Elizabeth Banks on ‘Charlie’s Angels’ bomb: ‘Men don’t go see women do action movies’

Celebrity arrivals for the Los Angeles premiere Of Columbia Pictures' 'Charlie's Angels'

I like Elizabeth Banks a lot and I completely support her transition from actress to big-time producer and director. She produced the Pitch Perfect franchise and directed the second film. She also put together the reboot of Charlie’s Angels – she really wanted to remake it, and she pulled it together, got Kristen Stewart on board, directed and produced it and she stars as Bosley. Charlie’s Angels came out last Friday. It bombed, only making $8.6 million in its opening weekend. Banks took it standing up:

Good for her. I haven’t seen it so I can’t say if she should be proud of her efforts, but I think it’s great that more women are throwing their hats into the ring and saying “actually, I’m directing this.” But of course, it’s natural to look for reasons why this reboot didn’t succeed. Banks thinks it might be because audiences didn’t want to see an all-lady action-comedy:

Elizabeth Banks suggested that the reason her “Charlie’s Angels” reboot failed to make a splash at the box office opening weekend was that men “don’t go see women do action movies.” Banks — who wrote, produced, directed, and starred as Bosley in the reboot — hinted to the Herald Sun prior to the film’s release that a form of sexism from a male-dominated audience may be to blame for its current lack of financial success.

“Look, people have to buy tickets to this movie too. This movie has to make money,” Banks told the Sun. “If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies.” Banks seemed to dismiss the box office success of “Captain Marvel,” the Brie Larson-led Marvel film that earned $1.1 billion worldwide earlier this year, as well as “Wonder Woman,” which grossed $821 million in 2017, because they belonged to a “male genre.”

“They’ll go and see a comic book movie with Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel because that’s a male genre,” Banks explained. “So even though those are movies about women, they put them in the context of feeding the larger comic book world, so it’s all about, yes, you’re watching a Wonder Woman movie but we’re setting up three other characters or we’re setting up ‘Justice League.’ By the way, I’m happy for those characters to have box office success, but we need more women’s voices supported with money because that’s the power. The power is in the money.”

[From Fox News]

I think there’s something to what she said, absolutely. Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman were so successful partly because there was and is a huge built-in audience for comic-book films. That being said, the Drew Barrymore-Charlie’s Angels franchise certainly seemed to have a built-in audience too, because it was pretty successful financially and people really loved those dumb films. So… maybe that’s an issue too? I mean, at some point, people really do get tired of the reboots. (Also: this is just my opinion, but there was legitimately a casting issue – Kristen Stewart was fine, but the other Angels needed to be bigger “names.”)

"Charlie's Angels" Premiere

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

119 Responses to “Elizabeth Banks on ‘Charlie’s Angels’ bomb: ‘Men don’t go see women do action movies’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Nicole says:

    I’m not sure that they put the money in advertising behind it. Maybe it’s because I’m living a streaming life, but I also saw very little internet advertising either. If FB can do analytics for everything why not movies?

    • Tammy says:

      Agreed! I live in streamland and I wouldn’t have know about it if I didn’t listen to her on the Dax podcast. They should have put more money into marketing. Wish this did better, even my husband said he always wants to see her succeed. She’s hilarious.

      • Ella3 says:

        Agreed. I also only heard about this on Dax’s podcast, but even having listened to her interview I still had no idea it opened last weekend until reading this article.

    • Meg says:

      True, I only saw the trailer in movie theaters and nowhere else

    • megs283 says:

      Same, I saw one mention/advertisement (also in streaming world). Though I only go to the movies 1-2x/year…

    • Lex says:

      I saw the movie and reaaally enjoyed it! I don’t need to know the actors to be drawn into a film – that just seems like a lazy excuse to cast JLaw in every movie.

      It was funny, goofy, action packed, great fashion, didn’t focus on romance… all in all, very enjoyable! I will definitely watch it again.

      Kristen Stewart needs to do more comedy – she was excellent!

