AT&T All In on the Woke Agenda

AT&T and its subsidiary DirecTV recently dropped Newsmax from its lineup, while leaving in place 22 liberal news channels.

The subsidiary canceled the fourth highest-rated news channel, which left 25 million cable viewers scrambling to get their preferred channel from a different source.

DirecTV’s parent company doesn’t appear to be operating under any kind of conventional business model. The blatant ideological discrimination begs the question: Just how woke is the telecommunications giant?

It turns out that AT&T is so woke its executives are asleep at the wheel.

Congressional investigations are surely coming, as are a growing number of boycotts, etc., that could really have an impact.

In a nutshell, the world’s largest telecommunications company (and third largest provider of cell phones) has insidiously morphed into a far-left organization that poses as a service company.

According to OpenSecrets, during the time period between 1989 and 2019, AT&T was the fourteenth-largest donor to United States federal political campaigns and committees, contributing tens of millions of dollars, a majority of which went straight into Democrat hands.

As Newsmax contributor Jeffrey Lord reported in the American Spectator, the company’s leaders have backgrounds that link them with politicians of the liberal Democrat kind.

AT&T’s board of directors includes a chairman of the board that previously served as FCC chair, and was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. This same chairman of the board was an ambassador that was appointed to the position by former President Barack Obama.

Two board members are reliable contributors to prominent Democratic candidates, including one individual who was an advisor and supporter of former President Bill Clinton, as well as being the co-chair of the left-leaning Brookings Institution.

One board member was an appointee to President Obama’s “President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.”

Another board member was a former President of the Ford Foundation, an outfit that donated millions of dollars to an anti-Trump organization.

AT&T’s board is extremely suspect when it comes to decisions concerning conservative political expression, as Lord wrote in his conclusion:

“Board of Directors of AT&T that is stacked with like-minded far Left extremists who cannot abide conservatives or political dissent.”

And what about AT&T’s top management position?

According to City Journal’s Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, AT&T’s CEO John Stankey launched a radical re-education program in 2020 for his employees, which promoted the following racially tinged idea: “American racism is a uniquely white trait.”

The CEO’s program also pushed left-wing concepts such as “reparations,” “defunding of police” and “trans activism.”

The training essentially massages the minds of white employees into believing that they “are the problem.”

The line of reasoning is based on core principles of critical race theory that include “systemic racism,” “white privilege” and “white fragility.”

So the person at the helm of the telecommunications company is pushing an agenda that could have been crafted by Saul Alinsky?

As Lord observed, “AT&T has been changed from a politically neutral communications company to a woke, far left censor which has charged itself with an obsessive mission of silencing conservatives — Newsmax in this case, and One America News before that.”

AT&T doesn’t exactly have a track record that inspires trust.

–In January of 2006 The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that the company had allowed a government intelligence agency to monitor, without warrants, phone and Internet communications of its customers.

–In May of 2006, USA Today reported that all of AT&T’s international and domestic calling records had been handed over to a government intelligence agency for the purpose of creating a massive calling database.

–In June of 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that AT&T had rewritten rules on its privacy policy so that “AT&T – not customers – owns customers’ confidential info and can use it ‘to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.’”

–In July of 2006, a federal district court rejected a federal government motion to dismiss EFF’s case. After the case had been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court dismissed it in June of 2009.

–In August of 2007, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell confirmed that AT&T was one of the telecommunications companies that assisted with the government’s warrantless wire-tapping program on calls between foreign and domestic sources.

AT&T’s DirecTV pays cable license fees to all 22 left-leaning news channels that it carries, despite the fact that most of the channels have far lower ratings than Newsmax.

Additionally, leftist organizations have exerted pressure on the already woke company to actually get rid of conservative programming.

New York Magazine in January 2022 reported the following: “In recent months, several organizations, including the NAACP and Media Matters for America, had been pressuring AT&T and DirecTV to dump OAN for promoting false information…”

Added to those lobbying the telecommunication company to deplatform Newsmax and other conservative media outlets are Democrats in Congress, who sit on a committee that is charged with regulating AT&T.

