. Whoever plays the lead needs to play 17 to 40, so it’s a really wide range. I don’t know who that is at the moment. Hopefully I’m going to direct it next year.

With Twilight did you know how big it would become when you agreed to play Bella?

STEWART: The books were a big deal in the young adult novel realm, but it wasn’t in popular culture yet. I hadn’t heard of the book at that point and thought I was auditioning for a normal movie. It didn’t stand out as this gaping opportunity, it was just something that I liked. That was a cool audition process too. Catherine [Hardwicke] and I worked together for ages auditioning a bunch of other people for all the other parts. It was very normal—until it wasn’t.

What did you enjoy about playing Bella?

STEWART: When you read that book you are her. It’s such an immersive experience. So more so than with other parts the way to get close to it and make it feel true was to really own it and make it my own rather than be faithful to a text. I guess you can say that about most work, but this in particular was fun to be there. I was a teenager, it was such a visceral time to be alive and any 17-year-old knows what I’m talking about. It was just about capturing something so immediate, that first awakening, that ownership of your body and desire, all of it. It’s like having people tell you that it’s wrong and what you shouldn’t do. It’s a fierce commitment to something you believe in and was such a cool story to tell at that age.

You made five Twilight movies. Do you still see other cast members? Do you have a big WhatsApp group?

STEWART: We all have a group chat (jokes). But we all see each other, I run into people all the time. I can’t make it to Taylor’s Halloween party, which bums me out, I’m going to be in New York. Rob’s great, he’s doing well, he’s going to be Batman and I’m very proud of him. It’s nice. In terms of the group we’ve all disbanded now for so long. I have individual relationships with everyone, but it’s not this thing that you would assume binds us in this way where we go, “Remember that?” We’ve all become real whole people who still know each other. I’m really thankful for that.

[the-working-class-guide-to-films]

Charlie’s Angels

I haven’t seen the TV show or, shockingly, the 2000 film. So when I criticise this, I’m not being a typical guy hating on a film because it’s all about female empowerment and girl power. I’m hating on it because it just wasn’t that good.

So you’ve got your Angels, Kristen Stewart and Ella Balinska. Elizabeth Banks plays Bosely, or one of the many Bosley’s, but she’s the main one alongside Patrick Stewart, who is retiring from service. Naomi Scott is a scientist working for a company who has accidentally created a super weapon that could wipe out the human race. She turns whistleblower and her life is threatened which is where the Angels step in and rescue her. She becomes an Angel whilst uncovering the truth behind her assassination attempt.

I read that Elizabeth Banks, also the Director, said one of the reasons didn’t do well is because audiences are pre-dominantly male and don’t want to see an action film with an all star female lead. I don’t think that’s true, especially when you look at some big big films. Alien, Terminator, Tomb Raider, and I know I sometimes shit on these films but the DC and Marvel films all have strong female leads. Hell, even Star Wars films do (forget about the golden bikini) but looking at Rey. I think this film flopped for one big reason and marketing. I didn’t see this advertised for ages until maybe a week before release. Which is pretty shoddy considering it has a big following of fans, familiar with both previous adaptations. And that’s possibly another reason why it didn’t do so well. Do audiences want to see old shows and films regurgitated again and again. I think people are slightly sick of seeing old stuff made again, not sick of seeing female action heroes. In fact, I thought one of the better things about the movie was the chemistry between the leads, I found them to be engaging and exciting as a team 

I’m a dude, so maybe I’ve got the wrong end of the stick. Drop me a message if you want! But one of the positives, which I was glad to see was that we had a female director and producers. Plus, Banks wrote the screenplay. How much better is a film when what is written for the screen is wrote by someone who knows that story. There was a lot of female empowerment and just general stories about women which was refreshing to see. When the jokes were away, that’s when it became quite powerful. Which I think was a problem throughout the movie. It almost didn’t know whether it was a light-hearted chick-flick comedy, or a dramatic and serious film tackling big issues. It possibly tried to be too many things, when just doing one might’ve made it better.

2/5 It was a fun flick. It had some nice humour and an easy story to follow. Give me a cheap bottle of Lambrini and I might enjoy the razzle and dazzle that was involved. Pretty forgettable.

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Michael in the Mainstream: Charlie’s Angels

So Elizabeth Banks has said some really controversial things due to this movie failing. I’m not interested in discussing that, really, or I normally wouldn’t be anyway, but it is kind of relevant to the film at hand, sadly. This new reboot of the long-dormant Charlie’s Angels franchise is supposed to be a kickass feminist woman empowerment movie, but it is horrendously undermined by its own writer/director/star’s comment about other women-made films. It’s also undermined by the awful writing, bad acting, cliché plot, terrible effects, and bland cookie cutter action, but of course we need to focus on the fact that this is a big feminist screwup instead of anything substantial, right?

Yes, I absolutely loathe Banks’ comments, but even if she hadn’t said them this would still be an incredibly boring and miserable movie. This movie is so incredibly by-the-numbers, and when it’s not being tired and generic, it’s being hamfisted or even downright gross. Remember those scenes in Captain Marvel where Carol experiences microagressions? Imagine that, except it’s the entire opening of the film, where Kristen Stewart’s character is subjected to gross sexism from a misogynistic villain who she spends quite a bit of time rubbing the junk of with her feet before beating him up. There are far fewer scenes like this than you might expect all things considered, but it does set a pretty dismal tone for the movie at large.

