Charlie’s Angels: An Icon of Feminist Ideals 

Cinema has long functioned as a barometer of evolving gender politics, and few franchises illustrate this more vividly than Charlie’s Angels. Each major iteration of the characters, the television show in the 1970s, the early-2000s films, and the 2019 reboot, embodies the defining concerns of the second, third, and fourth feminist waves, respectively. This evolution across decades not only charts changes in feminist ideology but also reveals how commercial media attempts to both reflect and capitalize on feminist discourse. By reclaiming and reshaping the archetypes of femme fatale, the Angels transition from the heroines of the second wave’s liberationists to the “power feminists” celebrated by third-wave audiences. These earlier versions of the Angels culminate into the 2019 film, which aligns with fourth-wave digital activism and intersectionality. In analyzing the production, marketing strategies, critical reception, and box office performance, Charlie’s Angels (2019) can function as a lens for understanding contemporary reception of fourth-wave feminism.

Femme fatale is a film trope defined by “a seductive woman who lures men into dangerous or compromising situations” (Merriam-Webster). This trope occurs in classic noir films such as Double Indemnity (1944) or Leave Her to Heaven (1945), films that emerged in direct response to shifting gender expectations in post-World War II America. When women occupied new roles in the workforce, traditional binaries of masculine and feminine authority began to blur. This provoked widespread cultural anxiety. This anxiety around shifting gender norms found a vivid outlet in cinema, particularly in the rise of the femme fatale, a “symptom and symbol of male fears of female equality” (Anderson, 1995, p.1). In The Women’s Companion to International Film, Annette Kuhn further defines the trope in saying that “the femme fatale is primarily defined by her desirable, but dangerous, sexuality – which brings about the downfall of the male protagonist” (Kuhn, 1990, p.154). The victimization of men on screen allowed audiences of the forties to place women in the position of the antagonist, thus pacifying their anxieties. Femme fatale, however, is not stuck in the forties. With each iteration, the Charlie’s Angels franchise takes a different approach to femme fatale, modernizing both the trope and its audience. The femme fatale thus emerges as both a symbol of empowerment and a projection of cultural fears about shifting power dynamics.

The Charlie’s Angels franchise is characterized by “a trio of glamorous female private detectives employed by the Charles Townsend Agency, the Angels are most often identified as women who use their femininity and their sexuality to succeed in a ‘man’s world’” (Levine, 2008, p.375). While that is not directly in line with Kuhn’s definition of femme fatale, it can certainly be perceived as a modernized version of it – with women being the protagonist rather than the antagonist. The Angels’ primary tactic for defeating their male opponents is subduing them with flirtation before incapacitating/killing them. Although the wider implications of the sexual and dangerous woman resulting in the downfall of a man are still intact, the function evolves. This reimagining of the trope signals a shift in agency, where women are no longer dangerous because of their sexuality, but powerful because they own and deploy it intentionally. Femme fatale in Charlie’s Angels represents an “emblem of [modern] feminist endeavors,” (Anderson, 1995, p.97), displaying women not only performing traditionally masculine roles, but outperforming them while asserting control over their own sexual image. With each Charlie’s Angels iteration, the representation of femme fatale changes with the current sentiments of women and feminism at that time.

Feminist activism is commonly categorized into four “waves,” each reflecting distinct historical contexts and goals. Understanding these waves helps contextualize how each Charlie’s Angels iteration speaks to the gender politics of its time. The first wave (1820s – 1950s) concentrated on securing legal rights for women. Suffrage is the most notable example, but also access to education, citizenship, and property ownership. Despite these advances, many women still felt “confined to domestic chores as mothers and housewives,” which in turn spurred a second wave of activism (Mohajan, 2022, p.13). Spanning from the 1960s to 1990s, the second wave shifted its focus to sexuality and reproductive autonomy, advocating for justice for rape survivors, reform of sexist legislation on pornography and prostitution, and access to birth control and abortion. Outside the courtroom, second‑wave feminists cultivated an “ideology of solidarity and sisterhood” that united women across diverse backgrounds.

