Sony dropped the first trailer for Charlie’s Angels back in June and it looked promising.

The film is based on the TV series that aired on ABC from 1976 to 1981, and her role as Jill Munroe is what propelled Farrah Fawcett to fame.

Since then, the franchise was rebooted in 2000’s Charlie’s Angels and 2003’s Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle starring Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu.

Now it’s back for a second reboot, and while the last one was a pop culture event, this one isn’t doing very well with many critics.

Before we take a look at some of those reviews, here’s the official trailer:

Let’s start with The Guardian, who jump right in with this:

This new Charlie’s Angels film […] is the non-event of the year, a tree of boredom falling unheard in a forest of dullness: a brain-deadeningly pointless movie starring Kristen Stewart alongside virtual newcomers Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska, catastrophically without the comedy and the comedy performances vital to making it work.

That’s going to leave a mark.

Kristen Stewart has the acting and emotional range of a teaspoon so no surprises there. Over to the BBC to see what they thought:

The most depressing part of Charlie’s Angels is that the feminist agenda it trumpets in so many clumsy speeches is drowned out by the Angels’ own incompetence. Rather than having a story, the film has a string of rote action sequences, and each of these sequences goes the same way: Bosley tells the Angels where the villains are; the Angels stride into wherever they need to be, in their impractical designer outfits; they make a mess of things; and the villains escape.

The Angels also manage to assault and/or murder various innocent bystanders while they’re at it, so if the film had any morals it would have ended with the three of them in prison.

Ah, so not a hit then?

The film, one of the first action movies to be written and directed by a woman, Elizabeth Banks, was pegged as being pretty progressive by Hollywood’s standards, which is why the failure to execute it properly is so disappointing.

This brings us finally to the Los Angeles Times:

First and foremost, this “Angels” has its empowerment of female credentials in good order. The film’s opening features a montage of girls doing it all, its first line of dialogue is “I think women can do everything,” and the closing montage shows us powerful women like race car driver Danica Patrick and former mixed martial arts champion Ronda Rousey doing what they do best.

That’s sounding a little more positive. But wait – the actual film starts after the opening credits:

Instead of engaging what we get is a plodding, unfocused effort with few genuine thrills to speak of, the kind of movie that would play best on an airplane when you are eager to kill time.

Yeah, I’ve read enough. I’ll be giving this one a miss.

[sources:guardian&bbc&latimes]