I think the biggest crime is the wasting of Naomi Scott and Kristen Stewart, with Stewart especially being wasted. It’s really sad because Stewart is almost definitely trying her damndest to bring her character to life, but her dialogue and jokes are just so flaccid and don’t land at all. It’s sad when Bella Swan was a better written character than her heroic super spy here; at least Bella never had to give Edward a footjob to distract him. And Naomi Scott’s character is ludicrously roped in to this big espionage mission despite having no real training at all in one of the movies more egregious moments of stupidity.

But perhaps the worst waste of talent is Patrick Stewart. Here he plays John Bosely, and he does nothing but spout the most horrendously stereotypical dialogue he has probably ever had to recite in his career, with his introductory scene being especially painful in this regard. And then, in one of the dumbest twists this film throws at us, Stewart’s Bosely is revealed to be the villain. You know, I’m not one to put on the tinfoil hat, but there are three Boselys in this film – Stewart’s, Djimon Hounsou’s, and Elizabeth Banks’. Hounsou’s Bosely is killed after less than ten minutes of screentime, while Stewart’s Bosely is revealed to be an evil villain, despite the fact that it was hinted that Banks’ Bosely was the bad guy. So a black men is killed and a man is made the villain so the woman can come off and be innocent – and this is something I probably wouldn’t really pick up on or even care about if it weren't for Banks making her comments and making me scrutinize this film in such a way.

Banks really wanted this film to be some action-packed feminist empowerment piece, but it falls short of the lofty heights of Wonder Woman, Aliens, and Kill Bill and lands in the same ditch that Sucker Punch fell in: it’s cheap, flashy trash with no wit or personality that utilizes blatant over-the-top stereotyping, racist fridge stuffing, and poor screenwriting choices to make a movie that supposedly uplifts women, but only at the expense of everyone else. And trust me, I really wanted to like this film going in, I wanted to give it a chance. I love Banks in other movies, I love Kristen Stewart and Naomi Scott, and Much like every human being in existence with a functioning brain I adore Patrick Stewart. But it just completely and utterly failed in every conceivable way to engage me, and it failed to convince me that this could in any way be empowering. Again, it brings to mind Sucker Punch more than anything, which blatantly weaponized sexism and tried to pass it off as empowering. This movie is nowhere near that gross and fetishistic, it’s just bland and dumb, but the fact Elizabeth Banks tried to pass it off as anything more when the whole thing was already of subpar quality is really sad.

This is just a film I can’t imagine appealing to anyone. Like, if you want to watch a feminist power fantasy with lots of hamfisted moments of microagressions and sexism, go watch Captain Marvel, because that film actually does have some entertaining moments and is at the very least average. If you want a good modern female-led action film that I can easily see empowering and inspiring women, Wonder Woman is right there. And if you want to watch a Charlie’s Angels film, well, those campy early 2000s films are looking pretty appealing right about now. Even if I throw out all of Banks’ comments, this movie is still ultimately just an empty, lifeless reboot that wastes a lot of genuine talent on subpar material that is so far beneath them that it makes me wonder why they ever accepted this.

Honestly, the fact that the movies theme song is “Don’t Call Me Angel” really speaks for itself. It’s funny in an ironic, depressing way, because I’m pretty sure no one wants to call these spies Angels after this bomb.

[i-do-unimportant-things]

*clap clap* Movie review

So yeah, Charlie’s Angels, the 2019 reboot of the TV show. A  feminist movie but really just a clichè action movie with a mediocre plotline, relying on it’s ‘woke points’ to be watchable.

First, let’s talk about the movie itself and why it did so badly.