In 1976, right in the middle of the second wave of feminist reform, the first iteration of Charlie’s Angels (1976-1981) aired on ABC. Although it “was ranked [the] number one [television series] among adults overall,” many critics still took issue with it (Levine, 2008 p.377). From the characters’ always perfect hair and makeup to their revealing costumes, some audiences believed that the show exploited the women’s sex appeal and presented an unrealistic standard. Despite surface-level objectification, the show subtly challenged gender norms by centering competent, glamorous women in roles of power. The weaponization of their sexuality makes this series a classic femme fatale; however, the men being the bad guys allows the show to take on a feminist version of it. The show regularly addressed “issues of women’s equality and even advocated a mainstream…version of women’s liberation” (Levine, 2008 p.377). A lot of the anxieties surrounding second-wave feminism were rooted in fear for the loss of femininity. In Charlie’s Angels (1976-1981, though, it was the Angels’ feminine attributes that led them to solve their cases and continue to succeed in man’s world. The balance between these two ideologies is what makes this show so profoundly in line with second-wave feminist ideals. The characters are “in step with the liberal feminist cause” without the loss of their femininity, “thereby assuaging many people’s anxieties about feminism’s disruption of their faith in fundamental sexual difference” (Levine, 2008, p.378). In doing this, Charlie’s Angels (1976-1981) both exploits male fears of female equality and soothes them. This duality, exploiting and empowering femininity, mirrored the broader cultural debate about what feminism should look like.

The third wave of feminism (2000s – 2010s) builds upon the foundations of the second wave, many activists self‑identify as “second wavers’ daughters” (Mohajan, 2022, p.14). Second-wave feminism gave way to a more individualistic and globally conscious third wave in the early 2000s. It earned the moniker “power feminism” for its celebration of female strength, rebellion against patriarchal constraints, and embrace of a global, intersectional framework. After the second wave many people believed the feminist movement to be a finished job, coining the ideology of post-feminism, a cultural moment defined by the belief that feminism’s work was complete and no longer necessary. Critics worried that feminism was no longer about equality but about establishing female superiority. These fears contributed to the rise of post-feminism. This rhetoric ignored the ongoing, systemic sexism still deeply embedded in society, suggesting instead that individual success stories proved gender inequality had been resolved. The third wave’s contradictions made room for mainstream media to explore feminist themes while still maintaining mass appeal. The next adaptation of Charlie’s Angels manages to capture each facet of this wave of feminism.

Charlie’s Angels (2000) was the first feature film adaptation of the franchise, which has seen some other series adaptations. In many ways, the structure of the story remains the same: three women work as private investigators for a man named Charlie, a faceless voice throughout the story. However, the film has one major difference in its structure. “Charlie doesn’t have to save them from their unfulfilling lives; instead, they can choose to work for him” because of “this difference from the original series [the film] suggests that gender discrimination is a thing of the past, that Natalie, Alex, and Dylan have no such experience in their world.” (Levine, 2008, p.384). In the opening credits, each of the women are happy in the life they leave behind. There are two schools of thought on this choice. The first is that of advancement because it abandons the idea that “the women need a patriarchal authority figure to ‘save’ them” (Levine, 2008, p.384) and adopts the framework that the women are empowered to make their own choices. This creative shift allowed the Angels to be portrayed as self-determined professionals rather than women dependent on patriarchal validation. The other popular opinion holds quite the opposite sentiment. Some critics believe that because of this change, the film, “leaves out even the brief nods to institutionalized sexism” and implies that it no longer exists (Levine, 2008, p.384). Without allowing sexism to be an intrinsic part of the narrative the film “naturalizes sexual objectification as a means for women to be successful” (Van Belle, J., Lietaert, J., and Joye, S., 2023, pp.265). While one critique sees the film as empowering, the other argues it ignores systemic issues. These conflicting readings reflect the broader ambivalence toward feminism’s place in pop culture at the time and allow the film to reinforce the ideals of third-wave feminism while being sympathetic to the fears surrounding them.

