Charlie’s Angels Movie Ending Explained (In Detail)

Spoilers Alert:

The classic series about the clever fighters for good has already been shown in cinemas twice. Now comes the next interpretation. Whether director Elizabeth Banks Charlie’s Angels (2019) We reveal in our review that you can gain something new.

Director Elizabeth Banks plays a supporting role in “Charlie’s Angels.”

The plot summary

Charlie’s Angels have always been at work with their security and investigative skills. With the expansion of the Townsend Agency, the smartest, most fearless and highly trained women are now traveling internationally. Multiple angel teams led by different intermediaries take on the toughest jobs around the world. When inventor Elena (Naomi Scott) worries that her employer’s latest development could be misused as a weapon of mass destruction, the non-conformist Sabina (Kristen Stewart) and ex-MI-6 agent Jane (Ella Balinska) take on the matter. But the mission is more complex than expected…

Charlie’s Angels Movie Meaning & ending

In 1976, the action series “Charlie’s Angels” started on US television and became a nationwide phenomenon with its eponymous heroines. And the series about three women who repeatedly save the day as private detectives also went through the roof in other countries. The series started in Germany in 1979 on ZDF. 21 years later, McG (“The Babysitter”) directed a comedic cinematic version of the material with a music video aesthetic that became a worldwide hit. Three years later, a significantly more expensive sequel performed somewhat weaker at the box office and was also torn apart by critics – and that was just the first signal that the thirst for “Angel” had apparently been quenched. In 2011, a new series flopped – so much so that not all of the episodes that had already been produced were broadcast in the USA. Elizabeth Banks nevertheless took on the task of adapting and modernizing the “Charlie’s Angels” brand for the big screen at the end of the 2010s. The “Zack and Miri Make a Porno” actress, who has been very active behind the scenes for several years and has commented very openly about the hurdles that are placed in her way because of her gender, wanted to prove herself with “Charlie’s Angels”. what’s inside her.

The three angels Elena (Naomi Scott), Jane (Ella Balinska) and Sabina (Kristen Stewart).

After previously directing the musical comedy “Pitch Perfect 2” , her second directorial effort should show that she can also handle a (slightly) larger budget and action scenes. Banks also took on production, screenplay and a central supporting role. Or, as she noted on Twitter after the film’s lousy US launch: “Well, if you’re going to flop, make sure your name is on it four times.” The hoped-for commercial revival of the “Angel” franchise is Banks ‘ It didn’t become an action comedy. And that’s a shame in several respects: Point one: Banks is a promising director, and therefore a failure with her second film can’t be begrudged. Point two: Some studios and producers are under the misconception that action films with female protagonists who belong neither to the sci-fi genre nor to the superhero world are guaranteed flops, and they will misuse any actual failure as an argument for their point of view. And point three: “Charlie’s Angels” unfortunately seems like a first test run for something that would work much better in round two if those involved learned their lessons from the first attempt. And Banks’ “angel” vision is unlikely to get this second attempt.

The leading actresses Kristen Stewart (“The Clouds of Sils Maria”) , Naomi Scott (“Aladdin”) and Ella Balinska (“Inspector Barnaby”) have a winning chemistry with each other. Their interaction harmonizes, and so even conversations without punch lines are amusing. In addition, the three angels are not put together according to the formula F, but rather a trio with refreshing characteristics and areas of responsibility. Naomi Scott’s Elena is the IT expert, but far from the typical nerd that this position entails in action films. With verve and charm, Kristen Stewart throws herself into the idea of ​​playing off her non-conformity in a clever and lively way (Sabina would get along very well with Kate McKinnon’s Jillian Holtzmann from “Ghostbusters – Answer the Call” ), but at the same time she deals hard and always plays on one strange to tragic past, sometimes as a gag, sometimes as a dramatic texture. And Ella Balinska’s Jane develops (unfortunately a bit erratically, as if the approach for this character had only been found in the middle of filming) from the brash lone fighter to the sensible person in the team, who, however, always carries a mischievous grin with her. These personalities make an unpredictable but very pleasant mix.

A lot of contacts are made at work…

In addition, Banks’ knack for self-irony is again evident in “Charlie’s Angels”: the events in this agent comedy are repeatedly lightened up by unexpected twists and sayings that comment on what is shown with a relaxed, light attitude that doesn’t take itself too seriously. As with “Pitch Perfect 2,” this film doesn’t become a “22 Jump Street” -esque parody, but rather sits in a “This is flaky popcorn fun, and we know it” tone that the dialogues and Banks’ relaxed direction is implemented very harmoniously. Banks also conveys her female empowerment message with a similar “let’s have fun, but also honestly stand behind what we’re doing” attitude: annoying everyday habits of male superiors are accurately depicted in order to outline Elena’s starting position, stir up tension and explain reasons find out why she is so willing to jump into the deep end (i.e. the world of angels). In return, the film later knowingly (and with a few small asides) avoids silly clichés from previous action films about women. In other words: Like “Ghostbusters” before him, Banks doesn’t preach with a warning finger, but simply lives it – although Paul Feig’s lively comedy managed to be a bit cleverer.

Meanwhile, the action falls into the “It’s a shame, it might have been better the second time around” area: Some sequences have fun ideas that Banks skillfully implements, and she skillfully adds them to a fight in a factory and a mini-heist in Hamburg together what is happening at various sub-battlefields. Among other things, a chase through the Hanseatic city is very awkwardly edited and therefore never really gets going. The problem, as well as a strange, muddy sound mix, runs through several action passages. At least in this film, Banks has an eye for clever procedures and large, meticulous processes, but when there’s a crash and a clatter, she lets her guard down – but the potential is there, so you can always tell who’s where. Unfortunately, this is not a given in modern action cinema.

Conclusion: The action leaves something to be desired, but the fun is convincing and the characters leave you wanting more – “Charlie’s Angels” deserves better than the ice-cold shoulder that US audiences gave the film.

“Charlie’s Angels” can be seen in USA cinemas from December 2nd.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top