The 2019 Charlie’s angels is an action comedy movie about three female super spies trying to retrieve a weapon of mass destruction from the wrong hands directed by Elizabeth banks, the guardian calls this a ‘weaponised feminist frenzy’. This movie hit the theatres at the start of the year and went on to fail so badly, the financial loss can only be explained by claiming there’s a wage gap. Charlie’s angels is originally a TV show from the mid 70s, but nowadays, no one would consider the show ‘feminist’. The entire plot of the TV show existed around the three main female characters being hot, and near naked. Nevertheless this sleazy show was successful and had a few movies coming out in the years 2000 and 2003. And on November 15 2019, the latest Charlie’s angels came out from Sony studios. Sony, the same company that has brought you: Ghostbusters 2016 and the Emoji movie. Now don’t get me wrong lots of movie companies use nostalgia to try and sell tickets, but no one does it quite as poorly as Sony. The movie tries too hard to be some sort of woke feminist statement, but it ends up just being really forced. One of the main actresses, Kristen Stewart has commented that this movie is ‘taking down the patriarchy’ Ah yes, this feminist reboot of a non-feminist show, is taking on the patriarchy head on! C’mon, no one will believe that this mediocre action film is making is making any kind of significant social impact. It would have made a much bigger impact if the movie was not only made by women, but also, enjoyable to watch. The movie was, unsurprisingly, a massive flop shattering Elizabeth Banks dream of turning it into a franchise. It had a budget of $50 million and ended up making $8 million in it’s opening weekend. No one cared to see it, and for those who did, they hated it. Like, seriously despised it, 4/10 on IMDB? Even shark tale is rated better than that. But Elizabeth Banks wasn’t ready to admit that maybe, just maybe, her movie wasn’t that good. No, instead she was bracing herself for a box-office flop, by blaming men.  Prior to the movie’s disastrous opening weekend, she had said that if the movie didn’t do well, it would reinforce a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go to see women do action movies. Here’s a little thinker for ya, if people don’t go and see your movie, it may not be because all men are sexist pigs, but people would rather watch a good movie. Regardless of whether or not there’s a female character in it. Not to mention other medias with female leads have gone on to be extremely successful.  Alien? Kill Bill? Tomb Raider? Both Frozen’s? Metroid series? Mulan? Wonder women? Bank’s counters this by saying that the female comic superhero movies are only successful because they are tied into a larger, male genre of movies. Wait so, the successful movies starring women are successful because men are sexist, but your movie isn’t successful because men are sexist? What are you babbling about? Look, I understand it sucks to see a movie you directed, produced and acted in fail, but this weak finger pointing is not going to help.

Now let’s analyse the movie and see why people hated it so much.

Above all, Charlie’s angels is a comedy spy action movie that doesn’t work as a comedy, spy or an action movie. The plot is basically this high-stakes mission about retrieving weapons of mass destruction. But the problem is that the movie never bothers to actually visually establish as dangerous or as anything really. All we see is one of those devices killing one guy right beside it and then being automatically self-destructed. Then there’s the “action”. It’s mostly just noise without any meaningful character moments or choices or obstacles or any real sense of danger. Most of the time the action sequences don’t even serve any purpose plot-wise. On top of it the physics of it are so illogical they just make no sense. Like just watch the car falling out scene. But all that aside what I wanna focus on is the aspect of Charlie’s angels that is probably the main cause of it’s downfall more that anything else; it’s relentless obsession with gender. There’s a difference between a good female-led movie and a movie so blindly obsessed with the feminist agenda that it gets to the point of being destructive to itself. A lot of times with a certain agenda of gender or social class or whatever they tend to feature a core theme that empowers the group or demographic that it’s about. And with Charlie’s angels the care theme is obviously female empowerment which is made very clear from even the first line in the movie “I think women can do anything”. Basically the core theme of Charlie’s angels is that women, by nature, can do anything. In itself, it’s a great message for younger female audiences. The problem is that the movie quickly grows so obsessed with this theme that instead of it being positively empowering, it actually becomes negatively degrading. Because when Charlie’s angels claims that women by nature can do anything, it doesn’t mean that women can do a certain specific set of things they set their minds to, it means that women, by nature, can do literally everything. And before you say that I’m saying it’s a problem because I hate women, hold on. There’s actually a major character issue that comes with this obsession; it makes every female character and main hero shallow and superficial and takes away their individual uniqueness that’s supposed to make them who they are. To show what I mean let’s look at our three main angels; one of them is this tall angel who initially is established as the physical brawler of the team, she’s powerful and likes to solve obstacles by running straight at it and punching them until their no longer obstacles. And that’s great that’s something that gives her character individuality and can delve much deeper into the movie. Thats who she is but then, she makes this smart science trap using chemicals, then all of a sudden this physical brawler turns out also to be a super-smart chemist, and to be clear; she doesn’t become that, she doesn’t learn to be that she already is that because again, women by nature, can do and be anything. So what exactly is the issue with this?  Well at first she is this one specific thing, but then turns out to be an entirely other thing and suddenly, we don’t really know who she is anymore. To build on this example look at the Kristen Stewart’s angel, the way the movie tries to establish her is that she’s this confident improvisor of the team who uses her wits to gain an advantage over others. But the movie also presents her as just as competent of a physical brawler aa the tall angel, which not only makes her witty hustler personality kind of pointless, it also destroys her individuality it’s hard to know who Kristen Stewart is as a person when she can do and be the exact same as the person right next to her, and if we don’t know who she is it’s hard to get into or develop her as a character when we’re not even sure what it is we’re getting into or developing. The only character difference seems to be that Kristen Stewart says what ever haha ‘funny’ she has on her mind. Then we have princess Jasmin’s angel who is this super smart technology nerd thrust into this world she doesn’t belong in. And she could be a pretty Interesting character, if not for the fact that the movie has already presented the tall angel as super-smart as well, and the fact that Jasmin seems to be able to handle herself in a fight too. So, what makes her different? Who is she compared to the others? Who is she as an individual person? And pretty much with every female character the movie is so unhealthy obsessed with this agenda of female empowerment that it just ends up being a weakness. The characters don’t struggle, they don’t have any flaws or depth they don’t have anything that would make them individual people that the audience can care about and watch grow because in a world where everyone is special, no one is. When women by nature can do or be everything, the one thing they can’t do is be unique.