From their wardrobes to their fighting styles, the Angels in Charlie’s Angels (2000) exude every facet of confidence and girl-power. In their costuming, the Angels are almost always dressed provocatively which “contributes to the notion that, now that the feminism of the 1970s has been accomplished, women are free to dress as they like and that choosing to dress provocatively is something a women might do for her own pleasure, not for a man’s” (Levine, 2008, p.385) Lucy Liu said, “Our movie isn’t like G.I. Jane where they took the femininity away from the woman . . . We embrace our femininity . . . We are women, we have hair, and we can fight” (Levine, 2008, p.385). Liu’s framing redefined strength as something inherently compatible with femininity rather than in opposition to it. The film is careful though to avoid any male-bashing criticisms of third-wave feminism. Actress Cameron Diaz is quoted saying, “We wanted every girl to see herself up there. We didn’t want to say we’re better than men or that we’re repressed by men” (Levine, 2008, p.385). The film and the actors in it aim to portray all the fun of third-wave feminism, while carefully removing any ideas that may be seen as too radical, putting the film right in between third-wave feminism and post-feminism. This ‘toe-the-line’ attitude also helped them in the box office, with the film amassing over 264 million dollars worldwide (Box Office Mojo, 2000).

The fourth wave of feminism, emerging in the 2010s and propelled by social media platforms such as Twitter and TikTok, has amplified awareness of gender‑based injustices through movements like #MeToo and the proliferation of call‑out culture. This digitally fueled activism ushered in a new era of real-time accountability and broader inclusivity. This wave emphasizes sexual freedom and the deconstruction of heteronormativity, extending its reach to “men, women and transgender people, promoting the acceptance of all possible bodies” (Mohajan, 2022, p.16). It is explicitly critical of the idea that feminism's work is complete, directly rejecting the concept of post-feminism. Instead, the fourth wave exposes how deeply sexism, racism, and other forms of oppression remain embedded in everyday life, and it uses online spaces to organize, educate, and hold power structures accountable in real time (Britannica). In addition to the widespread support of these ideas, critics have leveled substantial criticism against this wave. With critics saying that feminists now are “too angry” and “man-hating” (Faragallah, 2020). The power of online activism contains some obvious flaws too. The very platforms that amplify feminist messages also enable harassment, misinformation, and superficial engagement. Hashtag movements can go viral without resulting in structural change, and the emphasis on individual ‘calling out' obscures the need for collective action, putting the emphasis on shame rather than change. Critics argue that online feminism risks becoming more about optics than impact, favoring those who already have visibility and access. This wave is the defining structure of the most recent Charlie’s Angels film. Unlike its predecessors, though, Charlie’s Angels (2019) makes no attempt to sympathize with feminist anxieties.

The ideologies of fourth-wave feminism are interwoven throughout production process of the film. Women hold more positions of power both on and off screen in this film, with each of the protagonists and 42% of the crew being female (Van Belle, J., Lietaert, J., and Joye, S., 2023, pp.270). This shift in control behind the camera is critical, as it disrupts traditional power hierarchies that have long shaped female representation in Hollywood. Writer, director, producer, and lead actress Elizabeth Banks said that “her aim is to modernize the brand for a 21st century audience” (Dunn, 2019, p.2). Part of this rebranding is the shift from the male gaze at the center, to the female gaze, “in which the female characters are themselves the subject and the agents - no longer the passive objects - in the storyline by fulfilling the role of the looker” (Van Belle, J., Lietaert, J., and Joye, S., 2023, pp.266). Banks reinforces this during the films promotion in saying that “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. Rather, they express their femininity and sexuality in ways that give their characters depth and agency rather than reducing them to objects” (Van Belle, J., Lietaert, J., and Joye, S., 2023, pp.264). This film tries to put the power of femininity back in the hands of women by switching to a female perspective in audience, character, and camera.