      Give it a shot people 🙂

  2. Astrid says:

    I never cared for the earlier Charlies Angels shows and movies. I had no intention of seeing this one, regardless of the all female cast etc.

    • naomipaige99 says:

      I’m with you. I haven’t seen any of the older ones, and have no intention of seeing this one either.

    • wellsie says:

      Same. I like Elizabeth but the Charlie’s Angels concept has always bugged. Too bad they didn’t check with us before making it.

    • SM says:

      Exactly. I like Elisabeth but no one asked for new Charlie’s Angels. She is good with creating original content so she has herself to blame in this situation rather than look for excuse for this poor decision making, poor casting and poor PR.

    • DiegoInSF says:

      I love the Drew Lucy Cam ones, I grew up with them and I recently made my bf watch the first one and he enjoyed it a lot! I’m sad this reboot bombed because dumb male executives will use it as an excuse not to green light female-led movies! It’s crazy but in 2019
      only two female directed movies surpassed the $100 million threshold at the USA box office: Captain Marvel and Hustlers.

    • DragonWise says:

      I agree. I thought the Barrymore-led ones were fine, if too silly to be remembered long term. It just doesn’t seem like the time for a re-boot when there aren’t many bones on the carcass left to pick, and the timing seems off for a big, dumb action movie, considering where our culture and political system are right now. Maybe it would have done better as a summer flic? I don’t think Elisabeth is wrong about men not being interested in female-led films, especially action films, but I do think this was just a bad idea at the wrong time.

      • bonobochick says:

        If you go to Drew Barrymore’s IMDB page, she’s listed as an executive producer for this 2019 Charlie’s Angels movie so she’s mixed up in it too.

      • holly hobby says:

        Except men usually likes Charlie’s Angels. It was originally known as T&A programming at ABC. Of course women watched it too but jiggle tv was marketed for men.

  3. Bex says:

    I think part of the problem was the marketing. It’s not a groundbreaking movie, but it’s a lot of fun (KStew especially is a riot, who knew she had such comic chops???) and none of that really came across in the terrible trailer.

    • bonobochick says:

      I can see that. It reminds me of how bad the marketing was for “A Simple Favor.” I feel like studios don’t really know how to market anymore – or don’t try to market – and rest on the laurels hoping for built-in audiences.

      I actually saw the movie. It wasn’t great but I was mostly entertained. It’s very lighthearted fare, which I appreciate in these dark times.

      • DiegoInSF says:

        But A Simple Favor was a hit!

      • Allergy says:

        A Simple Favor was quite interesting. It nearly collapsed a few times but always pulled itself together, almost like some improv show. I like Paul Feig, he’s not a pompous showy director but does action and comedy well.

      • bonobochick says:

        @diegoinSF My point was about the marketing, which Bex mentioned being an issue for Charlie’s Angels that I agree with + thought the same about bad marketing failing A Simple Favor. And don’t get me started with the bad marketing for Widows (all these movies with women leads being failed by bad marketing).

        ASF steadily increased at the box office due to word of mouth and not the marketing, IMO, which tried to sell the film as horror noir when it is a dark comedy mystery mix folm. It made about $53.5 million domestically in 9 weeks per boxofficemojo, which isn’t terrible but also isn’t great.

      • holly hobby says:

        I watched Widows. As much as I loved the cast the story was boring. And all the scenes literally were dark (dark background, not dark storyline). It was a big disappointment for me.

    • LWT00 says:

      I was mildly interested until that part in the trailer that showed a group dance. At that point it immediately went on my nope list.

      I don’t think the problem is men not wanting to see female action stars (the majority of the audience for Terminator Dark Fate was male and that 3 female action stars), but audiences in general not wanting to see unfunny/tired comedy. There wasn’t a single joke in the trailer that made me laugh. Instead the whole thing made me (and my husband, who enjoys a good romcom and chick-flick) cringe.

  4. grumpyterrier says:

    Maybe people are tired of seeing the same movie remade over and over. Try doing a reboot of Ghostbusters next.

