In every measurable way, the 2000 movie just ticked the right boxes
I just rewatched the trailer for the 2000 movie with Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore, and comparing it to the modern version, its quite easy to see why people flocked to it 19 years ago.
1). It was a fun trailer
2). It was a sexy trailer
3). It had enough nostalgia and nods
4). The cast
The trailer was fun, it wasn't too serious, it had lines about kicking mens asses but they didn't linger on that as if "Hey, this movie is about how much we don't need guys and will kick their asses each time we see them".
Damn it was a sexy trailer, Cameron Diaz in a gold bikini, Cameron Diaz in a pair of Spider-Man pants wiggling her arse (does that ever get boring?), even Drew Barrymore looked pretty damned good, and Lucy Liu...... she looks damned good.
The sexy stuff was over the top and done for comedic effect, I can't help thinking that there would not be a repeat of any of this in the 2019 movie because they take it too serious, precisely what a Charlies Angels movie isn't.
It felt like a link to the original series, there felt like nods and the style in places was akin to the original series..... the 2019 version? Just seems to be entirely too serious and the tone is all wrong.
The cast was great, all three women, supporting cast and Bill Murray who got to do quite a bit in the movie so wasn't just a cameo was great.
I don't buy this "no-one asked for a Charlies Angels movie", because no-one asked for the original 2 movies with Cameron Diaz, but they made themselves welcome and were largely embraced by audiences.
No one asked for a movie that didn't understand the format of the original TV series and felt it had to change the tone. If you have to entirely change the tone of the original, you're fundamentally changing what it was to something else.... why not make an original product instead of badly copying something else?
I don't think the new girls are ugly, but simply, none of them have the star power and charisma that Diaz, Liu and Barrymore had back in 2000.
We'd all heard of them, but the modern girls? Kristen Stewart typically is in movies i'm not likely to watch, Naomi Scott has been in 1 movie i've heard (Aladdin) and i've no idea who Ella Balinska is, and yes I had to look the names up from the trailer, I wouldn't have remembered otherwise.
I hadn't heard of Elizabeth Banks bagging on men, but shes quite the idiot i've now found out.
It was her intention to make the movie entirely about women for women with no thought or consideration for men watching, which is fine, after all Devil Wears Prada was made with no consideration for men, but the original 2 Charlies Angels movies clearly did want to capture the men for their audience as well as women.
But its that she made the movie for women, and then moaned that men didn't go see it?!?!?!
She's already admitted she didn't make it for men, why then the surprise that you got the audience you filmed for???
And the best bit? My missus has seen the trailer and couldn't give two hoots about it, but immediately thought it looked less fun than the Diaz movies.