In addition to empowering the group their about, the other thing these movies with social agendas often do is villainise the demographic opposite them and show how they need to struggle to overcome obstacles set by this opposite demographic. And since Charlie’s angels is about women, obviously here the point is to showcase men and the evil they’re capable of. Which again, is made very clear, even from the very beginning. Basically, all male characters in Charlie’s angels are in some way douchebags who treat women in a derogatory sense. There’s a total of three good guy men in this movie. One of them dies, another one is cleansed of his whatever sins by a women beauty, and the last is like the perfect man from a dystopian world where women have enslaved men. So the message is that men can be a bit of an annoying obstacle to women. I personally don’t like this message, but it has potential to explore some really deep themes with it. But the problem again, is that this movie is so blindly obsessed with it’s agenda of having men be evil that it inadvertently destroys the very message it’s trying to explore. Firstly, just like the female side, all the males are diluted down to unrealistic caricatures nobody can take seriously. The security guard for example, his character is supposed to portray men abusing power against women, and it could have been a very powerful message, but the reason that moment doesn’t work whatsoever is because we’ve never even seen the security guard before, and so we have no perception of why he would do this. He’s not being evil because he’s jealous of Jasmin’s career, he’s not being evil because he’s hurt inside or anything, the movie is saying he’s being evil just because he’s a man. All men in this movie are being evil just because their men and that’s all there is to it.The movie doesn’t give us any reasons or explanations, no explored internal fears or flaws or motive or anything under the surface and that’s not how real life people function, that’s not how to get anything done with your message other than it being scoffed off as shallow and dumb. Secondly, this men are evil obsession creates a big narrative problem. In the sense that the plot of the movie quickly becomes very one-dimensional and easy to predict. For example, near the midpoint of the movie there’s a twist that Elizabeth Banks, who is the leader of the angels, might be evil, she might have some evil plan that involves  tracking Patrick Stewart’s good guy character. But then you remember that this movie has just spent it’s entire runtime  proposing that all men are evil just because their men which would then mean that OH WOW WHAT A SURPRISE THE MAN IN A FEMINIST MOVIE IS EVIL. The problem is that it’s really not that much of a surprise to anyone because from the start the film has done everything in it’s power to condition the audience to believe that women are all good and that men are all evil. Having a message criticising men or a whole demographic can be great and powerful. But you can’t let yourself be so blindly obsessed with it that you don’t even bother delving deeper into it.You can’t have women be good just because women are good and men be bad just because men are bad. That’s not realistic, that’s not how the world works, that’s not a message that will get anyone to listen and above all, it’s not good writing.

Another danger that can very easily come true in movies with social agendas is that the message they’re pushing becomes very one-sided. To the point of alienating a certain section of the audience. And with Charlie’s angels, wether the filmmakers intended it or not, the fact is that the movie altogether as a whole is very anti-male. I’ve already commented about all male characters being portrayed as shallow evildoers, but there’s also an underlying theme that men as people are objectively sinful creatures who deserve bad things to happen to them. It docent matter who they are or what they have or haven’t done, if something bad happens to them, it’s okay because they deserve it. For example, there’s a long-running ‘joke’ where the angels continuously injure a bunch of guys and then make quips about wether or not they’re gonna wake up. But there’s nothing inherently wrong with this, when your making a movie,  you are allowed to portray any group of people or entities in whatever positive or negative way you want. So if you want to make a blatantly obvious movie where a specific gender as a whole is portrayed as the worst possible thing in the universe, that’s fine. But you also need to understand is that there’s also gonna be financial consequences from that specific audience. See, before Charlie’s angels hit theatres, it was clear it was gonna be a flop. And knowing this, director Elizabeth Banks had said what I had put above: “if the movie didn’t do well, it would reinforce a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go to see women do action movies” and wether or not the statement has truth(which it doesn’t) is irrelevant. The importance of the statement is the implications that Elizabeth Banks doesn’t understand the concept of biting the hand that feeds. Now I don’t really like the anti-male stuff in Charlie’s angels, but as I’ve said, you’re allowed to do whatever you want in your show. So I understand why male audiences didn’t go out of their way to pay money to see their own gender be continuously criticised and called evil. For example if you make a whole movie ridiculing females and calling them the scum of the earth in a very on-the-nose way, you can’t just expect females to swarm in and support it. Thats not how it works. Whatever message your movie has, you have to be smart about how you deliver it. Don’t just say ‘Women good, men bad’ find a way to imply what it is you wanna say through metaphors. As a filmmaker, you would want everyone to enjoy the film, regardless of gender or race or whatever. I’m not criticising Charlie’s angels because I hate female-led movies. I’m being critical of Charlie’s angels because superficial agenda movies like Charlie’s angels are the reason why we still have so relatively few female led movies. And I’d like to think that by now we’re past one-dimensional messages like this.

[templeofgeek]

*This post is mostly spoiler-free. 

