Say a Prayer for Hollywood

hollywood_69059

Hollywood is in deep trouble.

Years ago people used to say to me that it really didn’t matter what folks in Hollywood said or did. No one says that to me anymore.

Those of us who are old enough to have witnessed and who fully understand the pivotal role that Hollywood plays in American culture know all too well that Hollywood has completely lost its way.

Over the past few decades there has been an intellectual, social, and moral slide in which Hollywood has actively engaged. The result has been more corrosive on our society than anyone could ever have imagined.

The good news is that we have reached the tipping point, and it has arrived in the form of a movie. The film is called “Habit,” and it is a sinister work that attacks the God of our founding, the Lord of our ancestors, and the Holy One of the ages.

In this blasphemous production, God is a woman.

This alone is enough to offend many people of faith. But the religious-minded among us have found ourselves in this position many times in the past, times in which we merely suffered the affront, chalked it up to free expression and artistic license, and politely rose above it.

In this heinous production, God is not only a woman, but a promiscuous one.

In the tradition of many religious people, promiscuity is a failing, albeit a common one not unlike myriad other stumbles, but nevertheless a serious failing on the part of the individual. Needless to say, when people of faith stumble, they seek forgiveness from The Author of Perfection who always was, is, and will be unblemished.

In this distorted production, God is a female who is attracted to multiple other women.

For people who adhere to the scriptural content of the Old Testament as well as those who embrace both the Old and the New, The Divine Designer created man and woman, and sexual attraction is specifically an innate desire that rests within earthly beings.

In this sacrilegious production, God is a drug dealer.

Here again, believers hold fast to the truth that the God of Our Fathers is sinless. To imply otherwise takes His Holy Name in vain and is a grave offense against Him and against those who worship and adore Him.

And so it is that everyone who is still watching what Hollywood is providing as entertainment for us, in all of its various forms, gets to pick a side.

“Habit” stands as a virtual line in the sand. We are either for its release or against it. We are either willing to tell any company that would facilitate the circulation of this egregious product that we will no longer consume any of its entertainment fare or we fold and give them yet another pass. And we either stand for God or turn our backs.

God’s nature and His identity as God-made-flesh are central tenets of the deeply held beliefs of more than two billion religious people around the globe. Hopefully in this tipping point, God’s side of the scale will be the one that prevails.

Several organizations are now seeking the film’s cancellation. Ted Baehr, founder of Movieguide and the Christian Film & Television Commission (CFTC), recently told The Christian Post that “Habit” crosses a line “that should not be crossed.” The Movieguide site is promoting a petition by the CFTC on CitizenGo.org, which as of this writing has more than 210,000 signatures from people who hope to stop this movie in its ugly tracks.

Another petition, which was started by OneMillionMoms.com, a division of the American Family Association, has been signed by almost 70,000 people.

“Habit” does not yet have a release date or distribution deal. However, with the entertainment industry’s track record, it is likely that those who have invested substantial sums of money in the production of the film will move forward in some fashion with its release.

We need to say a prayer for Hollywood and for our culture.

In the meantime, we need to keep a watchful eye on Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, and other platforms. In this digital era, films go straight to home theaters.

That’s where God’s side has to be willing to be a cancel culture all its own.

Ted Cruz’s Legislation Could Halt China’s Censoring of Hollywood

worldwarz_dvd_en_800x1200

Texas Senator Ted Cruz may really be on to something big.

Sen. Cruz plans to introduce legislation soon, which will address a critically important issue involving the rights of Americans, as well as folks in other nations, to enjoy entertainment product that is free from Chinese communist censorship.

The former 2016 GOP presidential candidate has, in accordance with modern congressional practice, affixed a clever acronym to his new bill, SCRIPT, which stands for the “Stopping Censorship, Restoring Integrity, Protecting Talkies” Act.