  5. Other Renee says:

    Blaming men for this flop? Seriously?! Kristen S. isn’t a big enough draw for even women to go see this film. I’m looking at this photo and see no star wattage. And yeah, aren’t we all sick of reboots?

    • Originaltessa says:

      Yeah, I find Kristen Stewart unbearable. I don’t think I’m alone. They needed Emma Stone or JLaw or someone bigger.

      • DiegoInSF says:

        JLaw, Stone and Robbie were the originals they wanted years ago but they didn’t like the script and passed.

      • SKF says:

        Oh my god; if someone in HW was able to get a movie with some badass elements and some comedy with J-Law, Emma Stone and Margot Robbie in it… it would kill at the box office. Those three are all draws; but TOGETHER??? Someone needs to write a brilliant script and make this happen! Not a reboot, something new. All three ladies are loved by both men and women. Someone please make it happen!

    • Meg says:

      I don’t remember seeing men in the theater when I saw the previous franchise with Drew Barrymore yet that made money so I’m not sure men are why this movie bombed, female comments here saying we weren’t interested in seeing it either shows it wasn’t just men who didn’t go. and this really bombed-less than $10 million opening weekend? Wow

    • naomipaige99 says:

      I agree. I definitely wouldn’t see this movie with her in it. There is just something about her tha rubs me the wrong way.

    • Aoife says:

      Agreed re K. Stew, even though she can act well sometimes. Blaming men is a cop out imo – if enough women had wanted to see it, then the film would not have flopped. And the little advertising there was seemed to be targetted at women.

  6. Mrs. Peel says:

    Reboot fatigue.

  7. Mel says:

    Aside from the fact that in commercials and previews the movie looked dreadful, she’s aware that Charlie’s Angels wasn’t about the action so much but the women. It was part of the age of “jiggle” tv. Sit down Elizabeth you picked a stinker , own it.

    • Dee says:

      Well this reboot doesn’t have a lot of action either. It’s mainly about the angels and it has great comedy. And she’s owning it with her tweet. She’s allowed to give her opinion as to why it flopped.

  8. Valiantly Varnished says:

    I agree Kaiser. I think the three biggest issues with this film was the casting – not Kristen but the two other actresses. Films like this already have a huge mountain to climb and need big names attached. Kristen couldn’t carry this all on her own. Additionally I think the theme song with Miley, Lana and Ariana was weak and lame and had no energy behind it – and they used it in ALL of the trailers. Which made the film feel dull and weak. Even if it wasn’t. Also – the promotion. The only time I saw the trailer for this film was when I was at the movie theater seeing OTHER films. That’s it.

    Edit: I also want to add that Charlie’s Angels is a tired franchise. It’s simply not that interesting to the younger generation of moviegoers. And what I think this shows more than anything is that Hollywood needs to stop remaking things and focus on creating NEW things that people will actually be excited to see.

    • VirgiliaCoriolanus says:

      IMO Elizabeth Banks’ humor drives me up the wall and I cannot with any of the films she produces and stars in, where she has creative control. In small doses, like her character in Hunger games, it’s fine—but she’s like a one trick pony. But I also hate most comedic films bc of this so 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

    • Gina says:

      I also agree it was the casting. I really like Elizabeth Banks. I think she is very smart but the problem here is with who she put in the lead roles. When Drew did it, they were all stars.

  9. Alexis says:

    Sexism is real but it’s not the primary reason why this movie failed. It’s literally based on a successful franchise which was female action (the 2000s one anyway). The difference is that the 2000s Charlie’s Angels was super star studded and all three Angels were big names and charismatic with their own built-in audiences. It was all about star power; it was less about the franchise, which the target audience didn’t rememeber. The movie would have been a bigger hit if the other two were say, Selena Gomez and Zendaya.

    I think the story here is that Kristin Stewart cannot headline a movie on her own, which I don’t think anyone thought though? I’m rooting for Banks’s next venture, though. Onwards and upwards!

    • Kate says:

      Maybe it’s both? Men don’t want to go see it because it’s up against Terminator and that Ford v Ferrari movie and CA is definitely marketed as a chick flick. And women weren’t drawn enough to the lead (mostly unknown) actresses?