Director Elizabeth Banks has created a funny and action-packed good time at the movie theaters! The next generation of Charlie’s Angels is a continuation of the stories told on television in the 1970s and the former films from the early 2000s. The film debuted worldwide on November 15th, 2019. Stars Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, and Ella Balinska are working for the mysterious Charles Townsend, whose security and investigative agency has expanded internationally. With the world’s smartest, bravest, and most highly trained women all over the globe, there are now teams of Angels guided by multiple Bosleys taking on the toughest jobs everywhere.

Elizabeth Banks addresses Charlie’s Angel ‘flop’

Elizabeth Banks addresses Charlie’s Angel ‘flop’ in a tweet. The 2000 Charlie’s Angel film starring Drew Barrymore, made $264.1 million USD over its entire run in the box office, in comparison, the current film debuted to $8.6 million in North America and $19.2 million overseas. Making it an unlikely long term success in the box office. Elizabeth Banks who starred, directed, produced and is responsible for the screenplay addresses this in a tweet saying “Well if you’re going to have a flop, make sure your name is on it at least 4x. I’m proud of #CharliesAngels and happy it’s in the world.”

https://twitter.com/ElizabethBanks/status/1196486758503833600

I truly believe that the lack of proper advertising for this movie is what caused the low box office numbers, not the quality of this movie. The movie was advertised in a way to make us believe that it was a reboot. In reality, it was a continuation story. I understand the reboot fatigue may have kept many viewers at home. I think they may have had a lot more luck marketing this as a “Charlie’s Angel for every generation” type of story. Which is exactly what the movie is. It is a beautiful new story as well as a well-crafted nod to all the Angels that came before them.

Elizabeth Banks directing Charlie’s’ Angels. Photo by Chiabella James

This is the kind of movie that you need to take your daughters, your nieces, your girlfriends, and your mom. And honestly, you need to take your boys and nonbinary friends as well. Because it’s a fun action movie with a ton of funny scenes and a great story. Everyone likes that. It’s also pretty empowering! This is a time when women want to feel empowered! This was the perfect time for a new Charlie’s Angel movie! This is why it’s so frustrating that it isn’t getting the love it deserves.

Why you should watch this movie! 

Action 

This movie gets a little fast and furious in the beginning, which is a lot of fun! Ella Balinska and Kristen Stewart definitely steal the show when it comes to all the action scenes. They are non-stop with kicking people’s ass. What I really appreciate about these action scenes is that they are not played down. Some are gritty and anxiety-inducing. If it wasn’t for the comedy and fashion in the film, then it would feel like a Jason Bourne movie. Very intense scenes.

Kristen Stewart in Charlie’s Angels.

Although Naomi Scott’s character is being protected by the Angels, she still gets in on the action with her own little clumsy and hilarious fight scene. Ella Balinska is a fresh face in Hollywood. Balinska kills it with her fantastic and fun portrayal of a former MI6 agent who now uses her skills as one of Charlie’s Angels.  She was so good that it begs the question: “Why isn’t she in EVERYTHING and on the cover of EVERYTHING?” Know her name! She deserves a lot more on-screen time. Kristen Stewart also play’s one of Charlie’s Angels and she does not disappoint. She is a combination of quirky, sexy and dangerous. Her greatest strength comes from overcoming her past and using that to do good.

Ella Balinska as Jane in Charlie’s Angels.

Funny

As I said earlier, this movie is funny. It’s purposely cheesy in the best ways.  One scene, in particular, involving Sir Patrick Stewart and a closet had me laughing out loud. The comedy flows naturally and is well-timed. I would expect no less coming from Elizabeth Banks! I smiled the entire time I was watching this! Other notably hilarious moments include an impromptu song from Naomi Scott, a game of chase in a laboratory, and the interactions between Noah Centineo and Ella Balinska. Honestly, I didn’t realize Kristen Stewart was so funny. Her character is so quirky and fun! Although Naomi Scoot is more adorable and sweet than funny, she gives us a few funny scenes as well.

Noah Centineo as Langston and Ella Balinska as Jane in Charlie’s Angels.

Sisterhood

There are way too many stories with women being pit against one another, portrayed as jealous and petty rivals. In this film, you don’t see that. You see women who build one another up and empower each other. Can you imagine a real-life network of powerful and strong women supporting one another in hopes of saving the world? We need more of that in the world and more of that being shown on screen. Young girls need to see intelligent women all over the screen. Women are very often portrayed in a way where there can only be one smart and beautiful woman per film and any other is considered a rival. But in this film, there is an entire network of amazing women who are showcased! All of them are there to support one another. They are not trying to rival one another.

The Relationships

This movie focuses a lot on relationships. Not the romantic type, although there is a tiny itsy bit of that, but it mainly focuses on the relationships between the main cast. This movie deals with trust, loyalty, accountability to your peers and the motivation to do good. The relationship the Angels have with their mentors, as well as the relationships they have to each other, are deeply rooted in sisterhood and brotherhood. These are characters who really care about one another and the world around them. Even the motives of some of the villains in the film comes from a place of hurt and betrayal and not just an evil calling.

Sir Patrick Stewart and Elizabeth Banks

Technology, Science & Well Being 

Science and technology play a major role in a lot of superhero and action movies. There’s no super smart but socially awkward stereotype of a person here. This movie portrays plenty of well-rounded individuals who are all intelligent, strong, who actively take care of their mental health and who look amazing doing it. We need to see this type of representation more often. Girls and women have been underrepresented on screen in roles like these. It’s exciting to see so many in one film.