The legislation seeks to deter a current practice of Hollywood studios in which, prior to release, they submit movies to Chinese censors. The proposed law would cut off any assistance given by the Department of Defense to those film studios that allow the communist regime to alter cinematic content.

With regard to many a film and television production project, Hollywood has often requested help from the Pentagon. It has been this way for years. In each branch of the military, there is actually a liaison office that aids filmmakers with consultation, personnel, equipment, and access to military installations.

“For too long, Hollywood has been complicit in China’s censorship. The SCRIPT Act will serve as a wake-up call by forcing Hollywood studios to choose between the assistance they need from the American government and the dollars they want from China,” Sen. Cruz recently said in a statement.

The truth is Hollywood is in need of a wake-up call. China was set to surpass the U.S. box office of 2020 just before the coronavirus shutdown occurred.

Hollywood executives are well aware of the fact that the Chinese regime limits the number of foreign films that can be released annually in its country. Additionally, many Chinese companies provide considerable amounts of capital for Hollywood productions.

The Chinese regime is preoccupied with projecting a false image in order for it to continue to maintain its power. As a result it has frequently injected itself into creative aspects of American entertainment production and oftentimes altered content to fit its own agenda.

Back in 1997, Martin Scorsese’s film “Kundun” was banned, because it appeared to be sympathetic to the Dalai Lama. Scorsese and other members of the production team were literally banned by the Chinese regime from ever entering the country again.

China also took the dramatic step of banning Disney films and television shows. Disney actually apologized in 1998 for releasing “Kundun.” Eventually, though, the company was able to make a deal in 2016 to open Shanghai Disneyland.

In 2006, creators of “Mission Impossible III” were required to remove part of the film’s opening sequence in which underwear hanging on a clothesline made its “undesirable” appearance in a Tom Cruise chase scene in Shanghai.

The following year, creators of “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End,” were evidently persuaded to edit out footage of the character Chow Yun-fat, because it offended the Chinese powers that be.

In a 2012 reboot of “Red Dawn,” the original plot featured an invasion of the United States by China. The storyline was dutifully altered to depict the invading enemy as being from North Korea. Since the initial filming had already been completed, this feat was accomplished via re-shoots and digital alteration. It would be to no avail though, because the movie still ended up in the position of being unable to obtain a China release.

The James Bond 2013 installment, “Skyfall,” was released only after scenes that included Chinese police using torture tactics and prostitution occurring in Macau were edited out.

That same year the Brad Pitt film “World War Z” was banned by the regime in Beijing, because the plot of the film had the origin of the zombie outbreak kick off in China. Interestingly, Chinese officials also had a grudge against Pitt for his audaciousness in having starred in the movie “Seven Years in Tibet.”

As a condition of the China release of “Bohemian Rhapsody,” creators of the 2018 Queen biopic had to redact any references to lead singer Freddie Mercury’s sexual identity and the cause of his passing. The Chinese censors even removed part of star Rami Malek’s Oscar acceptance speech from the streaming Academy Award ceremony.

During the same year, Disney’s “Christopher Robin” was banned by Chinese censors, because activists had noted on the internet President Xi Jinping’s resemblance to Winnie the Pooh.

In the movie trailer of the yet to be released “Top Gun: Maverick,” missing from Tom Cruise’s iconic leather jacket are the Japanese and Taiwanese flag patches, which appeared on Maverick’s original coat. The patches have been replaced by two non-descript, similarly colored symbols.

Sen. Cruz’s SCRIPT Act would be a great first step in trying to address China’s egregious pattern of modifying U.S. entertainment product.

Now if only Hollywood could lend its support to the cause embodied in the legislation — that even in the entertainment industry, artistry and its dual pursuits of truth and self-determination, still reign supreme over profit.

Michael Moore Deconstructs ‘Green’ Energy in New Documentary

documentary_78120372-e1587497118429

Michael Moore is known for triggering right-of-center media venues and individuals with provocative remarks, which have oftentimes served to promote documentaries that have personally enriched him.

