Elizabeth Banks – the writer, director, producer and star of the Charlie’s Angels reboot – has defended the film after its disastrous opening weekend at the US box office.
The action-comedy, which revived the franchise with actors Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska, opened to a dismal $8 million in its first three days of release. The film cost a reported $48 million to produce.
- ca2.jpg (66.08 KiB) Viewed 937 times
“Well, if you’re going to have a flop,” wrote Banks on Twitter, “make sure your name is on it at least 4x. I’m proud of #CharliesAngels and happy it’s in the world.”
The film performed so badly that Sony is reportedly pulling back on its promotion.
So far it's pulled in a total of 12 million I guess they are lucky they did not put much money into making it. Daily ticket sales are falling fast so it’s unlikely the movie will make up its $48 million budget anytime soon.
This despite a relatively positive initial critical reception the film sits at a 59% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes today.
Elizabeth Banks, who directed the film and co-stars as Bosley, suggested to The Herald Sun ahead of her movie’s release that there was a lot riding on its financial success: “Look, people have to buy tickets to this movie, too. This movie has to make money. If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies.”
It’s hard to see her perspective given that Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman — both films made by women, about women — recently had massive success at the box office.
But, Banks seemed to preemptively counter this argument in her interview, saying that Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman are successful because they’re still a part of a “male genre.”
Which is just stupid and one more example of why blondes have a reputation for being dumb.
Still, preemptively suggesting that a bad return on investment for her movie would be due to men not wanting to see women in lead roles feels a bit myopic. This version of Charlie’s Angels is a reboot of a movie that what was essentially a reboot of a television series. The 2000 film version had three big stars — Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore — as its leads. It utilized a heavy promotional campaign and leaned into the male gaze even if that wasn’t the message the story was sending. It was also very much a movie of its time. It had slick direction, ironic humor and an over-the-top style, to the point that it almost felt like a satire. All of which led it to become the 12th highest-grossing film of that year.
I guess the other possibility that Banks might not be that great of a visionary filmmaker would have to be considered. In addition there is the notable lack of star power too, I mean Kristen Stewart is as high-wattage as the film gets, and given her Twilight audience has moved on to other things, and her new arthouse fans are unlikely to find much appeal from a studio reboot...
Plus I have previously said she was a very poor choice and not a very Bank-able star.
