quote:

by JOHN NOLTE16 Nov 2019
The 2019 reboot/sequel of Charlie’s Angels just opened to a catastrophic $8 million, making it the fifth man-hating, woketard franchise to get wiped out at the box office.

Angels, which was written and directed by Elizabeth Banks, is not only under-performing expectations by about 50 percent, it got run over by Ford v Ferrari, a movie about real men who throw punches and burn fossil fuels.

On top of being number one at the box office with a $30 million opening, Ford v Ferrari over-performed by about 50 percent.

Having seen and reviewed both, I can tell you that none of this has to do with gender.

Angels is a failure because it features unappealing actresses who are more interested in lecturing us than showing us a good time. The film’s trailers promised a pretentious feminist lecture full of man-hating… and the sexless movie delivered.

On the other hand, Ford v Ferrari looked like a great time at the movies, like an unpretentious underdog story with appealing characters you actually want to spend time with… and the movie delivered (and then some).

Charlie’s Angels is a poorly shot, poorly written, joyless death march of feminist talking points, poorly choreographed action scenes, starring three girls who have no charisma and even less chemistry together.

Charlie’s Angels wants you to feel bad about yourself, to feel guilty about being a man, for not being virtuous enough, and to divide us by lying to women about an oppressive patriarchy that doesn’t exist. GRRRRL POWER is not a theme, it’s a slogan, and Angels is a movie that confuses strident posturing with having something to say.

Ford v Ferrari is beautifully shot, rousing, inspiring, moving, funny, 100% American, and brilliantly acted. Using theme and appealing characters, it has much to say, not just about how conformity and corporatism crush the individual spirit, but about our shared human condition; that thing within all of us — men and women alike — to strive, to overcome, to be your own man at all costs — and yes, there is a cost… but yes, that cost is worth it.

But as I mentioned earlier, this has nothing to do with gender, and I can prove it… Here are two numbers that are not adjusted for nearly two decades of inflation: $40 million and $37.6 million.

All the way back in 2000, a movie based on the television show Charlie’s Angels and called Charlie’s Angels opened to $40 million. It would eventually gross $139 million domestic and $264 million worldwide (back when the international market was nowhere near as open as it is today).

All the way back in 2003, the sequel, Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, opened to $37.6 million. It would eventually gross $101 million domestic and $260 million worldwide.

But here’s the difference…

The 2000 version of Charlie’s Angels somehow managed to drive home its empowerment and sisterhood message without dumpster-diving into misandry. And unlike this current trio of generic, androgynous, mall-girl angels, the 2000 version featured three sexy women: Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu, who didn’t apologize for being sexy, who used that power to convince us guys the movie was worth our time, and they delivered.

The goodwill from Charlie’s Angels (2000) was such that three years later the studio dropped $125 million into the sequel, and even though Full Throttle is pretty awful, it’s still more fun than this hideous 2019 reboot, which is why it was able to crawl over $100 million domestic, when that number really meant something.

And so, Charlie’s Angels (2019) is the fifth franchise the man-hating woketards have destroyed, the fifth golden goose strangled by these joyless and the artless harpies.

Charlie’s Angels (2019) excluded and demeaned men, told us we were not invited, so neither we nor the women who love us showed up, and now it’s the flop it deserves to be. Terminator: Dark Fate did the same: stridently pushed us out of the way because the future is female donchaknow, as did Ghostbusters, as did Men in Black.

And then there’s Star Wars…

Yeah, Star Wars is going to finish out its trilogy next month, and it will make a fortune, but afterwards that film franchise is doornail dead — as of right now there is nothing filming, nothing scheduled, not even a completed screenplay.

Why?

The man-hating of Last Jedi turned everyone off. Last Jedi under-performed bigtime, Solo tanked (Good God, a Star Wars movie tanked!), and now the greatest and most iconic movie franchise in history is… a TV show.

We don’t hate you Hollywood.

We’re just hating you back.

You started it.

And good luck with that new James Bond movie!

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
I just watched 12 Angry Men for the umpteenth time. Can you imagine if it were being made today?

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
I honestly didn’t even hear of this until today.

Just watched the trailer...the trailer even sucks.

Soulless is a good description.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
It's included with Amazon Prime. Watch it - you won't be sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Andyb:
The director blamed men and Spiderman movies....really

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
What, it's two chicks and Justin Bieber?

quote:

joyless death march

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
... as did Men in Black.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
It's included with Amazon Prime. Watch it - you won't be sorry.

I'm downloading the movie right now.

By the way, I'm curious. Have you or anyone watched the 1997 version of 12 Angry Men? Looks like a decent cast with George C. Scott, Jack Lemmon, and James Gandolfini. Wondering if it's worth watching too.