In his latest film, however, Moore appears to engage in some misdirection. Instead of throwing a left hook, he throws a right.

How can it be that Moore would put his cinematic stamp of approval on something that might infuriate the left?

One thing for sure, there is quite a bit of finger pointing at liberal “green” icons included in the footage of “Planet of the Humans,” the latest documentary where Moore is credited as executive producer.

A master of PR, Moore seems to have known exactly what he was doing in releasing the film on Earth Day, environmentalists’ most revered calendar date.

Some of the more notable nuggets that the documentary exposes are as follows: Biomass fuel destroys nature at a faster rate than nature can replace; electric cars are charged via the power grid, which requires the use of exorbitant amounts of non-renewable energy; and a by-product of mining lithium is the inevitable damage that occurs to the ecosystem.

Decimated in the movie is the notion that solar and wind energy are legitimate replacements for fossil fuels.

“Planet of the Humans” exposes the hypocrisy of some of the environmental movement’s most famous eco-celebrities, including former Vice President Al Gore, Virgin Group founder Richard Branson, activist-author Bill Mckibben, and news commentator Van Jones.

The documentary also reveals the secret profiteering and corporate connections of the Sierra Club, Goldman Sachs, and former President Barack Obama’s green energy initiatives. It additionally calls out Gore for selling his television network to Qatari-owned Al-Jazeera and chides McKibben for cozying up to Wall Street and being an advocate of biomass.

“The takeover of the environmental movement by capitalism is now complete,” the documentary’s narrator declares.

Josh Fox, director of the anti-fracking film “Gasland,” voiced his dissatisfaction with the film on Twitter.

“I just had the unfortunate displeasure of watching PLANET OF THE HUMANS the #Earthday freebie irresponsibly put out by Michael Moore @MMFlint,” Fox wrote, opining that it was “an unsubstantiated, unscientific, poorly made piece of yellow journalism which attacks proven renewable energy and science.”

Fox and his cohorts tried to have the movie removed from public access and sought an apology from Moore.

McKibben, the high profile environmentalist who was exposed in Moore’s documentary, was incensed.

“I am used to ceaseless harassment and attack from the fossil fuel industry, and I’ve done my best to ignore a lifetime of death threats from right-wing extremists. It does hurt more to be attacked by others who think of themselves as environmentalists,” McKibben posted on 350.org, the website of the environmental group that he founded.

The self-described website for the U.S. solar community, PV Magazine, featured an article on Moore’s movie, which was penned by renewable energy analyst Eric Wesoff.

Wesoff described the film as a “screed against solar power, wind power, biomass, hydrogen fuel, ethanol, EVs, and a case for the general unsuitability of renewables as a replacement for fossil fuels.”

He also wrote, “It’s difficult to take the film seriously on any topic when it botches the solar portion so thoroughly.”

“Planet of the Humans” is written, directed, and narrated by Jeff Gibbs, a self-described lifelong committed environmentalist, who co-produced Moore’s best known films “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 911.” For the next few weeks the filmmakers are making the documentary available on YouTube without charge.

Moore shared with Reuters the following puzzling statement: “I thought electric cars were a good idea, but I didn’t really think about ‘where is the electricity coming from?’”

He added, “I assumed solar panels would last forever. I didn’t know what went into the making of them.”

Even though the documentary takes on the renewable energy issue and skewers some big-name environmental leaders in the process, the filmmakers remain totally committed to the same basic views as the backers of the “Green New Deal.”

The film asks during its final scenes, “Can a single species that’s come to dominate the entire planet be smart enough to voluntarily limit its own presence?”

The narrator then claims that the environmental debate essentially avoids discussion of “the only thing that might save us.”

Although Moore and Gibbs go beyond a mere expose of the promoters of renewable energy, they unfortunately come to a grim conclusion that is shared by the extreme left; that being, humankind is very close to destroying the planet.

According to Moore and Gibbs, what we really need to do is get “a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption.”

Sadly, environmentalists of their ilk appear to be world-weary misanthropes who will continue to hold fast to the belief that the real problem is not carbon emissions or greenhouse gasses, but people.

Celebrities Show Love for W.H.O., Disrespect for U.S.

SWITZERLAND-HEALTH-EPIDEMIC-VIRUS-WHO

Despite having temporarily sacrificed some of our freedom during the coronavirus lockdown, many Americans seem to have gained a newfound appreciation for our country.

The Hollywood left, on the other hand, doesn’t appear to have had the same experience.

To a whole lot of everyday people, much has been revealed through the pandemic that shocked us to the core, and many a lesson has been learned. One of the most important lessons gleaned is how incredibly dangerous it is to be dependent on a communist regime with regard to our critical supply chain.

Too many of our celebrities, though, continue to display an utter lack of awareness or understanding about the geopolitical realities of our times. This was recently driven home when many of the rich and famous lent their names and talents to the unworthy cause of raising funds for the World Health Organization (W.H.O.).

A virtual concert took place this past weekend, which was promoted as a “One World” event. It was designed to benefit the W.H.O., a global entity that is deeply enmeshed in controversy.

The concert’s marquee included A-list celebrities such as Taylor Swift, John Legend, Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Beyonce, Oprah Winfrey, Jennifer Lopez, Elton John, and Lady Gaga.

Late-night comedians Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, and Jimmy Kimmel served as hosts. Other famous individuals who made appearances included Ellen DeGeneres, former First Ladies Laura Bush and Michelle Obama, and Bill and Melinda Gates, the couple whose foundation is the W.H.O.’s second biggest donor.

As a virtual concert, the event had artists and participants appearing from their homes; this allowed for the event to be broadcast across multiple television channels in the U.S. and around the globe. Funds in excess of $128 million were raised, according to a press release from the organizers.

The timing of the concert was more than unfortunate for our nation. President Donald Trump had just canceled funding for the W.H.O., due to credible allegations of influence exerted upon the group by the communist regime in China.

The president took the appropriate action for our country when he held back funds for the W.H.O., pending an investigation of the group’s alleged malfeasance in dealing with China’s mishandling and potential cover-up of the coronavirus breakout in Wuhan.

The W.H.O. has had a spate of bad press. The head of the organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, is a former official of Ethiopia’s Marxist Tigray People’s Liberation Front. In January and well into February of 2020, Tedros lavished unmerited praise on the Chinese government for its handling of the virus’s breakout and supposed sharing of information. While the W.H.O. leader commended China, he simultaneously criticized other nations for their responses to the coronavirus emergency.

Tedros had encouraged the nations of world not to limit travel to and from China and also delayed letting the world know that the virus was a public health emergency.

At a recent White House press conference in which he pledged to withdraw W.H.O. funding, President Trump stated the following: “The W.H.O.’s attack on travel restrictions put political correctness above life-saving measures.”

Interestingly, the “One World” virtual concert was organized by the W.H.O. along with another entity, the non-profit advocacy group Global Citizen.

The staging of a musical event with a theme that ran counter to the Trump administration’s policies was apparently something that Global Citizen had been involved with on a prior occasion, as recently as September of last year.

President Trump had just shared with the United Nations General Assembly the notion that “the future does not belong to the globalists. The future belongs to the patriots.” A mere four days later an event called the “Global Citizen Festival” was held in New York’s Central Park.

Entertainers that were featured included Queen (with Adam Lambert), Pharrell Williams, Alicia Keys, OneRepublic, Carole King, and Hugh Jackman, a celebrity lineup with comparable star power to the one that the W.H.O. featured at its fundraising concert. Tickets to the event were offered for free to “global citizens” who were willing to “take a series of actions to create lasting change around the world.”