      That said, I saw it with my husband and my friend and the 2 “unknown” angels were very beautiful and commanding on screen. I liked the fight sequences – they weren’t too close and shaky like a lot of other action movies where you can’t tell who is hitting who, and they looked real. I liked the take on the angels being brought together for the first time and developing a friendship.

  10. Annika says:

    I never saw a trailer for it.
    I actually thought it was a TV show, like the reboot from a few years ago.
    Oh geez, I didn’t know it was a movie until I saw this post!

  11. Ashley Diaz says:

    I saw it with my husband and we both really liked it. Kristen Stewart was great and while I didn’t mind the other girls it probably needed more star power. All 3: drew Cameron and Lucy were A listers when theirs came out

    • CuriousCole says:

      I saw it with my boyfriend and we both loved it. I wish more people would go and see what a great job Elizabeth did before dismissing it. She revamped it wonderfully and I left wanting a sequel. The marketing was poorly done though.

  12. Jillian says:

    I love the Lucy, drew and Cameron version. It’s goofy and a lot of fun.

  13. ReginaGeorge says:

    I think they put too much stock into betting K-Stew could lead a movie with two lesser known actresses. Also, I think people are just tired or reboots. Also, did Bosley really need to be a woman? I grew up watching the original series, and I did enjoy the Cameron D. Drew and Lucy reboot. This one did not interest me one bit. Even their theme song with Ariana/Miley/Lana couldn’t hold a candle to the Destiny’s Child version. Nobody asked for this. lol

    • Meg says:

      I agree, the music for that trailer did not work at all. I was in high school when the previous reboot with Cameron Diaz came out and the trailers were so fun with her dancing goofy and fun music I knew I’d see it, but didn’t feel the same about this one-assuming I just wasn’t the demographic for it but I clearly wasn’t alone.
      Elizabeth banks is talented and I’m glad she wore so many hats for this and hope she continues to. Trailers need to be better for her future projects

    • Lex says:

      Bosley isn’t a woman per se. Bosley is a rank.

      The movie was actually really enjoyable!

  14. Constance says:

    Stewart is a big enough name, but I had never heard of the other two actresses. It also has to be a pretty special movie for me the pay to go to the theater.

    There just wasn’t enough star power in the cast.

    • perplexed says:

      I think Stewart was expected to carry the movie in the same way a guy with two lesser known male actors are expected to carry a movie (i.e Chris Hemsworth and actors x, y and z), but unless she’s starring in a movie with Robert Pattinson do people really go out of their way to see her on film?

      I think it was expected that women would go see this movie, but I can’t tell if Kristen Stewart is liked by that many women unless she’s paired in a Twilight movie.

  15. ME says:

    The Charlie’s Angels TV series did well and men watched it. The original movie did well too didn’t it? I think Hollywood needs to put out ORIGINAL movies instead of feeding us the same sh*t over and over again.

  16. DS9 says:

    All respect to Elizabeth Banks but she didn’t market this as an action movie and quite frankly, it’s not. It’s an action comedy at best.

    I mean I’m just a lady but I adore action movies. Atomic Blonde is an action flick and it made twice what Charlie’s Angels did from what I can tell.

    • Skyblue121 says:

      I’m a lady and I love action movies. I’ve watched Atomic Blonde about five times. That is the kind of action movie I’m all about.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      EXACTLY. The marketing for this film was TERRIBLE and Elizabeth should be blaming the studio for that – not moviegoers. I LOVE action films. Atomic Blonde is amazing and Ive seen it multiple times – including in the theater. And while I get her point about comic book heroes I think she was using that example too conveniently. Yes Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman were successful. But Catwoman and Elektra were not. So that example doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. And Captain Marvel did well DESPITE the campaign of dude bros boycotting it and giving it bad ratings on Rotten Tomatoes

    • holly hobby says:

      That action comedy movie with Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy did really well. I really think it’s a casting issue and the story (reboot).

