IMDb > Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 56:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 556 reviews in total 

12 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

It's not meant to be serious, but fun! So enjoy it for what it is!!!

10/10
Author: tefin (tefin@canada.com) from Canada
15 July 2003

First of all, I noticed a lot of people dissing the film and saying how it's plot is thin, the characters aren't well developed, etc... well, that is kinda the point. Charlie's Angels, the tv series, was full of camp, and over-the-top antics and did exploit the use of sexy women. The movie(s) are based on this very notion, meaning that if you go to see the movie, you're going to see some campy-spoof, with some heavy moments, of a campy 70's show.

If you're into a fast and fun movie, filled with lots of action, noise and over-the-top scenes, then Charlie's Angels is for you! It's got a lot of great action, and even though it seems pointless, it's fun! Isn't that the whole point for seeing a movie in the first place - to have fun? I love drama, and other sorts of movies, but you really can't expect it from Charlie's Angels!

The one thing that is at the center of the movies, of course, is the chemistry between Natalie, Alex, and Dylan. Diaz, Liu, and Barrymore have a wonderful chemistry together and they make things fun, yet sincere.

This movie, with the addition of Demi Moore, ROCKED! It was a solid kick ass movie. It's just about fun, enjoyable and uplifting girl power at it's best! So sit back and enjoy it for what it is, and stop worrying and stressing over the plot - cause it's not about plot, it's about campy-fun! :)

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

I think it's an insult to the original!

1/10
Author: Fran from United States
21 October 2003

I saw Charlie's Angels Full Throttle today -- it was an insult to the original! While Diaz, Liu and Barrymore are sexy women, none of them holds a candle to a classic like Farrah Fawcett.

The movie was one situation after another that put them in ridiculous costumes and weird sexual innuendo. Correction: BAD weird sexual innuendo.

And Demi Moore as the angel-turned-bad? Blah! Again, a sexy woman, but substandard acting: her performance was flat and passionless.

As for the fight scenes: the martial arts were HORRIBLE! It was a badly choreographed computer-generated matrix-esque MESS! Incidentally, I never went to see Charlies Angels in the theater because the previews made it look so corny -- and even they didn't do justice to the depths of corniness of this atrocity! The ONLY nifty part of the movie -- the anti-angel solo (Moore) had two golden DesertEagle50s! *droooooooooooooool* Now THOSE were cool!

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Brutal.

1/10
Author: Rooster99 from Paris, France
21 October 2003

Hahaha! Oh my God this movie was so bad it was hilarious! The whole helicopter sequence was pathetic, but it is Charlie's Angels after all. It's not like they were trying to make Gone with the Wind. But CA2 really is pathetic. All the cartoon violence, the idiotic costumes, the non-existent plot, the obviously fake nudity, it is a complete waste of time. It's also not at all entertaining, even though you know it's supposed to be stupid. You just get that "Oh my God is this movie moronic" feeling over and over again. The guy who flips upside down to shoot the Angels from his dirt bike! HAHAHAHAH! Man, that was terrific! And I am pretty sure it was supposed to be cool as opposed to completely stupid, but I could be wrong.

I doubt it's the worst movie of the year. There is a lot of eye candy in this film, it has to be better than Gigli (which I haven't seen). If you can get over the utter stupidity, you might be able to sit through half of it before you have to either get out of the theatre or eject the DVD. At least if you buy the DVD you can take your time getting through the whole thing. It's so bad it's likely going to take 4 or 5 tries. But you could invite the guys over just to make fun of it! At least with the first CA, it was completely hokey the way the Angels beat up entire armies of baddies, but it attempted to maintain some modicum of believability. CA2 is just an out and out cartoon fantasy. Totally uneven, terribly fake action sequences, really just an extended music video with bad jokes, bad acting, and bad action sequences. I loved the part where Drew gets kicked in the teeth 3 times in a row by the big bad baddie and shakes it off. HAHAHAHAHA! Man she's tough! (NOT)

Waste of time. I'll give it a 3 out of 10, one for each Angel just because they are willing to debase themselves with this utter drivel. Now that takes courage!

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 53 people found the following review useful:

Bad

1/10
Author: Enkidu278 from United States
29 October 2003

This movie lacks anything worthwhile. The story is rehash and the cinematics get annoying within the first ten minutes. Constant closeups and slow motion get too aggravating that this movie looses its entertainment value very quickly.

Although whenever one watches a movie, a bit of "suspension of reality" is to be expected. But with this movie, it becomes laughable and lame. I had flashbacks of watching "The Core" with some of the cheesier moments.

Was the above review useful to you?

30 out of 57 people found the following review useful:

Outrageously great romp of fun, action and comedy!

10/10
Author: MadWatch from Canada
1 July 2003

If you haven't read the person's review that stated "For those that 'get it'....", then read that one. That reviewer states some good points.

Commenting that the movie lacks plot, is cliched, is 'over the top' is like complaining that a Shakespeare play is a lousy action movie; Charlie's Angels 2 is *meant* to be an over-the-top, outrageous, spoofing, comedical parody-type action movie. The characters don't just do action, they do "over the top" action. The stunts are not just amazing, they are "over the top". Part of the comedic elements are derived from characters doing *exagerrated* action sequences, thereby spoofing action movies. The movie broke out in a musical number during the High School reunion scene!! The movie is not *meant* to be a serious philosophical analysis of life!

In my opinion, the movie was awesome. It had stunts, action, comedy, great acting (within the parameters of what the movie intended), great dialogue (again, within the parameters of what the movie intended) and moved at an excellent pace. The cameoes were the cherry on the sundae (although I dont know who "Eve" or "Pink" are....).