Noah Centineo as Langston and Ella Balinska as Jane in Charlie’s Angels.

Ella Balinska, Kristen Stewart and Luis Gerardo Mendez star in CHARLIE’S ANGELS.

Naomi Scott stars in Charlie’s Angels.

Fashion 

Not going to lie, the outfits on Charlie’s Angels are dreamy! I would happily take any of the Angel’s wardrobe. Charlie’s Angels have been fashion icons since the 1970s. It was part of the appeal. These badass women are sporting the coolest looks while saving the world! I love it. I spent a ton of time daydreaming about the sunglasses from this movie. Even the extras have amazing outfits. I love fashion, and I appreciate good fashion. That is reason alone for me to see this movie. It’s easily a documentary on how to pull together amazing looks. One of my favorite things about the wardrobe scene is the moment that you see outfits worn by the Angel’s in the previous movies as well as outfits from the 1970s television show. Such a warm touching nod to the former incarnations.

Elizabeth Banks directs and stars in Charlie’s Angels

Naomi Scott stars in Charlie’s Angels

Ella Balinska and Kristen Stewart star in Charle’s Angels.

It’s a good time at the movies! Go see it! But if you need one final reason, it’s empowering! For everyone! Great characters, great cast, great costumes, lots of action. I can’t love it enough. It’s a fun date movie, and it’s a fun night out! Take your young people! Take your parents! It’s worth it.

What fans are saying:

This movie was not going to win an Oscar, and it never set out to, but it has definitely won plenty of hearts. See what fans are saying in the reactions below.

https://twitter.com/MytchelChandler/status/1196848640058245121

https://twitter.com/JasonW576/status/1196848379663392768

https://twitter.com/return_to_hades/status/1196847582657597441

      Edited by Maddie Morrow

All the Reasons You Should Go Watch Elizabeth Banks' #CharliesAngels *This post is mostly spoiler-free.  Director Elizabeth Banks has created a funny and action-packed good time at the movie theaters!

[chuckscherubs]

(via Charlie’s Angels 2019: See Kristen Stewart in Elizabeth Banks’ remake | EW.com)

Charles Townsend, the titular Charlie of Charlie’s Angels, has turned the Townsend Agency into heaven on earth. No, really: In director Elizabeth Banks’ upcoming take on the elite all-women crime-fighting team, the camera-shy millionaire doling out missions has become — by conservative estimate — a gazillionaire.

It’s only logical. As Banks puts it, her update isn’t a reboot or a remake of the beloved franchise, but rather a “continuation” that incorporates the events of the original 1970s TV series and the McG-directed 2000s films. And so, she imagines, in the more than 40 years since Charlie assembled his first trio of Angels, he must have given his operation a makeover. “If you were rich in 1976, you only got richer,” Banks, who co-wrote the script, says with a laugh. “Charles Townsend is richer than ever, so he’s grown the business into a global spy agency.”

His expanded roster includes the crew at the center of Banks’ story: Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart), the hard-partying, highly skilled wild card; Jane Kano (Ella Balinska), the ex-MI6 muscle of the group; and Elena Houghlin (Aladdin’s Naomi Scott), the MIT-trained scientist who, Banks says, serves as “the heart of the movie.”

Charlie’s call takes them around the world, with stops in Istanbul, Hamburg, and Berlin, but amid all the globe-trotting, Banks was most invested in showcasing the trio’s teamwork. “It was important to me to make a movie about women working together and supporting each other, and not make a movie about their romantic entanglements or their mother they don’t call enough,” she says. “When I’m at work, I don’t talk about those things. I get on with my job. It felt important to do that for the Angels, to treat them with the respect their skill set demands.” Judging by this first look? Mission accomplished.

WHO’S THE BOSLEY?

Banks, Patrick Stewart, and Djimon Hounsou, that’s who. In Charlie’s history, multiple actors playing multiple characters named Bosley have aided the Angels. To Banks, it felt natural to upgrade the name into a title. “‘Bosley’ is now a rank in the organization, like lieutenants,” she says. “All of the Angels have been played by different women and have had different names, but the Bosley character was always named Bosley no matter who played him. We thought, ‘Well, that must mean it’s more than a name.’” Above, her Bosley helps Stewart’s Sabina gear up.

DRESS TO IMPRESS

It wouldn’t be Charlie’s without Angels going undercover. Here, Sabina (Stewart) suits up at a Turkish derby, where the trio tail a target until “chaos ensues, as it always does,” Banks teases. That chaos, though, won’t look like the over-the-top sequences of the 2000s films; the director says she took a “grounded” approach to stunts: “I wanted to make them distinct from superheroes, aliens, and mythological creatures that are in a lot of action movies now.”

In fact, the Mission: Impossible franchise’s blend of grit and humor inspired her group’s dynamic. “We talked a lot about [those movies],” Banks says. “Those films work best when the team is together, when Ving Rhames is in it, and Simon [Pegg] is in it, and Rebecca Ferguson. That sensibility really matters to me.”