  17. S808 says:

    1. We didn’t need a Charlie’s Angels reboot. Like at all.
    2.I’m sorry but the casting was ehh. KStew doesn’t have a big box office draw and none of the girls had sex appeal (imo) which is part of the Charlie’s Angels allure.
    3. Someone brought this up on twitter and I agreed. The fashion was also lackluster which, again, part of the Angel appeal.
    4. The soundtrack sucked.

  18. Dee says:

    I have to point out that Captain Marvel’s success is impressive for many reasons. Main one is because the movie and brie were victims to online boycotts, petitions, review bombing and outright lies. Brie still receives online harassment and there are thousands of videos slamming her just from the past 5 months alone.

    As for Elizabeth, she’s got a point in general. But specifically for her movie….I’m not sure. They should’ve ditched the “Charlie’s angels” reboot, and just have a fresh movie. Three spies/assassins/whatever in a new franchise.
    It’s worth pointing out that Sony screwed them up by cutting the movie’s budget.

    • perplexed says:

      I don’t think her point makes sense in this case because the other Charlie’s Angels franchise was successful.

  19. DS9 says:

    Also, if I’m reading right, Proud Mary made 10mil its opening weekend, and it sucked.

    Peppermint made 13mil. I didn’t see it.

    So, I mean, misogyny is at play, always but men not wanting to see ladies kick ass isn’t it. Men not wanting to see these ladies kick ass maybe…Or maaaaybe not knowing they were gonna kick ass…

  20. LP says:

    I think partly this movie had the same problem as doctor sleep, booksmart, and other movies recently- people aren’t paying to see things in the theater like they used to! Frankly both of those movies are probably better than this reboot, but I’m sure a lot of people went “Hmmm, maybe once it’s streaming” and thought no more of it. There’s other problems but the only things that really seem to make bank anymore are bigger franchise films and action movies that play well in China. I’m a little worried about Knives Out; to me it looks like one of the best movies of the year, and the reviews are almost perfect, but are people gonna pay to see an old fashioned whodunnit in theaters…?

    • Tiffany27 says:

      I agree. The way my life and budget is set up, 87% of what I watch is on a streaming service. I have to be SUPER interested in a movie to go and see it in a theater.

    • deezee says:

      I agree. I’m not really sure it’s the movie per se. But the price of going to the theatre to see it. No one really talks much about how that is a factor in people’s decisions in spending their entertainment dollars.

      For instance, I do want to see this one but I’m not paying $18 for my ticket. I’ll wait and watch it at home. At this point, unless it is a big blockbuster WOW movie, I wait and rent/stream it later.

    • bonobochick says:

      This is fair.

      I only saw it opening weekend cause I have AMC A-List. If I didn’t, I would’ve waited for cable or streaming to see it.

  21. HMC says:

    I’m a big action movie fan. This was not marketed right, nothing in the promos or trailers made me want to see this movie. There was no “draw.” I don’t feel I have to go see a movie like this if I don’t really want to just because we all share the same plumbing. Plus the reboot fatigue factor.

  22. perplexed says:

    Didn’t this franchise do well when Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu were headlining?

    Maybe people just don’t care about Kristen Stewart in a movie, to be honest. If you stuck Jennifer Lawrence (though I doubt she’d do this flim), the outcome could have been different.

    Banks’ reasoning doesn’t make sense here because Charlie ‘s Angels is a cultural thing everybody is aware of going back to the 70s or whenever this thing with the Angels started.

  23. M.A.F. says:

    It was reboot of a reboot. It was not needed. If she had come up with an original script/concept, then she could use the “men don’t see women action movies.”

  24. Grey says:

    I had no idea this film even existed.

  25. Tpoe says:

    Tell it to Atomic Blonde. I’m a man and I watched and enjoyed that, and Fury Road and Captain Marvel and Dark Fate (which is an action movie with three female protagonists).

    I think the problem is that the trailer didn’t make me want to see it. I was in the theater saw the trailer and thought this movie is going to be for a much younger crowd and it doesn’t look very good overall. So I didn’t go see it.

