Considering that "Mission Impossible", which was born in the 1960s, has hit the sixth episode firmly on the big screen, objectively speaking, "Charlie Angels" is far from being the most successful one of Chen Zhizhi's TV IP. It exists. The sense is not particularly prominent.
On the one hand, "Charlie Girl" introduced the female protagonist into the traditionally male detective story, and became the banner of the second wave of American feminism like "Wonder Woman" of the same era; but on the other hand, action/detective genre The main viewing group is still male audiences. The attractive female protagonists and the renovated cross-dressing elements still maintain the materialized female characteristics with the characteristics of the times. To be exaggerated, the essence of this type of TV is related to the three-point boxing. Foxy boxing is actually no different.
Even at the beginning of the 21st century, the two "Girls in the Thunderbolt" created by McG did not deviate from this category. McG made a mess of editing and mirroring with his personal style, coupled with the fashionable Hong Kong-style martial arts (Yuan Xiangren is the martial arts instructor), tight leather clothing full of sexual hints, exotic style and neighbor sweetheart. However, the comic-style exaggerated plot is too simple and naive, and the character is single and lacks depth, which exposes its fast-food attributes, and its fate as a fast-moving consumer product quickly died after the second part.
As a behind-the-scenes trader, Drew Barrymore wanted to restart on the small screen as early as 2011, but the terrible plot, redundant actions, and failure in casting roles made this restart drama not persist for even one season. And now, can the "Charlie's Angels" who have embraced the fourth wave of feminist movement be able to fly?
Elizabeth Banks writes, directs and acts on a cast with the "diversified" characteristics of the new era, trying to make "Charlie Girl 2019" a stronger female empowerment attribute. The ideal is naturally very beautiful, but in the end, there is no innovation and lack of realism in the story and character, and the action design that is too lazy to show makes this ideal only stop at "looks beautiful" and "remembers beautiful" To the extent.
Investigating its root causes, the director/screenwriter should be the first to bear the brunt. Although it is also a female director, Elizabeth Banks and her chick movie are far from the hardcore Catherine Bigelow and even Patty Jenkins. There is also a shocking disjunction and misplacement in her understanding of "Charlie Girl" and even the genre of action movies.
This can be seen from the inexplicable mixing and editing at the beginning of the film: not to mention that it has nothing to do with the plot/scenes of the film, and there is also a cheap MV. And the ubiquitous, slogan-style hard and straight lines, and the fashion blockbuster-like service are spotless, making the movie go to another extreme without real feeling in the strong sense of overhead.
The "Charlie Boy 2019" is full of imagination and lack of personality in the shaping of female characters. It is a concentrated expression of today's Hollywood cynical and bad atmosphere: women can effortlessly take down the traditional male-dominated work. But this kind of extremely glamorous "fairy tale" ignores the "very hard work" behind the "looks effortless".
This "Hollywood New Feminist" is not fundamentally different from the cartoonized women of the last generation of "Charlie Girl", and the practice of placing these paper characters and absurd stories in a more realistic context is better than the former More dangerous.
The former at least knows that they attract more or less gender-biased couch potatoes and straight steel men; the latter has a raw contempt for this group, and the genre movie has been completely transformed and completely unrecognizable, when it is met by traditional audiences. When abandoned, I can stand with Brie Larson and say, "This is not a movie made for them."
So who was "Charlie Girl 2019" filmed for? If the purpose of IP movie production is to attract new audiences while retaining the original fan traffic, then the goal of "Charlie Girl 2019" and the new "feminist" type of movies represented by it is the so-called , Woke the audience. They don't even care whether these audiences are really woke or forced to woke, as long as these people can join them and sing "Kumbaya" hand in hand on the "Utopian Feminist Continent" created by Hollywood.
When these movies are always grasped by the problems and contradictions of a small group of people, how can this behavior that is more ostrich than ostriches have real resonance in the real society? It's nothing more than celebrating in a small circle. No matter how good the rhetoric and the high-sounding, no matter how correct and political the guiding ideology, can not conceal the creative powerlessness of these films.
Shouting slogans, the photo shoot also wants to save the world? Obviously still whimsical.
But back to "Charlie Girl 2019", whether it is Elizabeth Banks, Drew Barrymore, or the three leading actors represented by Kristen Stewart, they have not made any unforgivable mistakes. . Throwing aside their limited strength and standards, they are all victims of a free ride in the feminist movement. They don't know what they are doing-even though they are not lacking in purpose in terms of professional attributes-they are just lost in meeting the trend.
Facts have proved that simply relying on the slogan of the feminist movement or the (pseudo) halo (pseudo) bonus of the LGBT alphabet circle is not enough to make the second-tier and third-tier combination a pioneer of the times, nor can it turn vague feminism. Extend and extend to true individualism. If they think that chanting slogans and posing and handing a Coke can solve social issues, then their understanding of the movement itself would be too trivial.
View more about Charlie's Angels reviews