Did corporate heads at AT&T via its DirecTV subsidiary set out to suppress the speech of Newsmax? And was the company following the dictates of its fellow left-leaning politicians, media apparatchiks and radical activist groups?

The pieces of the puzzle seem to be falling into place.

Meaningful steps can be taken to let AT&T know that it doesn’t get to rewrite the Constitution.

–Cancel DirecTV by calling 877-763-9762.

–Cancel AT&T by calling 888-855-2338.

–Call congressional representatives and senators at 202-224-3121.

–Sign the online petition at IwantNewsmax.com

–Spread the word.

Freedom of speech hangs in the balance.

Walter Hill’s Stand against Wokeness

It has been noted recently by many of the greats within the comedy arts that wokeness has killed comedy.

But the truth is wokeness may actually be killing art itself.

Walter Hill is a famed director, screenwriter and producer.

He directed an amazing number of film projects over the years, including “48 hrs,” “Southern Comfort,” “Streets of Fire,” “Red Heat,” “Hard Times,” “The Warriors” and “The Driver.”

He also penned the screenplay for the crime drama “The Getaway” and produced a majority of the “Alien” film franchise.

Throughout his career, his baseline for storytelling has been the venerable western, the singular American genre that once upon a time was the envied export of the world.

He kick-started his Hollywood career as a production assistant. He was afforded the opportunity to work on iconic television shows that were set in the old American West; series such as “Gunsmoke,” “Bonanza” and “The Big Valley.”

To this day this classic American entertainment fare continues to be treasured by audiences around the globe.

Walter’s love for westerns has spanned the decades. It was on full display in works that include the 1980 movie “The Long Riders,” the 1995 film “Wild Bill,” the 2004 – 2006 television series “Deadwood” and the 2006 TV mini series “Broken Trail.”

The filmmaker once told a reporter, “Every film I’ve done has been a western.”

In a separate interview, he astutely pointed out that “the Western is ultimately a stripped down moral universe” and shared that he likes applying this principle to modern-day tales.

It is precisely this moral universe of which Walter speaks that is part and parcel of the western genre itself. It is also this moral universe that is in direct conflict with the dictates of contemporary woke ideology.

Traditional westerns have storylines that are in complete alignment with the moral constructs of integrity, justice, courage, individualism and loyalty, among others.

At the core of the filmmaking arts is contrast; i.e., clear distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil, hero and villain, etc. Not that there aren’t dimensions of character or plot or interrelationships. But good storytelling via film typically demands that the scriptwriter is able to freely create his or her work, untethered by external restrictions. This process results in characters to which viewers can intimately relate and storylines that can provide virtual life experiences that only one’s imagination could ever limit.

The present arts have hit a proverbial brick wall. This is because art cannot survive the current woke restrictions that Hollywood is imposing upon the entire entertainment industry.

Thankfully, the artist in Walter is unwilling to conform. Instead he is going against the grain, giving new life to his favorite genre.

His latest western, which he has directed and co-written, is titled “Dead for a Dollar.” The movie stars Christoph Waltz, Rachel Brosnahan and Willem Dafoe.

Perhaps not surprisingly it hasn’t been easy for even a successful director like Walter to get a western made these days. He recalls in his notes for the film that “getting it financed was a miracle” and that it had to be shot on a “very low budget.”

Waltz portrays a Danish bounty hunter who travels into Mexico. While there he encounters an individual, who years earlier he had sent to prison. The man, played by Dafoe, is a gambler and an outlaw.

While making the press rounds to promote “Dead for a Dollar,” Walter revealed some of his thoughts on the current woke state of affairs. In an interview with Moviemaker Magazine, he said ominously that wokeness is “death to the arts.”

“You’re giving me a chance to say this: this woke environment, politically correct environment, is a terrible thing. And it hurts. It is death to the arts and it’s death to creativity. There’s no question that there were injustices in the past. Nobody is arguing that point. But how you redress it is how you treat the future,” Walter remarked.