    Now I read that people who have seen it say it is good but that it didn’t do well at the box office.

    So as far as me personally, being a man who watches movies in the theaters, blame the trailer.

  26. Louisa says:

    Everyone else have said it all, but I just want to add: K Stew looks really good with that hair and eye makeup!

  27. Michael says:

    I would have watched this movie if the cast was more compelling or the fight scenes looked cooler but there was nothing inherently interesting to me about this. I had no idea who Ella Balinska was and was only mildly acquainted with the other cast members. For a movie to do huge numbers you have either appeal to multiple demographics or have boffo action scenes an d dialog. I actually heard this movie was pretty good but it was not nearly compelling enough to make drive to a theater and pay $10.00 to see it. I will just wait for it to stream somewhere

  28. sassafras says:

    Oh honey no.
    I’m begging the universe for more Spy movies with Melissa McCarthy or that movie she did with Sandra Bullock. Speaking of Sandra Bullock, Bird Box and Ocean’s Eight, anyone? (Not strictly action, but close.) And that Mila Kunis/ Kate McKinnon movie did better than this, right?

    Also… Widows… Atomic Blond… Proud Mary… I’m pretty sure some men went and saw those women in action movies.

    Basically, you made a movie five years too late with actors no one wanted to see. There have been other successes of woman-powered action-y movies (and I don’t think she should discount Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman, either). Take your lumps and make something else awesome.

  29. liz says:

    How cool would it have been if CA had actually been more like a Mission Impossible thing. More serious and just crazy stuff like that. I would have watched it.

  30. Mignionette says:

    Maybe the business model needs to change so that women become normalised first. At the end of the day consumers ultimately determine the success of a film so maybe get people used to female leads via mediums like Netflix etc.

  31. Renee says:

    IMO the problem was the lack of “star” power and also they pushed the release date. The original release date was September. I think it might have done better with less competition. Instead, they released it in November when all the Oscar baity films are released. It doesn’t make sense.

  32. Anne says:

    I don’t like Kristen Stewart, never have, never will and I know a lot of people who feel the same way. Something just seems off with her. The other two girls are completely bland. And I am saying this as a HUGE Charlie’s Angles fan, I really like Drew, Cameron, and Lucy to this day, and I thought that I would be running to the theater to see this. But, no. Perhaps other people feel the same way.

  33. Lucy2 says:

    I don’t think she’s wrong, but there are other factors to. Mainly the things everyone has said, lack of advertising, not great trailers, and little star power to the cast.

    There are lots of male action movie flops too though, and those actors and directors get chance after chance. I hope Elizabeth gets the same opportunities.

    • holly hobby says:

      I do have to agree that women directors do not have a margin of error. If they direct a dud they won’t get a chance again. Anne Fletcher is a perfect example. She directed 27 dresses and the Proposal. However, I noticed her name on an episode of This is Us. A look at her imdb and it looks like she’s been doing strictly tv. This is after that action movie she directed with Sofia Vergara and Reese Witherspoon. She’s been relegated to tv now. Such a shame.

  34. Becklu says:

    No offense but it flopped because it looked bad, it’s a concept that has been done a 1000 times (like how many Charlie angels do we need) and the stars weren’t compelling.

  35. Middle of the road says:

    I saw a lot of advertising on social media and tv. I also notice that these days that basically put the whole more in the trailer so you already know what’s going to happen beforehand. I’m also tired of reboots.

  36. DS9 says:

    Also, can someone tell Elizabeth Banks about Sarah Connor?

    It’s not the only draw, no. But it’s still a woman in an action flick.

  37. locamg says:

    Sick of reboots, can’t stand Kristin Stewart. Anything she’s in, I will immediately pass on.

  38. A says:

    This was a reboot no one wanted. If they want to do reboots so badly how about selecting good obsecure movies that underperformed during their time? Maybe that will work on B.O provided that they get a great cast/crew for it.