“Camera movements are crucial in bringing about” the objectification of women’s bodies on screen (Van Belle, J., Lietaert, J., and Joye, S., 2023, p.271). Vertical pans create an over sexualized image of the female body. The use of slow motion “can be objectifying as they give the viewer time to study all the complexities and details.” (Van Belle, J., Lietaert, J., and Joye, S., 2023, p.271) An analysis of the cinematography of Charlie’s Angels (2000) found sixty-five total shots that overtly play up the sexuality of the character on screen. In Charlie’s Angels (2019) however, only twenty-four shots play directly to the character’s sex appeal. These few shots, while they do still appeal to the male gaze, are narrative driving. Whereas in the 2000 version, the shots “identified as objectifying were not motivated by the narrative and rarely contributed to the progression of the story” (Van Belle, J., Lietaert, J., and Joye, S., 2023, p.272). Audiences noticed this change too. With one reviewer saying that “rather than countless slow motion hair flips, Banks allows the women to be sexy and seductive without turning the camera into an outlet for the male gaze” (Forrey, 2019). The contrast in cinematographic techniques between the two films highlights an intentional pivot away from objectification.

The film also moves to a female gaze perspective in their character choices. “Throughout the whole film heterosexual men are depicted as helpless, ignorant, immoral, egomaniacs, and power and money hungry,” whereas women are portrayed to be the sophisticated heroes. (Van Belle, J., Lietaert, J., and Joye, S., 2023, p.273). This clear moral divide was a deliberate choice that emphasized the film's alignment with fourth-wave feminist critiques of institutional power. This is a far cry from the 2000 version and certainly pushes the 2019 film farther from male-gaze stereotypes. The women in this film are seen as morally better than men, which was a major point during the height of film’s advertising and marketing.

This film directly targets young women. With a cast of Kristin Stewart, best known for her role of Isabella Swan in Twilight (2008), Noah Centineo, the teenage heartthrob from To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before (2018), and Naomi Scott who played Jasmine in Aladdin (2019), many of the lead actors hold some importance in the hearts of young girls. Pop singer Ariana Grande produced the soundtrack, which featured a girl-group inspired song called “Don’t Call Me Angel” with Miley Cyrus and Lana Del Ray (Mankowski, 2019). Charlie’s Angels (2019) had “enough hooks for its young adult audience” to rush to theatres (Dolcourt, J., 2019). By tapping into figures already beloved by Gen Z audiences, the film sought to foster a sense of personal connection and cultural relevance. Banks said that “it was important to (her) to make a movie about women working together and supporting each other and not make a movie about their romantic entanglements or their mother they don’t call enough” (Adams, 2019). This thematic focus on female camaraderie over romance marked a notable break from traditional Hollywood narratives. By centering the narrative around collaboration and empowerment, the film presents itself as a reflection of the values of its intended Gen Z audience.

The marketing strategy leaned heavily on popular digital platforms. Each trailer was available in multiple formats, allowing it to be pushed on Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. A dance to the beat of Grande’s song “Don’t Call Me Angel” became popular. Warner Bros. partnered with influencers and popularized the hashtag #WhoRunTheWorld. Even with mass social media pushing, the YouTube views for the trailer plateaued at forty million, well below the average for other female-led blockbusters like Oceans 8 (2018) or Banks’ own Pitch Perfect (2012) (Dolcourt, 2019). The film “scored a disastrous $8 million domestically in its first three days” (Agar, 2019). These mixed metrics reveal tension. Digital activism can amplify awareness, but it doesn’t always translate into box-office dollars. In this respect, Charlie’s Angels (2019) mirrored broader fourth-wave challenges of turning likes and shares into sustained, offline engagement.

Charlie’s Angels (2019) bombed at the box office domestically, grossing a mere $17 million (Box Office Mojo, 2019). Banks believed that “audiences (weren’t) interested in a female-led action film,” but it is important to note the other structural issues at play. Market trends provide an entirely different reason for the film’s lack of success: franchise fatigue (Agar, 2019). “Since the studio system ended, in the 1950s,” the easiest way for a distributing studio to “reassert and maintain control” is to invest “in their most valuable asset: the media franchise” (Fleury et al., 2019, p.1, 5). Charlie’s Angels is not the only brand to experience this financial downfall. Bigger brands like Star Wars, Doctor Who, and the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe are showing a steady decline in success, suggesting that audiences are getting tired of franchise media (O’Toole, 2024).