Most folks in Hollywood are under pressure to mold their projects to the prevailing woke mentality.

But like a character in one of his beloved westerns, Walter remains steadfast.

He understands that the creative impulses essential to filmmakers and all contemporary artists are thoroughly stifled by woke constraints.

Shallow characters, forced plots, anachronistic themes and the like make for extremely bland product, which is the antithesis of art’s purpose and its very essence.

Funny Guy David Zucker’s Serious Warning

Humor is David Zucker’s specialty.

Not the lazy blue variety that passes for comedy these days, but the laugh out loud kind that makes your sides hurt, your eyes water and the world disappear.

The mega-successful film director, producer and screenwriter is best known for the legendary spoof flick “Airplane!” and the side-splitting “Naked Gun” and “Scary Movie” franchises.

He happens to be one of our culture’s current reigning experts on all things funny, and he’s sounding an alarm bell for all to hear.

Lucky for us he has joined the ranks of other comedy greats who have issued similar warnings: Dennis Miller, Jerry Seinfeld, Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock, Gilbert Gottfried, Mel Brooks, Adam Carolla, Steve Harvey and John Cleese.

The giants of humor are all saying pretty much the same thing; that Tinseltown’s head honchos and their like-minded fellow residents of the New Woke Hollywood are virtually strangling comedians, comedy writers and comedy itself.

Zucker was recently featured in a video posted by PragerU, where he shared some reflections on his trademark comedy.

He doesn’t think the jokes that propelled his films to the top could be delivered today. Too many folks now fail to understand the nature of comedy.

Unlike most audiences of the past, many of today’s joke consumers are so easily offended that it has risen to the level of ridiculous.

If everything is offensive, then nothing is funny.

New Woke Hollywood is decimating the comedic arts, along with the writers and performers that bring laughter to our lives.

As Zucker stated, “They’re destroying comedy because of nine percent of the people who don’t have a sense of humor.”

He used a real-life Hollywood example to illustrate the point. In a pitching session that he and his writing partner did for a James Bond/Mission: Impossible-style parody, he was stunned by the reaction of an executive just to some of the project’s dialogue.

“One female executive said, ‘This joke is getting pretty risqué here.’ It was a mild joke about the lead female character. Because she had come up through the police department and through the FBI…she needed a breast reduction to fit into the kevlar vest,” Zucker said.

“It was pure oatmeal, so mild,” he said. “Not one of our funniest things, but this was too much. I thought, ‘If this was the criteria for it, we’re in big trouble.’”

In speaking of the past, he said, “We went where the laughs were…We never worried about any of this stuff with the Naked Gun or Scary Movie films.”

Zucker honed his comedic skills in the 1980s and 90s with movies like “The Kentucky Fried Movie” (1977), “Airplane!” (1980), “Top Secret” (1984), “Ruthless People” (1986), “The Naked Gun” (1988), “The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear” (1991) and BASEketball” (1998).

He added his 21st Century contributions “Scary Movie 3” in 2003 and its sequel “Scary Movie 4” in 2006.

Many of the films that he was involved with are now classics and continue to attract appreciative audiences and younger movie fans.

He is often asked whether his most iconic film could be made today.

“When we do screenings of ‘Airplane!’ we get the question if we could do ‘Airplane!’ today,” he said. “The first thing I could think of was, ‘Sure, just without the jokes.’”

According to Zucker, although in the current comedy climate freedom may be taking a hit, the future actually looks bright.

“Comedy is in trouble, of course, but I think it’s going to come back,” he said. “There’s a pendulum, and the pendulum will swing back. I’d like to see comedy filmmakers do comedies without fear.”

Zucker has gone against the grain in liberal Hollywood. He has even worked on political ads for the GOP and directed a political parody film at the expense of Michael Moore, titled “An American Carol” (2008).

