Really she has practically no appeal and none of her movies have been hits on the box office (excluding Twilight which was successful in spite of her). She is a very bland and boring actress with not an ounce of charisma in her body. She was also the wrong fit for this type of role the whole action girl type just doesn't suits her. Well to be honest I think no role suits her but I digress.
shareI tend to agree
shareIf she is not a draw then how come 50% of the time I visit this board someone is posting about her? She seems to rival Psycho, Trump and Greta Thunberg as a point of interest.
shareCharlie's Angels had a well known cast including Elizabeth Banks, Patrick Stewart. The three main angels were good, and there was a larger group of Angels as well though with much less screen time. So I thought the movie was a good one and a new take expanding the CA world. Some good actions and comedy relief, and the story line moved along quickly. The movie did pretty well over seas, but think maybe part of the issue is more that people aren't that interested in a new CA movie.
shareI'm not sure who behind the scenes keeps pushing K.Stew because she isn't a draw. Furthermore, she has spent most of career rebelling against her celebrity status and doing nothing to cultivate her brand to make herself a box office sensation. Her slack jawed frozen faced acting was also the most heavily derided element of the Twilight series. I should think this latest expensive disaster of Angels may finally clue in studios she isn't a leading lady.
shareWithout the Twilight books, I'm not sure the first movie would have even had a sequel, let alone 4. Has she really been in a hit because her name was attached? I don't think so.
share