Not all franchises seem to be subject to this same fate, though. Other franchises, like the Ocean’s franchise have done female-centered revamps and had success. Ocean’s 8 (2018) was majorly successful, grossing $297 million internationally (Box Office Mojo, 2018). The all-female heist film featured a star-studded cast and, according to reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, was praised for its charisma, wit, and light feminist framing (Rotten Tomatoes, 2018). In considering this, the lack of box office reception for Charlie’s Angels (2019) may have some bigger implications than franchise fatigue. Charlie’s Angels (2019) prioritized gender politics over humor and strength of plot, ultimately leading to its downfall. The success of Ocean’s 8 (2018) compared to the failure of Charlie’s Angels (2019) suggests that female-driven reboots hinge more on just gender. The success of these films must rely on strong scripts and audience affinity. This commercial failure invites a deeper look at whether progressive messaging alone can sustain mainstream success.

Before discussing the wider implications of the reception of it, it is worth noting that viewers did not perceive Charlie’s Angels (2019) as a particularly good film. Beyond the macro trends, the film struggled on the screen itself. There is a gross lack of chemistry, none of the jokes quite land, the action sequences “look like small women flailing at big men who then graciously pretend to fall over” (Ditum, 2020). One reviewer writes that the film had Terrible action choreography and what appears to be a total lack of sensible stunts” (Rotten Tomatoes, 2019). With IMDb rating the film 5/10 stars, the lack of audience reception is obvious. (IMDb, 2019). The production value of the film itself, though, is not the only thing audiences took issue with. Banks’ attempt at revamping three female crime-fighters read to audiences as more of a problematic feminist manifesto. One critic says that “Taking on this quasi-feminist mission, while at the same time trying to be a Hollywood blockbuster, sets the project up for failure on both fronts. This could have been progressive five years ago, but the current understanding of feminism has moved past the simple desire for female representation in male spaces” (Holderbaum, 2019). Audiences’ negative responses also underscore how executional flaws can undermine even the most progressive intentions.

The filmmakers intended the film to portray modern feminism, but it instead “plays more like a checklist of topics from the feminist discourse of the past few years than a coherent movie, let alone a crowd-pleasing one” (Kang, 2019). The characterization of the three leads tries to embody different aspects of fourth-wave feminism but falls flat on every account. Sabina is established as a gay woman, but the inclusivity feels insincere “as it’s never discussed and serves no purpose in the narrative whatsoever” (Holderbaum, 2019). Banks did say in an interview that she and actress Stewart did not have interest in “labeling anything. One of the more modern ideas [they] had about these characters was not to put labels on them, to understand that fluidity is modern and to be as open and loving of our entire audience as possible” (Nunn, 2019). While their intentions here were noble, the reception was that of empty representation rather than acceptance. Stewart’s character more accurately embodies a ‘dumb blonde’ who miraculously keeps up. When representation becomes formulaic, it risks alienating audiences who crave authenticity over tokenism. Jane, the resident kickass fighter of the trio, is “the quintessential femme fatale,” but her character is “largely undeveloped and unremarkable outside of her obvious dangerousness” (Holderbaum, 2019). It does not take a film theorist to see the problems with character Elena. Despite being a top performing scientist, she manages to have no common sense or any applied skill. These underdeveloped character arcs suggest a disconnect between feminist aspirations and meaningful storytelling. There are also some issues with the plot. In one scene, the Angels kill a well-meaning security guard, yet the moment is framed comedically, with no consequences or moral reckoning. Such tonal dissonance raises ethical questions about how female empowerment is depicted in action cinema. The gravity of their actions is undermined in the name of ‘women can do anything men can do.’ The many fourth wave-feminist conventions the film tried to take on ended up working against it.

This attempt to create layered characters does nod to an understanding of intersectionality, a driving force of fourth-wave feminism. Intersectionality is the “cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) combine, overlap, or intersect” (Merriam-Webster). While the representation of this complex theory is certainly a step in the right direction in terms of inclusive media, the subject of race, sexuality, or inequality never manages to come up. By presenting the Angels as inherently empowered, without fully delving into the structures or personal stakes behind that empowerment, the film flattens its feminist message. Without engaging in dialogue about these intersecting identities, the film misses an opportunity for deeper resonance. The lukewarm reception of the film may indicate that audiences are wary of performative feminism that lacks emotional or political depth.