TOP SECRET

When asked what Noah Centineo (To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before’s breakout star) is doing in this scene with Balinska’s Jane, Banks gets tight-lipped. “I don’t want to give too much away about Noah,” she says of his character, Langston, “but he’s a friend mostly to Naomi’s character.” The Angels clearly have plenty of allies, but that doesn’t mean they can’t accomplish their goals on their own. “I mean, women can do anything,” Banks says. “That’s not just my personal belief. That’s the core belief of Charlie’s Angels.”

POWER-FUL REUNION

The last time Banks collaborated with Scott, in 2017’s Power Rangers, she played supervillainess Rita Repulsa to Scott’s Pink Ranger. This time, they’re on the same side: Banks costars as one of the Bosleys (see above) assisting Scott’s Elena, who plays a pivotal role in catalyzing the central mission. “I wanted somebody who I felt the audience wants to root for,” Banks says of casting Scott. “She’s getting to be this Everywoman who’s also very fun and very funny.”

GIRL POWER GALORE

Banks’ film marks the first Charlie’s entry on the big screen to be helmed by a female director. “It’s a really exciting moment for female-driven films,” she says, citing Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel as recent examples of box-office successes. “Audiences are really looking for those aspirational stories about real and relatable characters, and I think the women in my movie are definitely real and relatable, but most importantly, I think they’re really fun.”

They’re certainly having fun: Just look at Sabina’s array of wardrobe (and identity) changes across these photos. “I wanted Kristen to show off a side of herself you don’t often see in her movies,” Banks points out. “She’s really funny in this.”

GOOD MORNING, ANGELS

John Forsythe, the voice of the Angels’ enigmatic boss in the ’70s series and the 2000s films, passed away in 2010. But don’t worry: Banks has a plan for her installment’s Charlie. “The voice will sound very familiar to you,” she teases. “We tried to emulate John Forsythe’s voice as best as we could. We want a real sense of continuity in the movie.” After all, as seen in the image above, the Angels answer the call.

[thesinglesjukebox]

ARIANA GRANDE, MILEY CYRUS & LANA DEL REY - DON'T CALL ME ANGEL

[3.69]

"Independent Women Part III: No Throttle"...

Josh Buck: Absolutely not. [2]

Katie Gill: "Don't Call Me Angel" is a fun piece of movie credits music. There's nothing special here, but it's a jam of a song that would fit perfectly well in the already established oeuvre of middle-of-the-road yet totally serviceable movie tie-in songs. Two of the singers know exactly what sort of song they're in and give it the sultry, radio-friendly, sexy spin the song needs. The third is Lana Del Rey and her inclusion BAFFLES me. This is so far out of her wheelhouse that it's hilarious. Seriously, was Selena Gomez busy or something? The music video for Demi Lovato's "Confident" was practically an audition piece for this type of thing, why the heck isn't she here? [6]

Thomas Inskeep: Ariana does some Grande karaoke, Miley sounds like she'd rather be singing "I Love Rock 'n' Roll," and Lana teleports in to do another take on her breathy schtick (and brings the song to a screeching halt in the process) -- nothing about this, apart from (I imagine) someone's discussion of market share, makes any sense. There's no cohesion here. There's barely even a song. [2]

Wayne Weizhen Zhang: So, so, so cringeworthy. Ariana, Miley and Lana sound like reality music TV contestants who were forced to make a song together one week, couldn't get on the same page and ran out of time to rehearse, but had to release something anyways. Ariana is awkward and lonely on the hook, like she's waiting for help that never comes; Miley comes out of nowhere with a cloying shouted verse; and Lana is off in another world mumbling incomprehensible nonsense. Even the backing track has a nervous manic energy. If you want a good song about Charli(e)'s angels, just listen to this instead. [3]

Michael Hong: In high school, I worked on a group project where the only times we met up were when we decided upon a topic and to actually present the whole piece. Rather expectedly, the whole thing fell apart rather quickly and it was a completely embarrassing experience. "Don't Call Me Angel," gives off the same vibe, like Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus, and Lana Del Rey were each given only the title and asked to write something vaguely empowering for women. Each artist sounds like they wrote for a different track and made absolutely no effort to meld styles, instead forcing the producers to try and mash the entire thing together. Even the chorus buries Miley and Lana completely beneath Ariana, perhaps rather wisely as I can't see the group's vocal tones meshing together very well. "Don't Call Me Angel" survives only through the one thing my group never had, natural charisma. [3]

Alex Clifton: How did Ari, Miley and Lana end up in this? I guess it echoes the three Charlie's Angels but this trio doesn't make sense. I can see how individual duets would've worked; Ari and Lana could've done something slow and spacy, Ari and Miley taking a more upbeat route, Lana and Miley singing something retro. This, sadly, doesn't play to anyone's strengths and just ends up being overproduced mush with a decent riff. If I had to pick any artist who could make this song make sense, it would be Rihanna, and the music video would be her in thirteen different outfits kicking ass. [3]