Similar to the recent W.H.O. “One World” concert, the event brought together entertainment figures to appear with activists in order to promote a host of radical pseudo-utopian causes.

Our nation and the priceless freedoms it affords are what enable individuals to reach for the sky and, when hard work and destiny lock hands, achieve their dreams.

Perhaps as tragic as a virus that infects the body is a hatred that hardens the heart. There is no virtue in supporting the W.H.O., an organization that may have assisted China and betrayed the U.S. and possibly the whole world.

Celebrities Hit New Low with Face Mask Selfies

screen-shot-2020-02-29-at-9.24.54-am

For weeks now the Democrats, complicit media, and activist resistors of all shapes and sizes have been encouraging the public to obsess along with them over the corona flu.

Media coverage has been non-stop, despite the fact that the percentage of Americans who have recently contracted the coronavirus remains a miniscule portion of the population.

As the left-tilted media are prone to do, reporting on the health-related issue has been anything but measured. Instead it has been hyperbolic in tone and frantic in nature, seemingly intended to eliminate reason and heighten fear in individuals and the public at large.

Media stories that have been put out have spread as swiftly as pre-school sniffles, with the negative impact bulldozing its way from Wall Street to Walmart. There have been market reactions, conference re-schedulings, school closings, sporting cancellations, movie postponements, and the like, all having an unsettling ripple effect of disruption, disquiet, and dismay.

Media images often embedded in recent coronavirus stories show people wearing face masks while engaging in otherwise normal activity. This, among other things, has contributed to a sort of panic buying of a variety of sanitizing agents as well as surgical and N95 respirator masks.

Leave it to celebrities in Hollywood to seize the self-centered moment. Many stars have joined in to assist in fanning the flames of fear and leading folks astray. Social media is their current marketing tool of choice.

The latest celebrity fad is to use social media to share a face mask selfie. Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Hudson, Kim Kardashian-West, Steve Harvey, OJ Simpson, Bella Hadid, Selena Gomez, and Brody Jenner have all posed for pictures in which they have partially hidden their features with face masks. Frequently accompanying their photos is a caption about the virus.

The social media posts are, at a minimum, a disservice to the public, according to experts. Masks will not protect an individual from contracting the virus.

Eli Perencevich, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa and an infection specialist, explained the following via Twitter: “Masks won’t protect the average person. Because they will wear them incorrectly and autocontaminate themselves.”

Professor Perencevich told Forbes that the average healthy person has no need to don a mask. “There’s no evidence that wearing masks on healthy people will protect them,” he said.

Experts also point out that when the public contributes to a run on masks, as has recently been seen, it serves to create a shortage for those who actually need them and are expert in employing them — the medical professionals.

The misinformation that is making its way across the internet prompted the U.S. surgeon general to issue a statement urging people to “STOP BUYING MASKS!”; this is because of the lack of effectiveness of the masks with regard to the general public and the necessity to ensure their availability for health care providers.

The masked selfies by celebrities seem to have added to the anxiety of individuals over their coronavirus-related readiness, or lack thereof.

Harvey and his wife were shown sporting bedazzled masks.

Simpson posted a picture of himself wearing a white mask while stockpiling at Costco.

Paltrow posted a selfie on Instagram modeling a black mask on a flight to France. Her caption cited the 2011 movie in which she starred, “Contagion.”

“I’ve already been in this movie,” Paltrow wrote.

There was, of course, the spewing of obligatory Hollywood hate for President Donald Trump and growing animosity for Vice President Mike Pence. The online poison concerning the coronavirus added further fuel to the five-alarm fire.

Chelsea Handler, Rosie O’Donnell, Jeffrey Wright, Cher, Bradley Whitford, Bette Midler, Jason Alexander, Ron Perlman, Michael Ian Black, Barbra Streisand, John Leguizamo, Rob Reiner, Minnie Driver, Alyssa Milano, and Debra Messing repeated numerous false claims about the president and vice president and response to the public health problem.

Best to ignore Hollywood’s hype and hate. Instead we can remember to wash our hands often and fold them in prayer for the restoration of health and return to sanity.

Why CrowdStrike May Be the Real Reason for the Impeachment Charade

pelosi_impeachment_trump

A single telephone call kick-started the Democrat impeachment ruse.

The call involved a conversation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. During the inter-continental back and forth, a lone reference to a company named CrowdStrike was made.

Few allies of the president have ventured to speak publicly about CrowdStrike. And in their endless indulgence in pretend journalism, the mainstream media have repeatedly tried to divert attention away from any type of substantive discussion regarding the company and the growing list of questions that seeks cover in darkness.

Media figures have used a tired gambit to diminish the importance of CrowdStrike, suggesting that any belief on the part of individuals and/or groups about the company’s possible ties to the Democratic Party or potential involvement with the losing party’s 2016 campaign gets such persons or groups labeled “conspiracy theorists.”

No theorizing is necessary to arrive at the conclusion that CrowdStrike is at the epicenter of the Russia-collusion narrative, which the Democrats and their media allies crammed down the public’s throat during the first two years of Trump’s presidency.

The story surrounding the company’s origin, connections, and purpose is incomplete to say the least. In early 2016, after the DNC server was reportedly hacked, Perkins Coie, a law firm with connections to the Democratic Party, brought in CrowdStrike to investigate the matter.

If the law firm’s name has a familiar ring, it is because the very same entity hired the infamous firm Fusion GPS on behalf of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign; this was done in order to obtain so-called opposition research prior to the 2016 election, in an apparent effort to establish a link between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In June of 2016, CrowdStrike made the determination that agents of Russia were the ones who had hacked the DNC’s computers, and a claim was made that Russia was the source of the e-mails that were subsequently published by WikiLeaks.

The widely circulated notion that Russia interfered with the U.S. election is based, in part, on the investigation into the DNC’s servers.

However, CrowdStrike employees, as opposed to U.S. law enforcement in the form of the FBI, were the only people to actually investigate the DNC e-mail servers, which purportedly contained evidence of Russian cyber intrusion.

CrowdStrike provided findings to the FBI but did not produce and hand over to the FBI the actual hardware, i.e., the servers themselves.

An adequate explanation has never been provided as to why the FBI was not given access to the servers, although reportedly there were multiple requests to do so.

The Obama intelligence community subsequently issued the frequently cited “intelligence assessment,” which concluded that Russian hackers had infiltrated the DNC servers, based on data provided by CrowdStrike.

Jeh Johnson, former Homeland Security secretary in the Obama administration, told the House Intelligence Committee that when his department offered to help the DNC with the investigation of server intrusion, he was told that the DNC “did not feel it needed DHS’ assistance at that time.”

CrowdStrike has a multiplicity of relationships with Democrats. The president of CrowdStrike Services is an individual named Shawn Henry, who headed up the FBI’s cybercrimes division during the Obama administration.

The company’s co-founder and CTO is Dmitri Alperovitch.

Alperovitch authored the report, which determined that hackers tied to Russia were responsible for the DNC server breach. A Russian-born immigrant who has since become a U.S. citizen, Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, an anti-Russian think tank, which is backed and financed by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk. Pinchuk is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation.

The Atlantic Council decided in 2013 to grant its Distinguished International Leadership Award to none other than Hillary Clinton. The Ukraine-Russian conflict has involved an extensive and intensive cyberwar, with each side attempting to hack the networks and infrastructure of the other. Major cybersecurity firms are involved with the government of Ukraine, including CrowdStrike.

When President Trump mentioned CrowdStrike during his phone call with the Ukrainian leader, he invoked the questionable nature of the firm’s role in the failed Russia-collusion narrative. This likely prompted some of those who were listening to create what we now see creepily unfolding before our very eyes.

What we have here is an impeachment defense.

Like in the movie “A Few Good Men,” the question is whether or not in the end the Democrats and their media allies will be able to handle the truth.

‘Charlie’s Angels’ Takes a Box-office Tumble

mv5bmdfknza3mmmtytc1mi00zwnjlwjjmjctodq2zgi2owy0ymexxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymda4nzmyoa4040._v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

When it comes to box office, Hollywood’s latest remake of an iconic TV classic recently experienced a fall from grace.

The latest “Charlie’s Angels” reboot has studio executives scratching their heads in search of an explanation as to how a popular franchise with a name director, notable cast, and $50 million production budget could fail to attract a decent-sized audience.

“Wokeness” in today’s left-tilted culture is the overarching theme that is mandating current PC standards. The hyper-liberal ideology is so accepted by Hollywood’s mainstream community it makes even the savviest power players repeatedly muck things up, financially and otherwise.

Shoehorning far-left politics into what are supposed to be entertainment projects, Hollywood studios are continuing the pattern of releasing loser reboots, prequels, sequels, and the like, including “Ghostbusters,” “Men in Black,” “The Last Jedi,” and “Terminator: Dark Fate.”

The reason the “Charlie’s Angels” franchise was viewed by insiders as a viable project for a reboot in the first place was its long track record of success. It all began with a hit television series that starred Farrah Fawcett, Jaclyn Smith, and Kate Jackson.

Fawcett lost her super hero battle with cancer in 2009. But at the height of her award winning career, she was a genuine cultural phenomenon, the pin-up girl of her era, setting trends for everything from a hairstyle that in modified form would live on to this day to a poster that would adorn bedroom walls and locker doors in untold numbers. The wildly popular “Charlie’s Angels” TV show dominated the airwaves from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s, garnering consistently high ratings. However, there was an innocent charm to the show that would be lost in the revisions to come.

As studios are so often prone to do, the television series became repackaged, and it emerged as a “Charlie’s Angels” movie in 2000, starring Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu in the lead roles. The film debuted with a $40 million box office.

In 2003, Diaz, Barrymore, and Liu teamed up for a sequel, “Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle,” which took in almost $38 million in its first weekend. Left-wing propagandists had not yet infiltrated entertainment content to the degree that would ultimately come to fruition.

So here we are sixteen years after the “Charlie’s Angels” sequel. Sony brings in Elizabeth Banks to direct, star, and write, partially due to her successful directorial debut with Universal’s “Pitch Perfect 2,” but perhaps more importantly, for her having expressed her desire to redo “Charlie’s Angels” with a feminist overlay.

Opening up with a dismal $8.6 million box-office take, the current iteration of “Charlie’s Angels” makes it clear that the filmmaker had a different goal than that of making an entertaining action movie.

A montage of images from the world-over, featuring young women of supposed power, is meant to convey to movie-goers that they are in for something other than your average everyday cinematic diversion.

An opening scene features Kristen Stewart’s character subduing a male villain after he makes dastardly sexist remarks to her.

In a recent profile in WSJ Magazine, Banks evidently felt a need to highlight the film’s feminist bona fides, saying, “You’ve had 37 Spider-Man movies and you’re not complaining! I think women are allowed to have one or two action franchises every 17 years — I feel totally fine with that.”

However, “Charlie’s Angels” features a number of anemic action scenes, which end up being a major disappointment to viewers who came to see something more than an insipid “You go girl!” after-school special.

Even the hit song from the film, titled “Don’t Call Me Angel,” which features Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus, and Lana Del Ray, couldn’t put viewers in theater seats.

The Hollywood Reporter extolled “Charlie’s Angels” for “unapologetically raising a feminist flag, championing female friendships and subtly making a point about the urgency of the ongoing climate crisis.”

That pretty much says it all, spelling it out in big bold letters why the November 2019 film turns out to be such a turkey.