McG vs. Elizabeth Banks


Basically, which Charlie's Angels film director do you prefer? Keep in mind, that this isn't about which films are better per se as a whole.

https://www.slashfilm.com/charlies-angels-and-sexuality/

This all comes back around with Elizabeth Banks’ interpretation of the series. Having both a female director and screenwriter allows the gaze that McG kept in the male position to properly transition to its female leads and the female audience. Though the film doesn’t particularly focus on the changes in female relationships like Dylan’s problems with Natalie’s relationship, it does emphasize a larger unity between women. More importantly, it tries to attack the history of the male gaze that has surrounded the series since 1976. Banks herself plays Bosley, the only Angel to transition into a mentor/leadership position. This puts her at odds with Patrick Stewart’s retired Bosley (the moniker has become a codename for all team leaders), who believes that women are not built for the position.


reply

McG has a better sense of style and pace.

reply

[deleted]

The difference between Michael Bay and McG is that Bay favours chaos with his camerawork and editing style. If Bay had directed the Charlie's Angels movies, you wouldn't be able to appreciate the martial arts choreography of Yuen Cheung-Yan.

reply

He’s saying McG has more style than Banks, who has none. She basically directed a big budget TV movie.

reply

This.

I don't particularly like McG, but his Charlie's Angels at least weren't visually boring or thematically lackluster.

reply

McG. Both movies were high octane fun and had likable stars.

Bank’s film wasn’t and didn’t.

reply