The reboot saved its best ideas for the sequel.
Charlies Angelsisnt terrible, and there are some terrible movies that gross a billion dollars.
So why did theElizabeth Banks-helmed reboot, featuring a vibrantKristen Stewart,fail so miserably at the box office?
Merie Weismiller Wallace/Sony; Moviestore/Shutterstock
There are some obvious problems, flaws worth bean-counting for Sony, which released the film.
Stewart was a generational figure forTwilightkids.
She spent the rest of this decade minting hipster cred in Europe and Indieland.
The other leads,Ella BalinskaandNaomi Scott, arent yet established stars.
Bosley is, theoretically, the Person Who Gives The Angels a Mission.
And Banks, to her credit, gives herCharlies Angelssome eccentric flourishes that feel almost biographical.
(Note the possessive in the title: These angels belong to him.)
She gives herself a few world-weary lines, of the Women are always hungry variety.
There is a ridiculously sincere montage of young women around the world, united in sisterhood.
The Townsend Agency itself has become a global sorority.
Even the advertising for the movie is telling.
(Hell, it could practically be the tagline forBombshell.)
Basically: Is this aWeekend at Berniesor aVictor/Victoria?
into entirely new timespace surroundings.
The biggest bummer about the newCharlies Angelsis the knowledge that youre watching talented people speak with somebody elses voice.
