*fixed* Would it have worked better with Older Women in the leads?

I think it would have kicked ass if the surviving Golden Girls played the Angels.

would have worked. It's would've. Even though it sounds like "of" it's not.

I think I already wrote this in another thread here. I would definitely have aged the leads, even just by ten years, if not more. Elizabeth Banks looked like she should have been one of the angels.

30 plus year olds.

Probably but I did like it with a young cast too. Not a fan of Kristen Stewart bit I did enjoy very much Naomi Scott and Ella Ballinksy.

But an older looking cast would have been pretty good too. Like with the first two films with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Lou.

I think they went younger to justify the reboot or to do Charlie’s Angels again but it could have worked with Elizabeth Olsen, Gal Gadot and Margot Robbie young but a little more seasoned actresses.
And then we would stay with the tradition: one readhead, one raven, and one blond.

I think age doesn't matter. They need to show the angles as plausible kickassers... and the girls here just doesn't portray this believably. Not for a second did I buy their fighting capabilities... Elisabeth Banks and her physical presence might have pulled it off, and so perhaps age does make a difference? I don't know, but these girls here... please.

... Of course, we can also blame fight choreography editing.... doubt though, this can make Kirsten look like a lean, mean fighting machine.

In the 2002 one, the women were in their 30s, no? So I think it could work. A more mature appearance would help diminish the unrealism of the film, where women beat up brawny men.

But more than age, a strong, intimidating look / presence is required