[I'm so delighted by this news. Stop watching Jewish movies, and reading Jewish newspapers and especially lying Jewish books. Jan]
The ultra-woke feminist lecturing vehicle that was the “Charlie’s Angels” reboot crashed at the box office this weekend with an abysmal $8.6 million at the domestic box office, and a global haul of just $19.3 million, for a worldwide total of $26.1 million. The film had a $48 million budget before marketing costs.
“While ‘Charlie’s Angels’ got off to a better start abroad than in North America, the action-comedy majorly stalled in its global debut,” Variety reports. “The movie earned $19.3 million from 26 markets, along with $8.6 million at the domestic box office for a worldwide bounty of $26.1 million. The international box office will be key in recouping ‘Charlie’s Angels’ $48 million budget. So far, the film has seen the strongest showing in China with an uninspiring $7.7 million, along with Indonesia ($2.9 million), Australia ($1.3 million), Russia ($1 million) and the Philippines ($1 million).”
For the movie to make a serious profit, it would have to earn upwards of $100 million at the global box office, and that’s assuming Sony Pictures spent frugally on marketing costs.
Earning the top slot this weekend, the Matt Damon/Christian Bale star vehicle “Ford v. Ferarri” over-performed expectations with a global box office haul of $52.4 million.
“Director James Mangold’s racing drama collected $21.4 million from 41 foreign markets, representing 67% of its overseas rollout,” Variety continued. “‘Ford v Ferrari’ also kicked off with $31 million in North America, bringing its global total to $52.4 million. Russia had the biggest debut with $3.2 million, followed by the United Kingdom and France with $2.3 million each, and Australia with $1.7 million. It opens in key territories, including Korea and Japan, in December and early January, while a release in China has yet to be determined.”
Earning a 60% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, critics were largely divided on whether to praise “Charlie’s Angels” strictly for promoting the right social agenda or to knock it for treating the characters like stick figures designed specifically to tickle the fancies of SJWs. Over at The Hollywood Reporter, Beandrea July praised the film for “unapologetically raising a feminist flag, championing female friendships, and subtly making a point about the urgency of the ongoing climate crisis.”
“These lady spies aren’t leading with cleavage or dumbing themselves down to shore up the egos of their clueless boyfriends like the Angels of the past,” wrote July. “Rather, they express their femininity and sexuality in ways that give their characters depth and agency rather than reducing them to objects. The movie also wants us to know that Stewart’s character is queer, but it wisely reveals this without much fanfare or woke sketch comedy.”
Writing at Deadline, Anthony D’Alessandro argued that the movie simply failed because it did not acquire top talent and strictly catered to a “one quadrant” audience of 13 to 39-year-old women.
“Some will claim that Banks’ version was never intended to emulate the meat and potatoes version of McG’s films; that this version was expected to be more comedic, and more feminist,” wrote D’Alessandro. “Unfortunately, after McG set the table here with the franchise as an action film, you can’t reverse it. You can only outdo him. And with a franchise movie like Charlie’s Angels, you can’t make it for a one quadrant audience.”