  39. Case says:

    I thought the trailers were SO BAD, with weirdly-timed music and odd clips. And I see I’m not alone in feeling this way, based on other comments. I’m all about supporting female-led films, especially in genres that typically have male leads, but I don’t think the trailers were compelling enough for many men OR women to want to see it.

    I think it’s super important, particularly for little kids growing up now, to see women in strong action roles — to show boys that they can look up to female heroes just as girls have looked up to male heroes forever, because we had few female options. I just don’t think that’s the particular issue with this film.

  40. zotsioltar says:

    This was not a gender problem, this was a studio problem. If it was a gender issue, where was 50+ percent of the planet? I had no idea there was a new Charlies Angels movie…..

    This was a studio advertising fail. Also the actresses, outside of one who is more of a indy actor now, are unknowns to a majority of people. You can not say that about Marvel or the previous Angels movies.

  41. Jay (the Canadian one) says:

    I saw and loved Wonder Woman for Wonder Woman. I had no interest in seeing Justice League or even Superman v. Batman. So I disagree with her statement. I also saw Captain Marvel for Captain Marvel. And Black Panther because they both changed up an otherwise tired genre (where I skipped out on the Thor sequels, all of Ant Man, even Endgame). So I disagree with her assertion that comic book movies attract men just because they’re supporting characters.

    I didn’t see Charlie’s Angels because, again, tired of retreads. Her theory breaks down on the premise that the earlier cycle of the movie did well enough to warrant a sequel. And I loved Ocean’s 8.

  42. Granger says:

    But was this even an action movie? Not apparent from the trailers I saw.

  43. Eliza says:

    Honey, no. The first 2 were successful because they were fun. Had 3 charismatic actresses, and didn’t try to be Jason Bourne meets Pink Panther (the action scenes were more “serious spy” movie, in contrast to the rest as more zanny action-comedy). Only Kristen’s acting and charisma is mentioned, because the other 2 ladies aren’t strong actors and lack screen presence. She should have worked for a stronger cast and bond of said cast, and decided on keeping one direction.

  44. MsIam says:

    This movie didn’t appeal to me. The whole Charlie’s Angels concept seems dated, even with a woman as Charlie. But I did think it would do more than 8.6 million.

  45. CC says:

    Men are not to blame for this. NOBODY asked for or wanted this reboot of a reboot. That was your problem.

  46. Catting says:

    Just msg’d my boyfriend we HAVE to see it and not wait. Was interested after the good trailer, haven’t heard amazing things, but want to support it. 🙁

  47. Allergy says:

    Sorry but from the trailer I could tell this movie would be sort of terrible.

  48. phlyfiremama says:

    Try again~you made a stinker of a movie, accept that people just don’t want to shell out money for YET ANOTHER lackluster re-boot of an already re-booted TV series. You can’t make a lazy film like that and whine that MEN sank the movie when plenty of women were “meh” as well. I like KStew well enough, but I haven’t seen her in anything (ESPECIALLY CA) that compels me to shell out some money. Who doesn’t remember the poster of Farrah Fawcett-Majors?? My brothers had one hanging on their wall!! There is nothing like that to make this movie stand out in a sea of ordinary and blah cinema.

  49. Get with this says:

    Excuses, excuses. Alien franchise, Terminator 1&2, Wonder woman, Kick Ass(HitGirl stole the movie), Tomb Raider, Charlie’s Angels 2000’s and on and on. Plenty of movies that men like myself went to see. You have 3 girls that are ”pretty’ ‘with no charisma compare that to the 2000’s 3 HOT women with tons of charisma. A reboot will be good if you do a better job then the previous, she did not.

  50. DP says:

    Bad reviews or not, I will still rent it to see Noah Centineo.

  51. alsf says:

    It isn’t even showing in SF right now, so how wide-spread was the release? I was planning on going, because female cast and I like Kristen Stewart trying to be fun, plus Elizabeth Banks is good.

    • DiegoInSF says:

      It’s playing in the Century downtown as the Metreon is closed through Thursday, I assume for Dreamforce.