Another choice that pushes Charlie’s Angels (2019) further into fourth-wave stereotypes is the shift in how violence and power are portrayed. Previous versions of the Angels relied heavily on sexualization to justify their combat effectiveness, the only hint of that prior tactic is seen at the beginning of the film, when the Sabina overtakes a man while discussing “the secret privileges of being objectified” (Ditum, 2020). This choice reflects an understanding that empowerment is not always flashy or performative. It tries to display that feminism can also be quiet, strategic, and realistic. Yet, this nuance may have clashed with audience expectations conditioned by decades of over-the-top action heroines.

Many audiences took this film as an unnecessary reboot coupled with a strong feminist agenda. The reception of this film, like its two predecessors, provides some insight into the reception of fourth-wave feminism. The major critique of the most recent wave, of course excluding post-feminism ideology, is the lack of ability to create any change in issues surrounding women today. The popularity of digital activism leads to awareness of problems and inequalities but creates only passive dissenters rather than ‘boots on the ground’ activists. These same problems presented with the modern feminist wave are the same issues presented in Charlie’s Angels (2019). The film contains all the feminism but none of the fun from the original Charlie’s Angels iterations. Fourth-wave feminism presents many of the same fundamental issues but lacks the heart and activism of its predecessors. Charlie’s Angels (2019) continues the franchise’s motif of representing both the highs and lows of its associated wave of feminism.

The misalignment between the film’s intentions and its execution reveals the danger of relying on feminism as branding without the storytelling infrastructure to support it. When feminism becomes a theme instead of an engine for character development, it runs the risk of alienating both critics and supporters. The 2019 film tries to carry the weight of an entire movement without the narrative scaffolding to hold it up. In doing so, it unintentionally reflects one of the chief critiques of fourth-wave feminism itself. As online feminism increasingly struggles with the balance between visibility and substance, Charlie’s Angels (2019) emerges not just as a cultural product of its time, but also as a mirror reflecting fourth-wave feminism’s unresolved tensions.

Across its various incarnations, Charlie’s Angels has consistently reflected the shifting concerns of feminist activism, evolving from the liberationist messages of second-wave feminism to the celebratory girl-power ethos of the third wave, and finally, to the intersectional activism of the fourth. Although the 2019 reboot aligned itself closely with fourth-wave ideals, its critical and commercial struggles suggest that mass audiences remain divided on the current directions of feminist discourse. As a franchise, Charlie’s Angels serves as a cultural barometer, tracking not only the aspirations of each feminist wave but also the tensions and contradictions that accompany them. The Angels’ transformations across decades reveal that while the definitions of empowerment continue to shift, the need for stories that challenge and expand these narratives remains as vital as ever. By tracing the evolution of the Angels, the franchise reveals not only the shifting landscape of feminism, but also the challenge of engaging new generations in a movement that is increasingly complex, intersectional, and digitally driven. The trajectory of the Charlie’s Angels franchise highlights the growing pains of feminism, with Charlie’s Angels (2019) revealing how even well-intentioned, inclusive media can struggle to resonate within a culture still divided over what feminism should look like. If the Angels are to soar again, they’ll need stories that not only reflect feminist ideals but are also grounded in compelling characters, emotional stakes, and genuine cultural insight.

References

Adams, B. (2019) Elizabeth Banks explains why she rebooted Charlie’s Angels’, PopSugar, 7 November. Available at: https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/elizabeth-banks-charlie-angels-interview-ew-2019-46021811

Agar, C. (2019). Why Charlie’s Angels 2019 Bombed So Badly At the Box Office. Screen Rant. Available at: https://screenrant.com/charlies-angels-2019-movie-box-office-bomb-reason/

Anderson, L.C.M. (1995) The Femme Fatale: A Recurrent Manifestation of Patriarchal Fears. University of British Columbia.