Joshua Copperman: I didn't realize how dated the Max Martin sound was until hearing "Don't Call Me Angel." Pop music is now either created with substance(s) or has substance thrust upon it. Meanwhile, the lyrics are clunkier than ever, "you know we fly/but don't call me angel" no longer endearing melodic math but shallow feminist lip service at a time when "if you feel like a girl/then you real like a girl" can sneak onto a major label record. It's the first time I can't listen to a Martin production without thinking of this unexpectedly poignant stand-up segment about Martin and Cosmopolitan. When the tropical house is so bland, further lyrics stick out more; Miley's pre-chorus ("Do I really need to say it/Do I need to say it again") is lazy, and Ari's vampire metaphors are just baffling. Lana comes out strongest, someone who seldom charts but has more cultural relevance than the former and is much hipper than the latter. Her verse is classy when Ari is unmemorable and Miley cribs from a Rihanna album reject from four years ago. "Angel", though, feels like a reject from 2013, when Miley was in her imperial phase and Ari was just breaking out from Nickelodeon -- in fact, it probably would have had Rihanna instead of Lana at that time. But no matter what trio, one thing is clear: with this lemon, you cannot make Marmalade. [3]

Katherine St Asaph: Remember, "Independent Women Part I" stopped the otherwise great song dead on the bridge to announce it was commissioned for CHARLIE'S AAAAAAANGELS, so "Don't Call Me Angel" earns points already for not doing that. It keeps its product placement to outside context, namely the fact that the song exists despite the three artists having little in common besides having stanbases and sniping at critics. The disparate styles can work together -- see the "Lady Marmalade" remake, unfairly maligned except by a few -- but here there are only anti-synergies. Miley's verse can't decide if she wants to be the track's Mya or the Pink (probably the better idea), but its bluntness also best fits the backing track. Ariana's sighed, harmonized "angel" is a great millennial R&B hook, but one that outside of an R&B song is starved for air. Lana's bridge, though a complete non-sequitur and only empowering if you squint, is also the most sonically charged thing she's done in ages; if there isn't a reason Lana Del Rey hasn't worked with Max Martin beyond "Lust for Life" (I suspect that there is), that wouldn't be the worst career direction. Everyone's part diminishes everyone else's, the exact opposite of what you need from an event single or a Charlie's Angels shine-theory ad. [5]

Jacob Sujin Kuppermann: Every big pop collab feels a little unnecessary -- pop stars work based on the idea that they're the center of the universe, and collaborations by their very nature make that seem silly. But this sounds really, really unnecessary. Two artists coming off career highs (and one coming off of "Cattitude") should at least drive some head-to-head comparison, but none of the three credited artists interact in any meaningful way. It's the Batman V. Superman of pop music -- conflict and chemistry built mostly on reputation rather than action, with nothing to defend unless you're an unabashed stan. [2]

Joshua Lu: In which Lana Del Rey learns that her reward for releasing her magnum opus is the opportunity to limp through a thank u, next reject. Ariana Grande and Miley Cyrus's voices already feel unbalanced, but Lana's mushy croons are so inapposite that they grind the song to a halt. [3]

Scott Mildenhall: It rattles along satisfyingly, but this never leaves the marks that the intermittent brass punctuation seems to signify. None of that is aided by how Del Rey, unbending in her lack of persona, has to be deployed in the manner of a guest rapper, wheeled on and off through a side door. The inability to sound at home with her collaborators in the way they do with each other is one thing, but the inability to sound anything other than lifeless in the face of them is another, and that's the precise opposite of what's called for. [6]

Will Adams: As out of place as she may seem on paper, Lana's bridge is the only point where the song becomes interesting: the key dips even more minor, and the arrangement has tangible cinematic sweep. The rest is a cluttered shamble of an Ariana Grande album cut, with her and Cyrus trading off lines with all the dubious empowerment of a Barb Wire quote. [4]

Jackie Powell: All right folks get ready for a sports metaphor, because it's coming. Ariana Grande is a bit of a ball hog on this track. What she doesn't seem to understand is if you are going to lead your team, you've got to provide the proper assist to each of your teammates. To me, saving Del Rey until the two-minute mark supports the idea that these "angels" aren't really meant to work together. I thought the purpose of this was to present a team of strong women looking to take on the world via a song that preaches empowerment for this new wave of both feminism and Charlie's Angels films. Where a point guard should pass the ball and set up her teammates on the wings (no pun intended) and under the rim, Grande instead takes all of the shots. When the mic is pointed toward Cyrus after Grande's opening hook, though, she shoots with simultaneous finesse and power, letting her head voice mix well with the potent sound in her chest. If I was reviewing the visual made to accompany "Don't Call Me Angel," Hannah Lux Davis' treatment would receive a [10]. Grande, Cyrus and Del Rey all exude a mystique, ooze sex and expel power. For a Charlie's Angels theme song, that's right on the money. But what confuses me lyrically is how the hook clearly communicates the theme, even nodding to Destiny's Child, but the verses, bar maybe Cyrus', are underwhelming. The clock-tower cowbell loop that runs through and through grabs my attention, but I think Kristen Stewart could write better poetry. [6]

[Read and comment on The Singles Jukebox]