It’s a reasonable comparison in that both films were made for the 1990s. But it’s also an unfair comparison, in that ‘Charlie’s Angels’ was a big success and the only film in its franchise that wasn’t about superheroes. It did well on home video, and it earned a very good filmography, even after being a three part TV series. 
Here is an excerpt from Banks' comments: A "bad trailer" is a film that doesn't look nearly as good as it could, only the trailer tells you so. [I wouldn't even know where to begin with my review of 'Spider-Man 2' either. It did okay initially, but then was just a very poor film. I don't know what people expected, or got from it. Both 'Spider-Man' and 'Charlie's Angels' were great, and I'll say that the Spider-Man film even earned better than the other two did. The difference at the top was that the first Spider-Man has made a career out of being a movie about being a kid, that was a different part of this universe and had a different genre, and it was a superhero film. There was a certain type of audience there and that allowed them to like the hero, and that type of audience is not what the second film is. The same type of audience were not going to come back for a second film based on a film that didn't know how to be a film about a superhero at all. It is difficult to make a film that is both about a superhero and about a kid, and it comes as a surprise to the audience. The second film was just as weak as the first one, for no other reason than the lack of experience on the first film's behalf. 
In other words, it’s a film with two strong parts, and both of those parts didn’t come along very often. The first movie is an adventure movie that I was willing to get invested in, the second is a superhero movie for the “newbie” audiences. But, Banks may not actually hold that view about this film, because she wrote and directed the second film . Indeed, the second film is, as I’ve said earlier, not a bad film, by any measure, even if it’s a very bad trailer .
What it does have, though, is a movie called “Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle,” a movie that was made for the 1990s. While it has not been well received by the critics, some of whom feel it’s not a realistic representation of the actual ‘90s of the 90’s, it is well thought out story, and that’s why it earned a very good filmography. And because Banks wasn’t involved with the project in any way, she can’t have been disappointed by it, or even disappointed at the success of the movie as a whole. Of course she couldn’t give a shit about it being good, she could only give a shit about it being what people expected.
“Charlie’s Angels (full throttle)” was very controversial, and the critics didn’t like it from the very beginning. In fact, the last negative review of the film, by the editor at Newsweek, had this to say (I’m paraphrasing from his review):
“There’s good here, but not what a lot of thought deserved. There are some genuine heart-wrenching moments, but the film is not a film that will turn children into martial artists, nor a film that will inspire us to take our clothes off or dance all around with our underwear on. Instead, it’s a film that has a heavy dose of self-indulgent comedy, which really isn’t surprising, given that Sam Mendes has no intention of trying to elevate the film further than it already is.” 
This is, of course, a perfect example of someone who doesn’t want to be part of a studio project, but is interested in watching the movie themselves. Banks said it more accurately: “The film, in some ways, doesn’t want to be in a studio.” She was right. But Banks was not involved in the decision-making process of directing or producing Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, and so she can’t have been upset with this film. It didn’t have to be a bad film. It just needed to be a really good film, and it did that, the same way that the Peter Parker adaptation “Cars” was very good, and the “Spider-Man” adaptation is very good so far. Because the people at Columbia didn’t want to make that movie, the people at Fox found a way to make it.
There is a saying that the best movies are the ones you don’t make.