Box Office Mojo (2000) Charlie’s Angels (2000). Available at: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0160127/?ref_=bo_se_r_1

Box Office Mojo (2018) Ocean’s Eight (2018). Available at: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt5164214/?ref_=bo_se_r_3

Box Office Mojo (2019) Charlie’s Angels (2019). Available at: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt5033998/?ref_=bo_se_r_2

Britannica. (n.d.) Feminism: The fourth wave of feminism. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available

at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism/The-fourth-wave-of-feminism

Ditum, S. (2020). Charlie’s Cardboard Feminists Fall Flat. [online] The Critic. Available at: https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/january-2020/charlies-cardboard-feminists-fall-flat/

Dolcourt, J. (2019) Charlie’s Angels review: A bright reboot squarely aimed at teen girls’, CNET, 14 November. Available at: https://www.cnet.com/culture/entertainment/charlies-angels-2019-review-a-bright-reboot-squarely-aimed-at-teen-girls/

Dunn, G. (2019) ‘We're standing on the shoulders of the Angels that came before us; It marked the beginning of female empowerment on TV, according to director Elizabeth Banks, and now Charlie's Angels is back with a chapter that speaks to the 21st century’, Sunday Mercury, 1 December. Available at: https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:5XMP-45G1-DYTY-C2JW-00000-00&context=1519360

Faragallah, M. (2020) 4th wave of feminism: What’s wrong now?’, The Pitch, 19 March. Available at: https://wjpitch.com/opinion/2020/03/19/4th-wave-of-feminism-whats-wrong-now/

Fleury, J., Hartzheim, B.H. and Mamber, S. (eds.) (2019). Introduction: The Franchise Era. In: The Franchise Era: Managing Media in the Digital Economy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474419239

Forrey, C. (2019) The 2019 ‘Charlie’s Angels’ Reboot Sends a Powerful Message to Young Women. Study Breaks. Available at: https://studybreaks.com/tvfilm/charlies-angels-2019-review/

Holderbaum, N. (2019). Charlie’s Angels (2019) Breakdown: Is This Really Feminism? [online] mxdwn Movies. Available at: https://movies.mxdwn.com/feature/charlies-angels-2019-breakdown-is-this-really-feminism/

IMDb. (2019). Charlie's Angels (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5033998/

Kang, I. (2019) The new Charlie’s Angels is a joyless slog. Slate. Available at: https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/charlies-angels-2019-movie-reboot-kristen-stewart.html

Kuhn, A. and Radstone, S. (1990) The women’s companion to international film. London: Virago.

Levine, E. (2008) ‘Remaking Charlie’s Angels: The construction of post-feminist hegemony’, Feminist Media Studies, 8(4), pp.375–389. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14680770802420295

Mankowski, M. (2019) ‘Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus, and Lana Del Rey’s “Don’t Call Me Angel” video is here’, Vogue, 13 September. Available at: https://www.vogue.com/article/ariana-grande-miley-cyrus-lana-del-rey-dont-call-me-angel-video

Merriam-Webster (n.d.) Femme fatale. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/femme%20fatale

Merriam-Webster (n.d.) Intersectionality. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intersectionality

Mohajan, H. (2022) ‘Four Waves of Feminism: A Blessing for Global Humanity’, Studies in Social Science & Humanities, 1(2), pp.1–8.

Nunn, J. (2019) ‘Elizabeth Banks spreads her wings helming “Charlie’s Angels”’, Windy City Times, 35(4), pp.21–23.

O’Toole, B. (2024). Franchise Fatigue: Can We Have Too Much Of a Good Thing? [online] Filmhounds Magazine. Available at: https://filmhounds.co.uk/2024/01/franchise-fatigue-can-we-have-too-much-of-a-good-thing/

Rotten Tomatoes (2018) Ocean’s 8 [online]. Available at: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/oceans_8

Rotten Tomatoes (2019) Charlie's Angels (2019). Available at: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/charlies_angels_2019

Van Belle, J., Lietaert, J. and Joye, S. (2023) ‘“I think women can do anything”: Postfeminist Sensibilities and the Male Gaze in Charlie’s Angels (2019)’, Observatorio (OBS*) *, 17(2), pp.264–. Available at: https://doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS17220232287