Charmingly, he is a huge fan of Davy Crockett. He once made a cameo appearance dressed as Crockett in “The Naked Gun 2½.” As a matter of fact, one of his dream projects is a Crockett biopic. He also hosted a “Davy Crockett Rifle Frolic” at his ranch back in the 1990s. And he decided to write some additional verses to the celebrated song “The Ballad of Davy Crockett.”

Regarding his faith, he was asked by the BBC some years ago whether he believes in God.

His answer was exquisite.

“Oh yeah, I believe in God,” he replied. “I think there’s much more evidence that there is a God than that there isn’t. I don’t believe that Mother Teresa and Hitler go to the same place. I believe in justice, maybe not in this life, but there has to be justice.”

In addition to justice, no doubt there’s laughter too.

As C.S. Lewis put it, “Joy is the serious business of Heaven.”

Woke Hollywood Passes on Pro-life Film despite Top Name Involvement

Kendrick brothers Alex, Stephen, and Shannon have been the creative forces behind many a faith-based box-office hit, including the successful “Facing the Giants,” “Fireproof,” “Courageous,” “Overcomer,” and “War Room.”

“War Room” was actually the No. 1 movie in the country on the second weekend of its release. It was also one of highest-grossing Christian films ever made.

The Kendrick brothers recently teamed up with actor Kirk Cameron to produce “Lifemark,” a movie that deals with some of the most central and poignant themes of our times – relationships, forgiveness, and the film’s primary focus, adoption.

Inspired by a true story, a movie such as this would typically have had Hollywood studio executives competing for the project.

It goes a long way to prove that these are anything but normal times.

Alex is one of the executive producers, as are Stephen and Shannon. But Alex has also co-written the film, and he has an acting part in it as well.

The adoption storyline is particularly meaningful for the Kendricks and Cameron.

Stephen Kendrick and his wife welcomed a daughter from China via adoption.

Cameron’s wife Chelsea was adopted by her parents, and four of Kirk and Chelsea’s six children were also adopted.

For those who haven’t yet noticed, contemporary Hollywood has given itself an extreme makeover in both form and substance.

All of this seems to have happened fairly quickly and also quite craftily. It went from “The Entertainment Capital of the World” to “The Woke Capital of the World,” with the end result being that the largest and most powerful entertainment companies are now haplessly out of touch with the beliefs, attitudes, and values of a large portion of their customer base.

Consequently, despite the viable track records of “Lifemark”’s filmmakers, both its star and its executive producer revealed that Hollywood studios, even those that had worked with the Kendrick brothers in the past, rejected the distribution of the film and did so because of the movie’s pro-life message.

Lead actor Cameron called the rebuff by Hollywood studios “good old-fashion cowardice.”

“Even the so-called faith divisions of studios would rather pass from tens of millions of dollars and support horror, violence, and drag queen movies than risk doing anything that celebrates life,”

Cameron said.

According to Alex, the studios stated that they were not releasing the film because they were “scared of the response,’”

Alex additionally revealed the following: “Several of the studios that have courted us in the past, and wanted us to go with them as distributors, they all turned down this film.”

The studios apparently wanted something else, anything else but this film.

Alex added, “We said, ‘Well, we cannot be ashamed or afraid to share the truth regarding this subject, to share a true story.’ It’s hard to argue with a true story.”

Still, the lack of independent thought displayed by a sizable number of Hollywood executives makes it seem as though they are impervious to the truth.

Fortunately, Fathom Events, a distribution company, was able to make a rational business decision and is going to arrange to have the film displayed in more than 1,400 theaters.

Alex acknowledges that the subject matter of “Lifemark” is a sensitive one.

“It’s become a political battleground in our country,” he remarked, adding, “We are acknowledging both sides, we’re acknowledging the difficult decision to choose to place your baby for adoption, but it is the better decision.”

“This whole path is not always easy. It is often difficult, but it is beautiful. And so this true story was a perfect example of showing how it could go…,” he said.

The movie project began with a telephone call.

While still in the process of wrapping up a previous film, the Kendricks received an unexpected call from Cameron, who had just watched what he described as “one of the most powerful and moving documentaries I’ve ever seen.”

The documentary was titled “I Lived on Parker Avenue,” and it dealt with the story upon which the “Lifemark” film is based.

The plotline centers around a teenage boy who is contacted by his birth mother, a woman who eighteen years prior had chosen adoption over abortion for her then-tiny son.

Alex believes that the movie can play a role in informing and educating people.

“We’re hopeful that churches, crisis pregnancy centers, ministries, all jump on this as a real-life tool to reach people… who are trying to determine ‘is this baby worth saving?’” Alex explained.

His objective in making and promoting this movie project is “to change the heart of the nation.”

To this end, the desire on the part of the filmmakers is for life itself to be ultimately viewed as “precious, beautiful, and worth protecting.”

“Lifemark” is set to make its mark in theaters nationwide on Sept. 9.

The Who’s Roger Daltrey Schools the ‘Woke’ Generation

Roger Daltrey is the lead singer of the rock group The Who.

The iconic 1960s band played a starring role in music history as part of an era that pop culture designates as “The British Invasion.”

Artists, experts, and sages within and without the music industry consider The Who to be one of the most influential rock bands of the 20th century, both for having brought a number of innovations to the rock music world and for having racked up sales of over 100 million records worldwide.

Daltrey was, and still remains, the prototypical rock front man, a consummate showman who perfected the lasso swing of the microphone accompanied by the boldly executed strut.

Counted among its rock music accomplishments is the addition of a number of enduring classic tunes to the pop culture catalogue, including “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” “I Can See For Miles,” and “My Generation,” and the popularization of the “rock opera” in its musical theater pieces “Tommy” and “Quadrophenia.”

The song that initially propelled The Who to musical fame was “My Generation.” On Rolling Stone’s list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, it clocked in at number eleven.

During an interview on Zane Lowe’s Apple Music 1 podcast, Daltrey did some thinking out loud about his generation and the creative freedom that was enjoyed during the 1960s. He remarked that the “woke generation” is creating a “miserable world” that suppresses the kind of free expression he and his band mates experienced in their heyday.

“It’s terrifying, the miserable world they’re going to create for themselves. I mean, anyone who’s lived a life and you see what they’re doing, you just know that it’s a route to nowhere,” Daltrey said.

He spoke of the blessings that he experienced by having lived in a “golden era” when freedom of speech was encouraged rather than stifled.

Daltrey and the band used creative artistic freedom to establish a brand that combined rock music with modern performance art. Members ended their concerts in dramatic fashion by destroying their own instruments right on the stage. For better or for worse, depending on your pop culture perspective, copycats followed.

With all the fame and fortune he has achieved, Daltrey appears to be solidly grounded, genuinely grateful, and amazingly humble, commenting that “… when you’ve lived through the periods of a life that we’ve had the privilege to. I mean, we’ve had the golden era. There’s no doubt about that.”

The rocker pointed out the shortcomings of today’s social media and its effect on the integrity of information.

“It’s just getting harder to disseminate the truth. It’s almost like, now we should turn the whole thing off. Go back to newsprint, go back to word of mouth and start to read books again. It’s becoming so absurd now with AI, all the tricks it can do, and the ‘woke’ generation,” he opined.

Unflinchingly, he also took on the system that seems to have recently become much more acceptable in Western nations than it has ever been in the past – communism.

“… We came out of a war, we came out of a leveled society, completely flattened bomb sites and everything. And we’ve been through socialist governments. We’ve seen the communist system fail in the Soviet Union. I’ve been in those communist countries while they were communist,” Daltrey explained.

With a dose of sarcasm tacked onto his remark, Daltrey talked about the tragic results of communist regimes, saying, “I’ve seen how ‘wonderful’… really? it was.”

His message to the “woke” is that socialism and communism are far less than “wonderful” for the lives of those who are subject to such systems.

It comes as no great surprise that Daltrey handily plays the role of verbal pugilist. As a younger man he was known to engage a time or two in brawls of the physical kind.

Like his band mates, he grew up in a tough British working class neighborhood. He was once fired from The Who for punching out Keith Moon over the drummer’s substance abuse. However, the band reconciled with their irreplaceable front man rather quickly.

In a later additional “Rocky”-style encounter, Daltrey knocked out his legendary guitarist Pete Townsend during a physical altercation the two had.

On the political front, in the past he was a supporter of the British Labour Party but became disillusioned with the party’s mass immigration policies under the Tony Blair government.

In 2018, he telegraphed his sensitization to socialist policies when he referred to the Labour leader at the time, Jeremy Corbyn, as a “communist.”

He also supported the Brexit movement, writing the following in the UK Mirror:

“Whatever happens our country should never fear the consequences of leaving. We went into the Common Market in 1973. Do you know what was going on before we went in? It was the 1960s. The most exciting time ever – Britain was Swinging. Films, Theatre, Fashion, Art and Music… Britain was the centre of the world. You got that because Britain was doing its own thing. It was independent. Not sure we’ll ever get that again when we’re ruled by bureaucrats in the European Union.”

It takes someone like Daltrey who, along with the courage, has the career clout as a rock icon to express himself in a manner that risks cancellation by the very folks he is criticizing.

As for The Who, after releasing 11 studio albums the group unveiled yet another one in December of 2019, fittingly called “WHO.”

The Church of Woke

skiy9lstr8g83rx5qdlxazqldkahaaf0pdv4htoc_cw

All of us need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are uniquely made, that we are here on this earth for a purpose, and that our lives have transcendent meaning.

If these innate characteristics go unfulfilled, or if life’s trials simply wear us down, our hearts become hardened and our spirits flaccid.

Wittingly or unwittingly, we find ourselves on a quest for the seemingly elusive someone or something that has placed these components deep within us.

We instinctively know that whoever or whatever is the originator of these inner sensibilities is greater than ourselves.

What we are not always cognizant of, though, is the fact that also built into us is the need to bow down to a power that is greater than ourselves.

And bow down we all do.

Like it or not, we all serve somebody. So who do you serve?

Some of us have the peace of always having had the answer to that question. Others have drifted in and out of certainty. And then there are those who don’t think that any of the things described above pertain to them.

But of course they do, as hopefully they will someday be able to recognize in themselves.

At the present time, a newfound spiritual group has assembled together. Members of the group have populated the social media with a creed of sorts, establishing a religion that could aptly be called “The Church of Woke.”

The fledgling church exhibits attributes of religious institutions that have come before it. However, its belief system is antithetical to the time-honored faiths of our country and of the world.

Members of The Church of Woke claim to seek a world in which no inequality exists and everything is paid for without anyone ever having to work. Rather than comparing our nation to other countries, they compare it to the utopia that their religion claims to offer.

The Church of Woke is dead set on disparaging, demeaning, and destroying all things related to traditional religious institutions. It adamantly rejects what it views as archaic absolute standards. Above all else it embraces moral relativism, which has no philosophical leg to stand on. No reasoning allowed, just sheer emotion. According to The Church of Woke, the only way forward is to tear down everything.

Adherents harbor a fierce hatred for America. This is because the notion that our country is the repository of evil has been drilled into their heads. The whole Western World is viewed as having a sinister history, ideology, and political bent. Wrongs are categorized as “systemic” and are therefore incapable of ever being corrected.

The Church of Woke is enlisting new members every day and converting them to the “correct” way of thinking. Services have taken the form of street protests, and prayers, the endlessly repeated worn-out chants of radicals past.

Followers of The Church of Woke consider themselves to be today’s chosen people. No way do they have to follow traditional rules of law. They are completely free to express any degree of hostility toward anyone they wish. They are also allowed to punish anyone who fails to bow to them.

Yes, we all serve somebody. And the reality is, the choice of whom we serve has clearly become a binary one.

‘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.