  52. The Recluse says:

    I was never a fan of Charlie’s Angels in any of its incarnations, so I would have never gone to see it and will likely never even watch it on TV.
    I saw precious little advertising for it and what I did see was unimpressive.
    Banks should try something new again, the way that Jordon Peele creates new projects. That seems to be her strength.

  53. Div says:

    I do think there was a bit of sexism, because outside of Atomic Blonde female lead action movies keep bombing.

    However, there were bigger issues-Most reboots bomb-MIB, Terminator, etc. Jumanji was an outlier, because it had the Rock. There are few stars who can carry a movie but more star power might have helped with another “name.” Lastly, the advertising was terrible and the release date (the weekend the Crown was out on Netflix and Ford vs. Ferrari).

    The big lesson, imo, is that In the age of Marvel and streaming studios need to move away from reboots.

    • Kate says:

      Atomic blonde was so amazing! The soundtrack too! One of my favorites

    • holly hobby says:

      Jumanji had a great storyline. It’s not just the Rock. His other movies were meh (Earthquake, Skyscraper whatever the names of those were).

  54. Kate says:

    Agree with casting and some marketing issues. Also, there’s only so many movies I can afford to see with my family. Saw joker, maleficent, I’m sure I’m forgetting another recent big movie. and then frozen 2 drops this week. I have interest in seeing this, but it can wait to be an off screen rental. In terms of casting… drew, lisa, and cam were all BIG household names when those movies came out. K stew ok, but the other two should have been bigger names… people with a fan base that would draw in theater viewers.

  55. holly hobby says:

    Except she’s not making an unknown female action movie. Charlie’s Angels is a franchise itself. I haven’t watched it but could it be that the story wasn’t good? Or people didn’t know who the other gals are?

    I know I’m not going to pay to watch this because Kristen Stewart has only one face = grump face. So no thanks.

  56. Betsy says:

    I’m another person who didn’t know this was coming out!

  57. Amelie says:

    I recently rewatched one of the Charlie’s Angels (I think it was the second one) with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu. They came out when I was in middle school and I thought they were the bomb back then but that was through my 11 year old eyes. It has NOT aged well lol. I didn’t even finish it, it was so silly and stupid. The only reason they did well was because at the time Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz were IT girls back then. Lucy Liu was well-known as well but could not have supported the movie by herself. There was no reason to remake this franchise ever and Kristen Stewart is not really a “big name” by herself, the other two actresses are not international icons either. So I’m not surprised it did poorly at the box office and the trailer really did not want to make me watch it either.

  58. perplexed says:

    I’ve seen a fair amount of promotion for this film. The actresses were on all the talk shows. In fact, I came away surprised that the other two actresses even liked Kristen Stewart all that much. They had a certain camaraderie with each other.

    Maybe people just didn’t want to see a reboot. Shouldn’t women have turned out for this movie? In this instance, I can’t see the point of blaming men — to be honest, I can’t even picture men sitting through the Cameron DIaz version. But I assume girls liked her version.

  59. EbonyS says:

    Re: Bigger names, I will say this

    The two other Angels were women of colour.

    And if we think that was an accident, that would be fooling ourselves. I honestly appreciate that Banks cast them. Yes, bigger stars would definitely have been a plus but what women of colour that age have the same “star” power as Kristen?

    Right off the top of my head I can think of…Keke Palmer, Camila Mendes, Yara Shahidi, Lana Candor….There is a dearth of young women of colour in Hollywood given roles to bulk up their star power.

    Naomi starred in Aladdin and that shit made BANK. If she were white and not Indian, she’d be having roles thrown at her.

  60. Claire says:

    This is the first I’m seeing that this movie even exists. I had no idea it was being remade.

  61. Alex says:

    It’s about casting to me.

  62. K says:

    Different casting, different director, wouldn’t matter–nothing would bring me (a woman) into the theater to see another Charlie’s Angel’s movie. I don’t care. It just looked completely dumb and irrelevant to my life in 2019. I’m glad Elizabeth Banks is trying to make movies and I do vote with my dollars to support female filmmakers more often than not, but quit revamping old properties and just build something NEW.