Charlie's Angels Review & Comments

Absolutely pointless reboot
One to avoid me thinks
 
Doesn't sound like you disliked it as much as a few of the reviews I have seen. Probably one I'll watch when it comes to streaming platforms. Hopefully with expectations lowered I might find some things to enjoy about it!
 
My teenage male gaze was the only reason I watched the originals. This will be another 'go woke, go broke' flop without doubt.
 
your in trouble when the trailer looks dire, come on, if you cant cut a trailer together to make it look any good you know its gonna be a turd. Even the poster art has shite written all over it.
 
your in trouble when the trailer looks dire, come on, if you cant cut a trailer together to make it look any good you know its gonna be a turd. Even the poster art has sh*te written all over it.
They made a film specifically not for men. No problem. But then you can't really be surprised if none turn up. The other problem is that women didn't go to see it either. Maybe they forgot that the Twilight crowd have grown up.
...
As stated above, the trailer didn't help.
 
I don't know what film Kumari watched, but I'm convinced we didn't see the same thing. BUT THEN...Kumari is the audience, so there's that.
 
A 6 felt about right, I did have fun with it though, forgettable fluff, some nice performances from KS & NS, Balinska has some good physicality, she’s very statuesque and works well in action scenes but her acting needs some work though.
the post credit scenes were cool too!
 
Serviceable, not as ludicrously fun as the McG incarcerations (although this does nicely tie into all the previous Angel outings) the main trio lack much personality (and acting skills), surprisingly Kirsten Stewart probably fares best.
My old work chum Sam Clafin is fun but Patrick Stewart steals the show.
Watchable, but forgettable.
5.5/10
 
your in trouble when the trailer looks dire, come on, if you cant cut a trailer together to make it look any good you know its gonna be a turd. Even the poster art has sh*te written all


It's not really surprising that certain "stuff" fails when illiterate morons have access to broadband.
 
This could have been better if the cast was Swinson, Abbott & Sturgeon!
 
One of the members on here thinks the previous film incarnations are crimes against Art and should be nuked out of existence.

I quite liked them myself. :blush: This, however, does not appeal.
 
More feminist propaganda, I'm not remotely interested in this garbage.
 
Surprised Ariana Grande would want anything to do with violence and blowing things up - clearly money cures all. :)

Cheers,

Nigel
 
The McG CA films were fun if forgettable - this was just plain bad - the 3 main actors not much persoanlity in their characters. As others have said Patrick Stewart seems to be the only one who seems to be having fun.
 
Patrick Stewart always seems like the kind of dude that could find a way have fun at a funeral
 
I was surprised by Mark Kermode's review of this. But then deep down, I wasn't (probably why I don't listen to him any more).

When he opened with "Directed by Elizabeth Banks, who is a force for change in Hollywood" it really set the tone.
 
Even Helen o Hara on the Empire Podcast said the girl power rhetoric was a bit much. Coming from her, that's saying something.
 
very possibly the worst film I've ever seen
shoving feminism down your throat from the very beginning almost made me vomit and walkout
I should have
0/10
Your fault for not watching Mark Kermode review and doing the exact opposite:D I can nearly always rely on him to give the opposite view to me on films.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom