Charlie’s Angles: First Look

Another view.

Ensemble poster with Noah Certinello

From another view

View from below

Kristen Stewart finally gets to mouth breathe openly and freely on international movie posters!

Why does Hollywood keep insisting on resurrecting Charlie's Angels?

The Angels were detectives not secret agents. Why can't they ever get that right ?

Ellen DeGeneres is a Charlie's Angel?

OP, your question answers itself. Kristen Stewart is not attractive or charismatic enough to ever play at being a Charlie's Angel. Whoever did the casting fro this movie should be fired.

Ha Ha, watch her stammer and stutter her way through a description of this turd starting at 2:05. Why is she so awkward and inarticulate?

R10, I think this will bomb as bad as the all-female Ghostbusters did.

Too "dykey"?

I've never described anything as "faggy," but perhaps I should start now.

It's going to be a major box office flop. I can just feel it.

I like the r4 picture best. But I just can't stand Kristen Stewart. She seems so ungrateful for being such an in-demand actress with past comments like paparazzi attention feels like rape (bitch, you or your agency CALLED them to take pictures of you!).

How the hell did Kristen Stewart ever get a career? She's not a good actress; she's not all that physically attractive. How?

Test

R15, both of her parents are in the industry. Lucky us.

Garbage. No thanks.

Ella Balinska's mother is Lorraine Pascale, who is a host and judge on the Food Network.

[Quote] with past comments like paparazzi attention feels like rape (bitch, you or your agency CALLED them to take pictures of you!).

And yet Johnny Depp didn't get any backlash from making similar comments. I wonder why 🤔

Johnny Depp gets shit on all the time for everything. Save your Feminist Outrage for shit that really matters.

R21 maybe he does now but not back then. And I'm not outraged lol

Depp's always been called on his shit.

Zero charisma.

How would you know she has zero charisma if you haven’t seen the movie yet. You have to see her in action. She has chemistry.

Charlie's Angles...what is this, a movie about protractors?

Looks horrendous. I cannot watch Kristen Stewart "act," and by God, have I tried.

From what I've seen of Kristen Stewart, she comes off as a surly little asshole. How did this girl get to be a big star? She's such a nothing.

I don't know these actresses. Stewart could have played the Kate Jackson character, and they could've filled out the cast with something other than anonymous blatinas.

R29 Naomi Scott has been in a few franchises but i'm not familiar with the other actress. Ironically, she seems to be the only one who looks like she's having a good time.

[quote]Stewart could have played the Kate Jackson character

She IS playing 'Serena' which is the Kate Jackson character.

I think the movie looks like a lot of fun, but Gen X-ers are determined to hate anything that has Millenials redoing their classics. It reminds them that they're getting older and they really, really hate that.

This is the kind of movie, like the Sex & the City movies, that will end up being huge on cable. A fun, popcorn movie that you watch after dinner on a Friday or Saturday night. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

[quote]but Gen X-ers are determined to hate anything that has Millenials redoing their classics.

It's the poor quality and actors that are totally inappropriate. Like that awful Karate Kid remake with Will Smith's sprog.

We can all add this to the list of movies we don't have to see.

[Quote] Like that awful Karate Kid remake with Will Smith's sprog.

I don't understand how they fucked that up. Who's genius idea was it to set in China?

r31 Millennials are getting a little long in the tooth, as well.

Why not? Set it in Mr. Miyagi’s homeland.

Mr. Miyagi was Japanese, you fucking moron.

Fuck all of you.

AWFUL

The promos feature a lot of director Elizabeth Banks. I wonder if they are worried Kristen et al are just not going to be able to sell it.

Cameron, Drew and Lucy were all well known the public when the 2000 version came out.

nothing will ever beat this.

or this

Looks basic and bland.

ug. or this

It's going to bomb. Even just trying to explain how it's not camp but something totally different was convoluted at best. You can tell they don't believe their own hype either. I am not against remakes but sorry, when you fail to acknowledge some of the original spirit of the series then all you did was create some bland uninteresting knock off with the same title. Just call it something else at that point.

"It reminds them that they're getting older and they really, really hate that."

We're all getting older and dying every minute, Z. Life comes at you fast..

Looks like it'll last a week in the theaters.

Charlie's Affirmative Action Angels. So heavy-handed.

R34. I know right? I remember seeing a free screening of this film and wondered why Taraji P Henson's character had to go to China to look for work or something like that. Strange.

r31, How long has it been since you've been sprayed?

My 16 year old niece wants to see it. It will be big with younger crowds.

The movie will do well among people my age(1995 born) and younger. There is a lot of hype on social media for it and even a lot of non-US people I follow are excited to watch . So I think it will easily make back it's investment. Having said that , it doesn't look that good and Kristen Stewart - who is the embodiment of moody Indie girl - sticks out like a sore thumb.

Looks awful.

Not sure how they can sell a boomer brand to a generation that has no awareness of the original. Even the poster is completely lacking in concept, likely a result of the film itself.

r31: Kate Jackson's original character was named Sabrina. Kristen Stewart's new character is named Sabina (without the 'r').

Why didn’t they just name her Subpoena?

Does Kristen simply clip-on the de rigueur pony tail at crime scenes?

Stewart looks SLIGHTLY less mannered than usual in the trailers but still, I’ll take Drew Barrymore any day

I'm listening to her interview on Stern and she comes across very mannered, insightful and pretty self-aware. I'm frankly shocked cause I fully expected her to be a mess.

I meant--Stern interview

[Quote] I'm frankly shocked cause I fully expected her to be a mess.

She still could be. Just gotten better at hiding it during interviews.

[Quote] and Kristen Stewart - who is the embodiment of moody Indie girl - sticks out like a sore thumb.

👏👏👏

Where’s Starsky and Hutch?

Lacks pizzazz..vivaciousness..charisma. Looks like a high school play. Charlie's Angels was iconic and unremakeable.

R63 you know it'll happen, complete with homoerotic undertones.

LOL ^

One of the worst trailers I’ve seen in a long time. Surprised anyone wants to see it off of that.

I've been literally raped by this trailer. #metoo

[quote]but Gen X-ers are determined to hate anything that has Millenials redoing their classics.

Dummy, the majority of Gen X-ers were between about 1 and 15 years old during the original run of Charlie's Angels. You might want to talk to the Boomers, ya dolt.

Can any of these actresses emote at all? The posters look like dumb mannequins holding guns. At least the original Angels, though hired as T&A eye candy for the most part, had some energy and charisma even in posters and stills. They could actually make a good remake of this if they tried. They just keep fucking it up.

[Quote] At least the original Angels, though hired as T&A eye candy for the most part, had some energy and charisma even in posters and stills.

You could say that about the 00s version. Cameron has charisma out the wazoo.

A remake of Charlie's Angels set in the 70s and being all tongue-in-cheek would probably work.

Charlie’s Angels should only have WOC in the lead roles.

^^ and they should go undercover in the humanities departments of American universities to investigate why Shakespeare is still being taught, instead of indigenous Latinx poetry.

They should have replaced “privileged white” actress Stewart with an East Asian actress, like a younger version of Lucy Liu.

Since it’s 2019 I’m sure that one or more of the Angels will be revealed to be trans

These girls together are less than zero and the whole thing smells to high heaven.

And next year we can look forward to Kristen's action-packed underwater adventure!!!

What is wrong with her?

Hasn't this thing been DONE TO DEATH!?

K. Stewart just has this sour, unlikeable quality. No idea about her co-stars. But this movie isn't aimed at me. (waaay too old)

K. Stewart just has this sour, unlikeable quality. No idea about her co-stars. But this movie isn't aimed at me. (waaay too old)

“I’m so fucking in love with you”

She seems insufferable like only a 14 year old can be insufferable.

Are there any hot guys in this? Rockwell was hot in his own quirky way and Theroux was sexy with his crazy ripped body. Looks like it should be shelved or released online to save face for all involved.

Good grief. Charles Angles are supposed to be eye candy. Kate Jackson was tomboyish-glamorous. Stewart looks like she should be smoking meth in a trailer somewhere. And the other two look like clothing store cashiers.

If you don't understand the source material, then don't bother remaking it. It's just pathetic.

AH, SHOULDN'T THE ANGELS ACTUALLY BE ANGELS in terms of looks and beauty?..

[quote] Charlie’s Angles: First Look

Four words, and OP still manages to fuck one of them up

Nope.

comes out before frozen 2. so will be quickly forgotten.

Did you oldsters think Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu were glamorous and interesting? They weren't!

Boomers and Gen-Xers need to get off the stage and let the younger generations shine.

[quote]Stewart looks like she should be smoking meth in a trailer somewhere. And the other two look like clothing store cashiers.

There's no glamour anymore. They all look so ordinary and basic these days.

[quote] Boomers and Gen-Xers need to get off the stage and let the younger generations shine.

Then make your own fucking movies, instead of watered down shit from the past.

[quote] Did you oldsters think Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu were glamorous and interesting? They weren't! Boomers and Gen-Xers need to get off the stage and let the younger generations shine.

Liu was quite glamorous and interesting in Ally McBeal (which came out just before Charlie's Angels 2000).

R31, proof positive that even a bad actress can deliver a great line.

A legend out there says that if you squint hard enough, you can see the face of John Kerry in Kristen Stewart.

sorry, that was for R50.

They should have given this the Brady Bunch Movie treatment

[Quote] Stewart looks like she should be smoking meth in a trailer somewhere.

My friends saw it and said it was much better than Last Christmas.

[Quote] K. Stewart just has this sour, unlikeable quality.

And yet Robsten shippers want her to play Poison Ivy in the new Batman movie.

[Quote] My friends saw it and said it was much better than Last Christmas.

Such a low bar.

But Poison Ivy IS sour and unlikeable,

R99 says you!

Was there a porn knockoff: “Charlie’s Anus”? I’m almost positive.

Who cares about this shit movie? They show the original series everyday on MeTV and it’s a 1000 times better than any of these dumb movies. Lets start a thread about that....

Gorgeous and glamorous at the premiere tonight in LA. I'm so excited for this movie!

Kristen's character in the movie is gay. I wonder what Farrah would have thought about that?

Stewart is anything but glamorous in those pics. She's standing like a field hockey coach.

R103 KStew hasn't looked glamorous for a while now.

Wow, she’s gorgeous there. So glamorous. What happened?

Is DL fave Margo appearing in the new movie?

R107 that is one of the few episodes of Charlie's Angels that I have seen 😄

The Miley Cyrus song flopped.

R109 Achhi baat hai. That song was atrocious!

Ariana grande curated soundtrack isn't doing so hot either.

R109 no one saw that coming 😄

R110 because they're all filler tracks that didn't make the cut for Thank U, Next.

Elizabeth Banks is apparently “taking back” Charlie’s Angels so that it’s empowering or some such shit. It’ll be two hours of unwatchable sarcasm. No thanks.

Why are they remaking this again? Was anybody really demanding a Charlie’s Angels reboot of a reboot?

R113 you could say that about most reboots.

And I don't think the issues are generational, but maybe because KStew is the biggest cast name and if you weren't part of the Twilight fandom, I don't know why you would have any interest in her or her career.

And what's the point of a reboot if it isn't somehow bigger, better.

I think the true highlight is meant to be Elizabeth Banks as the director and she wanted to be Bosley., but you can't really make a poster of that.

It may be one of those things where the actual film is greatly entertaining, but the posters are terrible and serve as repellent.

[Quote] And what's the point of a reboot if it isn't somehow bigger, better.

Bigger doesn't automatically mean better though.

This is going to be one of the biggest Bombs in history.

Elizabeth Banks has said that there won't be one of those sequences that explains how each of the angels got their skills. I believe that Noah Centineo said in some interview that he might be getting a tattoo because of this movie.

How did they get their skills though? Naomi Scott’s character doesn’t know what the Angels are and just stumbled upon them yet she all of a sudden has all these fighting skills?

Charlie is a woman and Bosley is a woman and all of the Angels are so woke and 2019 yet the trailer features a close-up of a 1970s-style phone speaker since BRAND RECOGNITION for elders like us who this shitshow wants to attract as ticket buyers.

R119, they went to the police academy, where they were each assigned very hazardous duties.

The good news is that this movie looks so bad, it'll likely kill the franchise for good.

There is a YouTube movie reviewer I watch, and her quote was, "Meanwhile, Charlie's Angles is looking to tank Elizabeth Banks' career in a single weekend". She apparently wrote, directed, and produced the movie.

Why did they even make it Charlie's Angels? Just make a new film about women who work for someone they never see, fight crime, and jiggle their tits WOKEDLY.

Oh, that's right, Millenniala have no original ideas.

Kristen has the personality of a cardboard just like Brie, that said, I don't think Charlie angels needed another remake. I loved the one with Cameron, Lucy and Drew.

Is Stewart's character openly lesbian in this film or covertly lesbian?

Laverne Cox is supposedly playing Margo in the new movie.

If anyone needed proof that Stewart is an unattractive horse-face, just look at the pic at R127.

Laverne Cox plays the best villain in the whole franchise. She’ll blow you with her performance. She shows that trans can be evil too.

The angles.

Half asleep

Riskay

Oh, look. Another big-budget series film that Kristen Stewart will agree to take an ungodly amount of money to star in and then whine about how much she hates being famous.

This bitch brought a bird.

How dope, R134! The dopest! Such a sick accessory!

Kidding. Why a bird? Who is that anyway?

And while counting her money and whining about being famous Stewart will tell reporters, "I felt the film had an important empowerment message for women."

Charlie's Angles, starring:

Ella Balinska as Reflex

Naomi Scott as Acute

Kristen Stewart as Obtuse

It's getting good reviews:

It also works because Elizabeth Banks, having graduated from the “Pitch Perfect” series, proves herself to be a filmmaker who can stage fireworks with extreme flair. The plot of “Charlie’s Angels” turns on a series of reversals and double-crosses that Banks juggles with propulsive agility. She also elicits a sensational performance from the actor who plays the supreme villain. He hits a note of dastardly Machiavellian panache that brings life to the film’s cartoon vision of three Angels taking down the patriarchy, one strike-a-pose masquerade and forearm smash at a time

I'm sorry but Laverne just looks tacky.

[quote] It's getting good reviews

Not from the Brits:

[quote] The Guardian: "Charlie's Angels review – ramshackle action reboot goes at half throttle"

[quote] "Tracking for an opening of less than $15m, compared with the 2000 iteration’s $40m without inflation, there seems to be a sense of apathy, or even worse, unawareness from audiences for the latest refresh, easily dismissed as an inevitable rather than necessary product."

[quote] "Back in 2000, the glossy relaunch of Charlie’s Angels felt like a genuine pop culture event. The central casting of Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu, all at the height of their fame, was an impressively inspired get. The accompanying lead single from Destiny’s Child was not only a smash hit but a deserved one. The gaudy aesthetic and post-Matrix bullet time action were laughable but also undeniably of the moment. It was the most 2000 film released in 2000, and at the time it was impossible to avoid – a slick, pre-packaged blockbuster received with as much enthusiasm as it was made. Almost 20 years, one sequel and one failed TV series later, the franchise is back, but all that buzz has been replaced with something else: deafening silence."

[quote] "It’s forgettable on reflection, but pacey in the moment, proving to be far less wretched a watch than so many other creatively bankrupt IP resurrections of late. It’s better than it could have been while also not being quite good enough to warrant any further instalments."

[quote] Is Stewart's character openly lesbian in this film or covertly lesbian?

R126, apparently her character is "queer" (as that's more 'fashionable' now), not necessarily "lesbian". And even the "queerness" is apparently only shown briefly, in passing. Seems like an over-hyped PR trick.

[quote] Guardian: "Her character is allegedly queer, although all we get is a brief look to confirm it, another much-hyped yet rather damp attempt to provide multiplex visibility for the LGBT community."

The Hollywood Reporter gave it a rave and says that it's the best Angels yet:

The result is a grand remodel that honors its precursors while elevating itself beyond them. Banks brings Charlie’s Angels into the modern age with flair, all while unapologetically raising a feminist flag, championing female friendships and subtly making a point about the urgency of the ongoing climate crisis.

But make no mistake: These Angels still kick ass. Banks peppers in the action-movie sequences that fans of this genre have come to expect, and they are well plotted and paced. (The final comeuppance stands out as expertly choreographed and executed with ballet-like precision.)

The movie isn’t shy about making its main point: Men are not inherently more valuable than women — or, as Sabina puts it in her opening line, “Women can do anything.” That kind of on-the-nose dialogue will undoubtedly irritate some viewers, but over time the film cleverly earns its stripes beat by beat. The result is a wildly entertaining action flick that also happens to expose the systemic ways that men are overvalued and women are undervalued in society, and daringly connects this pattern to nothing short of planetary annihilation.

Lol, and Entertainment Weekly gave it the opposite of a rave:

[quote] "Charlie's Angels unleashes a riotous Kristen Stewart on movie that is TRY-HARD TRASH".

[quote] "It takes almost a whole movie for the new Charlie’s Angels to get going, so that’s one obvious issue ... Everything before is questionable, unfortunately, balancing good intentions with mapless action meandering ... But Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, and Cameron Diaz had a light touch with goofball material. The vibe was Austin Powers-y ... Everything was kind of a joke back then. Now, even jokes are serious"

R143, They gave it a B- which is excellent for a film reboot like this. You tried it, though.

Ha ha, Jill and Kelly, I sense your confusion!

Don’t worry, these new “angels” are all garbage. You two, Sabrina, Tiffany and Julie are the only “Charlie’s Angels“ history will remember.

Is there a KStew stan on Datalounge? Miss “You Tried It”?? In 2019??? Really!?!?

This garbage could get 100% on Rotten Tomatoes and will still bomb. No one wants this.

A "B MINUS" is "excellent" for a big Xmas blockbuster? Lol, good try, R144.

Read the actual review: "Everything before [the final act] is questionable, unfortunately, balancing good intentions with mapless action meandering".

Gee golly, such an "excellent" description (a "mapless, meandering" film which takes "almost a whole movie to get going") REALLY makes me want to dash to the cinema, open my wallet and buy a ticket! (Not :)

Another good review. Kristen Stewart, Elizabeth Banks and Sam Claflin are getting strong notices:

Banks takes her fun seriously, and her film’s biggest set pieces are stitched together with the kind of effort and ingenuity that’s often missing from modern Hollywood action movies. The fisticuffs are framed too tightly and the fights can be edited to the point of abstraction, but it’s so refreshing to see character-driven combat that makes real use of the surroundings. Whether it’s Sabina chanting “Shit! Shit! Shit!” whenever she’s on the sidelines, or Jane rigging an Istanbul rock quarry to her advantage in the middle of a shootout, “Charlie’s Angels” always remains on mission.

[Quote] Is there a KStew stan on Datalounge? Miss “You Tried It”?? In 2019??? Really!?!?

Lol every celeb on this site has at least one stan.

I think at least a Golden Globe nomination is in Kristen's future:

Kristen Stewart as a killer comic lead. Known for her sullen performances and fidgety mannerisms, Stewart has always been drawn to low-status parts that contradict her persona and make it difficult to forget who you’re watching. So while her puckish and sarcastic turn as an heiress-turned-Angel might seem like a major pivot away from the likes of “Adventureland” or “Personal Shopper,” Stewart is an actress who wants to be seen, and she wears each of her latest character’s disguises with the confidence of someone who’s already spent a lifetime hiding in plain sight.

R148, even that "B" review seems to give away that it's a pedestrian film: "The plot is NOT especially clever or unpredictable". " “Charlie’s Angels” is filled with moments that opt for something flavorless rather than risking a sour note". "The Angels’ dialogue is sharp — even if you can sometimes feel Banks struggling to thread the needle between the seriousness of “Mission: Impossible” and the goofiness of McG."

Why should I go watch something "flavorless" and "not especially clever or unpredictable", with dialogue that's "sharp but struggling" to combine "goofiness" with "seriousness"?

[Quote] I think at least a Golden Globe nomination is in Kristen's future:

WOW. That looks PAINFULLY bad. Not ONE moment in the trailer that makes you think you'd like to see more.

And who was the guy in drag next to Stuttering Stewart in that interview?

Best reviewed action movie of the year.

R150 "Known for her sullen performances and fidgety mannerisms, Stewart has always been drawn to low-status parts that contradict her persona and make it difficult to forget who you’re watching."

Now THAT was hilarious.

Did Kristen get punched in the jaw?

Kristen is just so bland and sullen. I can’t stand watching her in anything.

The great reviews keep pouring in:

‘Charlie’s Angels’ Review: One of the Most Enjoyable Franchise Reboots of 2019

This hasn’t been the best year for reboots and what one might consider unnecessary continuations of big budget franchises. After Men in Black: International proved to be a swing and a miss for Sony, concern grew for Charlie’s Angels, and the uninspiring trailers didn’t help. Turns out, however, this might be one of the most pleasant surprises of the year! Not only does Elizabeth Banks prove the brand still has great appeal, but she also adds to it by broadening the scope of the Townsend Agency and introducing three wildly charming new leads.

Charlie’s Angels is a good time but what makes it a real blast is that it seems like everyone involved truly loved working on the film and that enthusiasm is palpable here. On top of that, Charlie’s Angels also rocks a phenomenal supporting ensemble with a laundry list of big names that aren’t merely there to up the star power; they’re all extremely well cast and actually make a real impression.

Business is king in Hollywood so the likelihood of getting another Charlie’s Angels movie will probably come down to box office returns, but Banks did exactly what she needed to with this first installment. Charlie’s Angels is a highly entertaining action comedy with a winning “close as sisters” leading trio that also gives a big boost to the network of Angels. If I could have walked straight from this movie into a second installment of this iteration of the franchise, I would have.

Yet another rave review. Theaters are filled with "cheering and applause":

When it was announced that Elizabeth Banks was rebooting the classic Charlie's Angels franchise the resounding question was "do we really need it?" After watching the wildly entertaining, action-packed, and genuinely hilarious film in a theater filled with cheering and applause the answer is a resounding yes. Written and directed by Banks, starring Kristen Stewart, Ella Balinska, and Naomi Scott, the action-comedy takes a tried and tested formula and makes it fresh once again. If there's any justice in our bland blockbuster-saturated world it'll spark a whole new era for the fabulous franchise.

In a month where most tentpole releases have fallen flat let's hope that this unabashedly fun and fluffy action flick finds an audience. Charlie's Angels feels uniquely suited to please multiple audiences from young viewers who want something aspirational and fresh, older ones who enjoy the camp brilliance of it all, and even unexpected ones who might not think that the pink-hued film is for them but are surprised by both the action and comedy chops of the cast. It's hard to know how any film will land but Charlie's Angel has charm and laughs by the bucket load and is the perfect popcorn watch whilst we all wait for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

No reboot for Toni,s Boys?

Wow, those women aren't what I'd call "pretty" at all.

r145, how could you forget about me?

It's not my type of film but I hope it does well.

I don't understand why they wouldn't have Stewart go full lesbian, though. Frankly, that disappoints me. I would love to see her slink her way around the film, loving the ladies ONLY, instead of whatever it is she's doing.

Ah, well. Perhaps if there's a sequel.

Saw this at a preview screening last night and was SHOCKED at how much I actually enjoyed Kristen Stewart, who was... FUNNY. Funny! I normally can't stand her and find her unnecessarily sullen... but her character actually made me laugh and she was, dare I say it, really likeable. Likeable! Kristen Stewart! Again, I was stunned.

The movie is fun and tips its hat to the previous Angels incarnations in assorted ways, but it's too long and Ella Balinska is miscast. I kept thinking how much better the film could have been with someone like Kylie Bunbury or Kiersey Clemons as the third Angel (if they were specifically looking to cast a woman of color in that role).

Oh, and they've added a character named Saint, whom I suspect many DLers will enjoy.

Tip: there's also a great sequence through the closing credits.

[Quote] I kept thinking how much better the film could have been with someone like Kylie Bunbury or Kiersey Clemons as the third Angel

I'm still waiting for Kylie to get her big break 🙏

R158 / R159, and the "meh" reviews keep coming in too:

[quote] New York Times: "In this franchise reboot, the writer-director Elizabeth Banks tries to sell STALE goods with a sheen of empowerment."

[quote] "However absurd the premise, you nevertheless need to believe that these women could do damage, pose a real threat, and not just physically. Banks leans on the laughs and silliness, the glitter and glamour, all while setting the Angels against cartoonish male villainy (Jonathan Tucker plays a menacing exception), which becomes a metaphor for patriarchal power. Banks wants to fight a righteous fight. But she is selling stale goods in which adult women spout girl-power clichés and conform to norms that make it very clear what kind of heroines still get to fly high: young, thin, beautiful, perfectly coifed, impeccably manicured and profoundly UNTHREATENING."

Rolling Stone: 2.5 out of 5 stars

[quote] "Does the fact that this UNWANTED update of the Charlie’s Angels franchise is less awful than expected make it worth seeing? In the devalued world of the current multiplex, maybe so."

Stewart is completely bald in this and plays mincing gay.

"but Gen X-ers are determined to hate anything that has Millenials redoing their classics."

What? I was born in the first offical Gen X year, (1966) and was ten years old when Charlie's Angels premiered. Most Gen X'ers were children/toddlers when this show was on.

Is Stewart the Sabrina?

Having a butch character in a female badass ensemble isn’t so wonderfully novel anymore. But I bet they’re all patting themselves on the back.

When I was a little girl, the only way we could get anyone to play Sabrina when we played “Charlie’s Angels” was to say “Sabrina gets to use the gun!” Everyone wanted to be one of the pretty Angels.

[quote]Is Stewart the Sabrina?

Yup. Her character's name is Sabina (no "r"), and they make a joke of someone calling her "Sabrina" by mistake.

R165, she sort of did, but it's a shame more people didn't watch "Pitch." She was great in it.

I have no idea who these people are...I know Kristin Stewart but who the hell are the other two?

[Quote] she sort of did, but it's a shame more people didn't watch "Pitch." She was great in it.

I knew it was doomed the second they put Pitch on Fox.

[Quote] I know Kristin Stewart but who the hell are the other two?

Naomi was in the Power Rangers movie and played Jasmine in Aladdin.

UG LEE

Stewart needs to rethink Butch. She looks like a Femme Butch, I suppose. But it comes across as a homely teen boy.

If they wanted to be really subversive, the character should have been a Bieber-like transdyke: a hot guy that lesbians fall in love with.

Trigger warning R139. I cannot unsee that!

BOMB!

The new “Charlie’s Angels" is headed for a big flop this weekend.

Last night in previews, the new Angels made just $900,000. Predictions are for a $12 million weekend, if lucky. That’s pushing it.

On Rotten Tomatoes, these Angels have scored a lowly 58%. There is no enthusiasm for it.

Not to worry! Females make up over 50% of the world population and they'll all flock in droves to buy tix to this flick and save it from financial embarrassment. Oh wait... Maybe most females are not that interested in a heavy-handed, derivative action/comedy-movie where a bunch of mostly unknown, privileged Hollywood starlets are running around and grand-standing about how to be "empowered".

If they wanted to make this flick a sensation with female audiences - they should have cast more SEXY, SMOOTH-TALKING GUYS as eye-candy. That's why the original Charlie's Angels was so popular among male straight viewers - lots of gorgeous, interesting women to gawk at. But where are the charming, charismatic male actors in this film's promotional posters? Nowhere.

Example: Twilight would not have been a hit if it was just Stewart running around with some sparkly girl pals in a forest - the other 2 charismatic, magnetic dudes (Pattinson and Lautner) fighting for her were central to the film's financial success with female cinema-goers.

And I think this is what "feminist empowerment" films just don't get - if you want to make a Charlie's Angels for a predominantly female audience, then it's much better to make the Angels male. Cast 3 trendy guys in the industry - the equivalent of Diaz (hot one), Barrymore (funny one) and Liu (exotic one). Maybe: Liam Hemsworth (hot one), Tom Holland (funny one) and Lautner or some Korean-Pop crossover guy (exotic-looking one) - you'll have female viewers queuing up for 30 blocks to buy tix to that. À la Magic Mike.

Or: if you want to have a female lead à-la "Mission Impossible" or "Top Gun", then cast a VERY likeable, charming female star with good comedic-banter timing (whom most other females like a lot), like a younger version of Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy) or Lucy Lawless (Xena). Jennifer Lawrence would have been a good pick as a lead action star (before she became over-exposed, went off the rails and the public lost interest). Emma Stone as a lead action star would also work - most females warm up to her. Kristen Stewart is a risky choice - she's standoffish, sometimes bland and divides audiences, other females don't always like her.

But when you cast a female-lead action film - don't just make it a sea of woke ovaries. Don't forget to include a hot, intelligent male love interest. Virtually all male-lead films have one - because it's a tried-and-tested success formula (the hot, smart female instructor in Top Gun, the femme fatales in Bond) - it's complimentary fantasy titillation for the overall female audience base.

Ok I find this movie concept and the buzz about its attitude annoying, but what bothers me even more is the gamergate assholes who are basically out to get the movie, the red pill douches giving it one star on IMDb without having seen it.

Is there a Chris Hemsworth-in-Ghostbusters equivalent in this movie? That MIGHT make this watchable. Ironically he was the beat part of that shit remake so maybe a man can save this one.

For now, I really wanna see the good ol early 2000s ones. Lucy Liu and Matt LeBlanc are such and odd yet perfect couple.

Chris Hemsworth in Ghostbusters was unwatchable. He was good-looking, but portrayed as almost painfully moronic. Virtually lobotomised and brain-dead as a character. Again, woke feminist producers don't understand the winning formula. Female audiences are not interested in a hot good-looking character who is dumber than a one-cell organism. It seems to be a turn-off for most females, who prefer a male supporting character to be not only hot, but also intelligent enough so they can fantasise about being with him. Nobody wants a low-IQ doofus.

The producers were obviously going for a "himbo" character - but that's not what the best male-lead films have. In the original Ghostbusters, Sigourney Weaver was obviously good-looking & had provocative scenes to get the straight male audience drooling - but she was NOT a brainless bimbo. She was clever, dynamic and interesting - someone the general male audience would queue up to date in real life.

Just like in Twilight (which had a very high female viewership) - the male co-stars were not just hot, but also attractive psychologically. Pattinson's and Lautner's male characters were sufficiently clever & enigmatic to interest the general female viewers.

R182 when was Pattinson hot?

HILARIOUS how R158-159, etc., keeps posting these "RAVE" reviews from z-rated sites no one has heard of. Hard to get excited about ANY movie with Kristen Stewart in it, let alone one where she looks so painfully bored and uncomfortable ON THE POSTER FOR THE MOVIE.

She doesn’t look bored or uncomfortable. She looks like she’s licking ass!

All three of these beautiful women kick so much ass that the audience doesn’t know what to do. Men are intimidated by strong women so they’re more comfortable watching Joker instead.

Joker is a film for adults. Ironically, Charlie's Angels looks more like a tween comic-book flick than Joker.

The irony is that female audiences also seem to prefer watching a psychological study by Joaquin Phoenix than 3 girls "kicking ass" in derivative, simplistic style. Joker is set to pass $1 billion at the global box office - and that was in great part thanks to global female audiences as well (who seem to like Phoenix).

R183, Pattinson was never classically handsome but he was considered hot - by an overwhelming sea of girls, some of whom even slept outside movie theatres overnight (even in cold-night November temperatures in London) for a chance to be first in line to see him at movie premieres.

It’s officially a bomb:

[quote] As expected, Charlie’s Angels is tanking big time with an estimated $4M today (including $900K from previews –and not all from last night as there were showtimes Wednesday) and a $10.5M opening, which is below what Sony was seeing at $12M-$14M. The pic reportedly cost $48M with co-financing from Perfect World and 2.0 Entertainment; we’ve heard more in the mid $50Ms. The first two Charlie’s Angels movie in 2000 and 2003 opened respectively at $40.1M and $37.6M and finaled at $125.3M and $100.8M domestic.

[Quote] She looks like she’s licking ass!

Was that a typo or.....?

Yes, purely a typo!

Maybe it's far-fetched but Elizabeth Banks is paying the price for criticizing Spielberg. Her ham-fisted take on feminism on Charlie's Angels isn't a good fit.

They should have known after Full Throttle flopped that the Charlie's Angels franchise was finished.

That movie looks so bad...

It’ll sweep the Razzies

R193 what did she say about Spielberg?

r196 she said that she went to see every movie he made and there was never a female lead. Which is not true. The Color Purple, Always, and The Sugarland Express all had female leads and E.T. featured Dee Wallace as the mother.

She did apologize but she looked foolish. And not very educated.

I had a feeling this would bomb when I saw the article on The Guardian with Elizabeth Banks crowing about all the subversive feminist pieces she innundated the movie with. That just doesn't sound entertaining.

Get Woke Go Broke

Maybe the flop of the year.....

Charlie's Angels, the weekend's other new high-profile offering, is turning into a major disappointment for Sony and director Elizabeth Banks. The pic earned $3.1 million from 3,542 cinemas on Friday for a projected domestic opening of $8.2 million, well behind expectations.

8 million weekend?!? Holy shit that is major bad.

Banks' ego is taking a major hit this weekend. The ads featured her prominently.

Charlie's Angels was released on November 3, 2000 in the United States by Sony Pictures Releasing under its Columbia Pictures label, and has grossed $264 million worldwide.

The Drew Barrymore version was plain out fun.

Lessons learned: neither women nor men want to pay to attend a two hour lecture about how men suck and women are perfect.

I realize that she’s a producer of the 2000 movie but casting Drew Barrymore as a badass undercover cop signals loud and clear to the audience that they’re in for a fun, campy ride.

Here’s the trailer that includes the comedy and the stunts and the sex appeal.

It would have been a semi-hit had Disney+ not premiered this week. So many people are staying home this weekend to watch Disney.

Could be worse

I know it's now a week old but can someone explain what's going on at R88? It is MESMERIZING.

Apparently r88's Gen Z and Millennials failed to turn this movie into a box office smash.

I'm surprised the Lesbians didn't turn out for it, though. Maybe they were most of the $8m.

The $8 million opening is truly shocking for this caliber release.

It really is r210. I wonder who will get fired? Elizabeth Banks' directing career is not looking promising.

R88 is a trans fat lesbian pushing a priest off the stage for being transphobic. She ended his sermon right there.

[quote] It would have been a semi-hit had Disney+ not premiered this week. So many people are staying home this weekend to watch Disney.

I know, right?

R213, different audiences, dumbass.

Let’s see if I have this straight. The Charlie’s angels audience was pulled away by Disney, but somehow the Ford v Ferrari audience wasn’t? I think you have that ass backwards, you poor sad dyke.

Make whatever excuses you want. This weekend was precisely the HUGE rejection this shit movie deserved!

OK, boomer. Ford v. ferarri is for olds who wouldn’t have watched Disney Positive anyway. The Charlie’s Angels audience would have.

Ok, Foetus @ R216.

KStew is on the phone with her agent to ask about a Twilight reboot

It's no shock why Ford v Ferrari is a hit - the brand names, two well-known stars, it's set in the '60s with a great soundtrack.

Charlie's Angels just didn't have the buzz or the star power. Doing a CA reboot was risky because Full Throttle underperformed, indicating that Charlie's Angels wasn't that beloved even back in 2003. Over 15 years later, it seems there's little interest in them. I wonder if this is the last time it will be rebooted on the big screen.

Full Throttle was ridiculous. I remember disliking it when I saw it at the movies.

The movie needed names, dahling, NAMES. Kristin Stewart coming out as les or bi or whatever has lowered her appeal to breeders.

You’re as right about me being a boomer as you are about your audience analysis, poor sad dyke at r216. Disney + includes Marvel and Star Wars.

The HAIR is too boring! They should of brought Jose Eber to the set.

Jose's got some brows on him 😄

Can we stop this new trend of calling everyone a dyke? It's annoying and stupid.

Hall monitor at r225 has spoken.

r204 Lesson likely NOT learned, but I sure hope it was. This woke nonsense is nauseating for nearly everyone.

Elizabeth banks gave the following statement after a disappointing weekend for Charlie's Angels

The 00s Charlie’s Angels was tits (Drew), ass (Cameron) and hair (Lucy).

The one is washboard stomach, washboard stomach and washboard stomach.

Stewart's Jean Seberg biopic is going to tank, too. Will Frowny's career survive? Or will she be starring next Fall on TV in, "Kristi"?

Everyone involved with this movie must feel like poor Kris when she got beat up by Zora.

Director Elizabeth Banks defends reboots & blames men for #CharliesAngels flopping with $8.6M domestically on a $50M~ budget

• 'You've had 37 Spider-Man movies'

• 'It reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies'

#CharliesAngels director Elizabeth Banks says ‘Wonder Woman’ & ‘Captain Marvel’ were successful because comic book movies are a ‘male genre’ and they're used to set up event films like 'Justice League'

I used to like Banks. I remember when she was one of the guest characters on Scrubs, and she’d pop up here and there on TV and in movies. She was in the 40 year old Virgin, too. But somewhere along the way she really lost the plot.

And Stewart’s hairstyle in the movie seems awful “dated”.

I'll watch two hours of LL Cool J in a dashiki pulling off his mask to reveal Drew Barrymore before watching the new Charlie's Angels movie

I am shocked and dismayed no one bought Kristen Stewart as an action hero.

Ella Balinska's mother is Lorraine Pascale, who is a host and judge on the Food Network.

I wanted it to be a hit just for that fact. Love Lorraine.

[quote] Banks’ tweet: “It reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies”

That’s funny coming from Banks. She seems to have conveniently forgotten that she herself appeared in JLaw’s “Hunger Games” - a female-led action franchise which was popular with everyone, including even male viewers.

But KStew is no JLaw. And Elizabeth Banks is no Gary Ross - who, as director, managed to make even an all-female Ocean’s 8 quite profitable (ca. $300m gross).

Because Ross was not clueless like Banks - he knew what ATTRACTS both female and male viewers into the cinema. He insisted on likeable actual star-power in his film (Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, AnnE Hathaway, Rihanna). Now that’s a fun, appealing cast. If that were the cast for Charlie’s Angels 2019 - it would at least not have been such a humiliating flop.

Alas, Banks thought “empowerment” sells by itself - but it doesn’t. Even females aren’t interested in paying for that. If most of the female cinema-going audience (50% of the total cinema audience) had turned up, the film would have grossed much more than a measly $8 million opening weekend. So the writing is on the wall: both male and overall female demographic groups had no interest in this and skipped it.

To be fair, Hunger Games had a huge following built-in thanks to the popularity of the books

Shouldn't Charlie's Angels have a huge following built-in thanks to the popularity of the TV show and the Drew Barrymore movies? Isn't that the very reason why they re-made it for 2019?

If Banks was so into empowerment, why wasn't Chrissy Metz hired as an Angel instead of these anorexic nobodies and a has been.

That reaction from Banks is disappointing. I had assumed that she was more professional and mature than that. She should've left her Twitter behind before heading off to a 2-week long relaxing vacation at some remote beach resort. Her reaction can't have endeared her to Hollywood.

From boxofficeguru.com

Close behind was one of the year's biggest action misfires....The first Angels film from November 2000 grossed more in its first two days than this new version will take in during its entire domestic run.

I agree r240. It should’ve stuck with its original formula of jiggle tv.

Amurkans want T&A.

[quote]If Banks was so into empowerment, why wasn't Chrissy Metz hired as an Angel instead of these anorexic nobodies and a has been.

Are you stupid? Chrissy is too old to be an Angel now. Why not suggest Jennifer Aniston too?

If it's a popcorn-type of silly "action" entertainment movie, of course people want T&A. And gratuitous shots of Pecs & Washboard Abs from the male action stars.

Oh, Lizzy. Way to double down. And I love Banks: she was great in 30 Rock, and of course Pitch Perfect was a smash. Being in 30 Rock and working with Tina Fey, she should know better than to turn into Liz Lemon bitching about the patriarchy for putting out a crappy product.

These shows need CAMP. Original Angels were camp, hence the great movies that spoofed that to 100. The Brady Bunch movies? CAMP.

There is nothing appealing about Kristin Stewart and two relative nobodies in a woke action movie.

One is never too old to be a Charlie Angel. Demi is an Angel so why can't Chrissy and Jen Aniston be Angels?

Kristen Stewart is not a movie star, and the other two are completely uninteresting. As the other poster said, the all-female Oceans movie was a hit because it starred actresses who are actually popular with the public.

Hanging a movie on the appeal of Kristen Stewart...interesting choice. She needed some other star power. Those two unknowns will remain as such. They looked weird standing together. One looked like a fricking amazon towering over the others, Kristen looked awkward, Banks should have focused on directing and not appearing in the movie, and the other one I can't even remember.

The original Lara Croft : Tomb Raider was also a big success (even tho the movie itself was pretty damn boring). That came out in 2001, just after the first Angels flick. The Tomb Raider sequel even turned a profit and they would have done a 3rd but Angie declined. And that's not even mentioning the NEW ones.

Audiences are fine with female-led action movies, and were *20 years ago*. People just aren't into pandering, shitty-looking ones (Halle Berry Catwoman) much less crappy looking remakes. Banks needs to just own up to it was a shit movie. Sorry, gal.

R247 I have a feeling Banks will end up doing another PP movie. The last one sucked but I'm sure some of the actresses wouldn't mind the exposure.

Goodbye, Charlie.

Why were the original Angels so old? It’s like three fraus.

R254 only a 10 year old would say that.

And yet, r254, none of the movie Angels have matched the beauty of the original TV Angels.

Kate Mckinnon doing her Justin Bieber impression there in the middle.

These three Angels have zero chemistry, and I can't tell the other two apart. SUCH bad casting....

Charlie’s Angles reboot, flop, Terminator flop, The Shining sequel Dr Sleep flop. Now if some of these comic book garbage movies would flop we might get something original.

Jessica Chastain got a spy movie together starring a middle-aged international cast of Penelope Cruz, Diane Kruger etc directed by the flop director of X-Men: Dark Phoenix and written by flop playwright Theresa Rebeck.

Things aren’t looking good for female action.

What’s more her other project was going to be directed by Australian wife beater Matthew Newton.

[quote] [R247] I have a feeling Banks will end up doing another PP movie

She did a pee pee movie?!?!?!

I’m outraged that male moviegoers did not flock to my by-the-numbers female empowerment revisionist film. This just reinforces the stereotype.

Looks like Elizabeth Banks got a WHAMMY!

The original series was silly, so they should have made it sillier with three hot babes- or just a spoof.

I remember my mom back then saying, "All they know to do is run!".

I will say, these girls are prettier than the Drew Barrymore crew and TV reboot.

There was a TV reboot?

R254 You're dumb. Jaclyn Smith and Farrah Fawcett are still the prettiest angels. The whole TV crew from the original run are still prettier than any of this millennium's angels. Don't get it twisted.

R258 really?? You couldn't tell Ella and Naomi apart??

R266 Yes. It ran for 8 episodes in 2011 on abc. Huge flop.

R268 I don't see color, you racist.

R266 back in 2009.

R270 mmkay 🤨

R271 It was 2011 not 2009

I knew these little whores would flop.

No Cheryl Ladd = No success

Charlie’s Fräuleins

[quote] I will say, these girls are prettier than the Drew Barrymore crew and TV reboot.

R265, the only truly "pretty" one in the 2019 reboot is Balinska. KStew looks like a methed-out, trailer-park resident (when she doesn't have an army of Dior workers slaving away, hiding her real face behind a ton of facepaint). And Scott has facial eczema and generally looks so-so.

R277 it's not like Naomi has any control over that.

I think both Ella and Naomi are very pretty. KStew - not so much.

R278, it's not like the 3 Willis sisters have any control over their faces either.

Scott is ok, but not extraordinary or interesting enough to save this dreck of a film.

Only the tall one is attractive. Stewart looks like twink, no muscle, so she looks ridiculous as an action star and is just unpleasant to look out. Although on some threads here people, I assume lesbians, call her gorgeous and flawless, that is not the consensus by the public.

Stewart is giving Lez vibes in the promos, so obviously the Lesbians let Elizabeth Banks down. She will NOT be showing up to any scissoring parties this Christmas!

Has anyone here seen this movie? Does it have Midnight Show potential? Is it so bad it’s good?

R280 I meant about Naomi having eczema.

I understood what you meant, but it still doesn't make sense, R284. Who cares if non-pretty aspects are "outside" someone's "control"? You make it sound like in all other cases natural beauty is "within" one's control (it's not). Some people have close-set eyes, some people have lantern jaws, some people have horrible skin - it's all outside everyone's control.

Kristen looked good in the trailer with the long blonde wig, tan, short dress, etc. She is naturally very pretty. Alas her style is butch and bleached.

I think Kristen looks really good as a blonde.

Biggest flop of the year just weeks after the second biggest flop Terminator. Both lesbian movies.

No, Cats will be the biggest flop of the year.

As a huge Angels fan since the beginning, I went to hate watch it and failed. KStew who I expected to loathe, won me over from her very first scene.And yes the girls have chemistry. I liked it so much I'm going to see it again because 74 year old Kelly Garrett is CHARLIE!!

Wait... Charlie’s not a man but a Strong Woman®️ in this?

I think I was just really hoping Banks wouldn’t go for such low-hanging trash fruit. I thought the ultimate woke twist would be Banks herself as Charlie but thought “no... they couldn’t.”

In watched the 2000 Charlie’s Angels last night and remembered how godly the trio was in that one. Still ass-kicking females, but also unapologetically femme and flirty.

SPOILER ALERT:

r290 is correct. Kelly Garrett, played by DL icon Jaclyn Smith, is the new Charlie.

That's awesome. I love that Kelly Garrett is back. I love continuity like that. Now, I'll watch it when it's on streaming.

So the gays don’t want to watch three chicks licking ass if it’s wrapped up in some woke feminist wrapping? How misogynist.

Boring

[quote]Has anyone here seen this movie? Does it have Midnight Show potential? Is it so bad it’s good?

No one saw it to deem it good or bad. No one was asking for a reboot. No interest = no boxoffice.

The Gen Z target audience for this has never even heard of Charlie's Angels. It means nothing to them.

Re No one saw it to deem it good or bad. No one was asking for a reboot. No interest = no boxoffice. Dear bitter Betty posting from your moms basement. I saw it and loved it.

r298 Given how this movie did, Elizabeth Banks might personally thank you.

You're all going to be surprised at how enjoyable the movie is when it hits cable. It's a much better movie than its box-office receipts suggest.

It's this generation's Hello Dolly!

Kelly Garrett (played by Jaclyn Smith) really is the most beloved of all the Angels.

She is one of the original three Angels, and she stayed with the show for its entire 5-season run (1976-1981). She is the only Angel to appear in all 110 episodes. Kelly is the only TV Angel to appear in any of the feature films. She made a cameo appearance in "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" (2003).

So it's only fitting that she's the new Charlie, r292.

I think that's the most beautiful Jaclyn ever looked and it's the best she's ever acted

except, looks wise, for that opening shot in the credits where she has elbowed someone and turns and looks at them with her hair half covering her face.

Stunningly beautiful. She looks like Kate Jackson acts. And I think Kate's a great actress.

Kelly looking FIERCE.

R303 even better in gif form.

that turn above of Kelly's and her line in Angels in Chains 'when was the last time you got sprayed' made up for the cocaine episode.

the best Charlie's Angels episodes were the pilot, Angels in Chains, the two parter in Hawaii with France Nyuen (sp?) where Charlie was kidnapped, the two parter with Kelly and Kris in love with Patrick Duffy, Jill returning where we got four Angels (just for the image of it; Farrah's returns were ultimately kind of meh and the last ones weren't enforced)

Also, Angel in Love where Sabrina fell in love with Peter Haskell's character. Also, the one in which Kelly went undercover as a pregnant woman wanting to give up her baby; Sabrina played a BITCH wanting to adopt Kelly's baby and even the bad guys were put off by how nasty she was.

"I want that baby, John (to Bosley). See that I get it."