Leading up to the opening weekend of “Charlie’s Angels,” the press offered no excitement for the upcoming movie. From the over-edited poster photos to the expectations of seeing bored 12-year-old boys fill the theater up since the movie promised yet another oversexualized version of “girl power,” expectations were low, low. Yet somehow, it managed to surpass the low expectations and add up to be a weak movie, both in storyline and morals. 

“Charlie’s Angels” somehow managed to waste its whopping budget of $75 million on the same washed-up actors playing the same rolls on copy and paste. Noah Centineo plays Langston, the movie’s nerdy damsel in distress who helps add to the sex appeal. It seemed like the screenwriters watched every Centineo movie and found at least 15 lines to copy and paste into their “new” script. As if taking the new teenage heartthrob and haphazardly throwing him into the mix wasn’t already bad enough, the movie also brings in Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Elizabeth Banks as the “angels,” as if these actresses need to be in yet another blockbuster action movie. 

However, props should be given out to director and actress Elizabeth Banks for taking the incredibly sexualized ideals of “Charlie’s Angels” and attempting to morph them into ideals of “girl power.” However, despite the effort, the genuine honesty just isn’t there.

The movie feels like an attempt to prove that the blockbuster movie series can grow past their previous patriarchal paradoxy when in reality they haven’t. The movie has moved past the themes of having three “angels” follow the order of their male superior all while never accumulating a scratch. It now includes people of color and women in power roles which yes, is an attempt at fourth-wave feminism, but in reality, it is just an attempt to hush the critics. 

These new “angels” still uphold the unrealistic expectations for women, but now they’re just not as blatant. They showcase these women as emotionless people who can run in heels (which in reality may just be physically impossible) and survive an explosion without a scratch. This new theme of “girl power” seems slapped on top of underlying themes of sexism that have been prevalent in these movies since the year 2000 when the first movie was released. 

In order to enjoy this movie, a low IQ and a complete disrespect for women is needed. But if someone would like to see a pseudo-feminism idea in action, tell them to feel free to waste $9.50 and two hours of their life at this counterproductive movie.