IF you view the movie in the style it was intended to watch, this is an excellent movie (9.5 out of 10). If you view this movie too seriously (imagine watching Leslie Neilson's Naked Gun movie with the mindset that you are watching a CSI movie), then you will be disappointed.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

It's For Those Who Like The The Art of Fun

8/10
Author: eric262003 from Canada
19 April 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Why are there so many negative reviews about "Charlie's Angel's Full Throttle"? McG proves that you don't need logic when it comes to having a good time and a good laugh. Neither do the screenwriters John August, Cormac and Marianne Wibberley. Sure this trifecta of angels may not have wings on their backs, but they sure can defy the laws of gravity. Taken a few pages off of Ang Lee's "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon", Natalie Cook (Cameron Diaz) Dylan Sanders (Drew Barrymore) and Alex Munday do what they do best, dodge bullets, survive explosions and kick baddies in the booties, but more importantly, stay as a cohesive unit even through wedding bells that almost split them apart.

Sure it may boarder under glorifying ladies as athletic, clever, voluptuous and dangerous and while we guys are looked down as dimwitted, aggressive and foolish, but "Charlie's Angels Full Throttle" takes us on an energetic ride with enough high-flying action that will surely make Issac Newton's theory null and void. No matter if the plot is thinner than Olive Oyl, the quest that the angels embark on is after two rings (beat that Tolkien) that is needed by the villains so they can gain access to computer information that leads to the people enjoy the government's bountiful ways in the witness protection program. The leading villain is Madison Lee (Demi Moore) a former angel now a dark angel who obsessively needs the rings because if you put the two juxtaposed to each other, it will open up the esoteric information needed so she can sell it the leading mafioso from Japan, Italy and Latin America. While our heroes as expected find the rings, completing their initiative is where the fun commences. The costumers make-up artists (Kimberly Greene and Charyl Beasley Blackwell) the angels go incognito throughout their whole mission even to point of looking stunning like they're painting the town red.

The most fun is that former music-director McG ads more thrills than the previous installment in which the angels are on the hunt working for a man who never reveals his identity. Sure it repeats itself from the first part, but hey, who can ever be bored of the James Bond style opening scene as the threesome save a man from intimidating rouges sport six foot rapiers in the Mongolian mountains? And who could forget the dirt-bike scenes with a no-hold- barred stipulation as they zoom across faster than you can say "Ben- Hur". The goo into a cartoon world where they push and even go far as to outrageously shoot their guns while upside down.

When it comes to chemistry, Liu, Barrymore and Diaz truly have it and the alliance that these three have are some of the best ever displayed in cinematic history. The best part is no one tries to usurp the other one even though Diaz can really dance seductively.

Of course the buzz will be focused on Demi Moore, who's been off the screen for a while exhibiting her her sharp skills and a Renaissance figurine body proves she can be a formidable adversary to the angels. With all the energy needed, this big budgeted film is filled with big stars supporting them like Crispin Glover as The Thin Man, Bernie Mac as Det. Bosley, and the John Cleese as Alex's dad who think due to Matt LeBlanc's subliminal wording has suspicion that Alex is biting off more than an angel could chew.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

I'm getting too old for this...

4/10
Author: TheOtherFool from The Netherlands
19 May 2004

I turned 25 last sunday but today was the day I felt really old... You see, I just saw Charlie's Angels, Full Throttle.

Everything about this movie looks good. The cast, the scenery, the action... It's just all so loud, so massive, so long. It feels like you're in a rollercoaster that goes on for over an hour and a half, without ever slowing down. There must be like a hundred songs on the soundtrack, including complete albums by the Prodigy.

The movie completely relies on its three leading ladies, and 2 of them really pull it of. Lucy Liu and Cameron Diaz are perfectly cast in their roles, but somehow you feel Drew Barrymore doesn't fit in it. She doesn't add anything to the trio, if you'd ask me.

As there are other weak points. They replaced the great Bill Murray for some annoying unknown comedian (who keeps on making black & white jokes, how old is that?), plus it's obvious Demi Moore completely forgot her acting lessons in this one. Ouch.

Still, the action is great and would have fitted in the Matrix trilogy, as I give this one a 4/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A Lot Of Fun. I Enjoyed It

7/10
Author: slightlymad22 from United Kingdom
1 February 2015

This movie caught me at just the right time, I'd had a pretty intense day with 8 episodes of "The Walking Dead", when I caught it just starting on TV, and this ridiculous bit of fun was perfect to lighten the mood. Having not seen the first movie, I do not know how it compares, but I do know this was a lot of fun and Demi Moore steals the show.

Plot in A Paragraph: Natalie Cameron Diaz) Dylan (Drew Barrymore) and Alex (Lucy Lui) are three gorgeous, tough-as-nails, investigative agents 'Charlie's Angels' who work for the Charles Townsend Detective Agency - are sent undercover to retrieve two missing titanium wedding rings. That contain information that reveals the new identities of every person in the Witness Protection Program. After several people in the program are found dead, only the Angels can save the day, using their expertise as masters of disguise, and martial arts.

Some of the special effects don't hold up, and if you are looking for something realistic, or believable you are in the wrong place, but the world needs movies that are just a bit of silliness too.

Diaz, Lui and Barrymore are all a lot of fun, and certainly give it their all, Justin Theroux is a good villain (even with a dodgy Irish accent) Cameos by Bruce Willis, Matt LeBlanc, Pink, John Cleese, Luke Wilson, Carrie Fisher, Crispib Glover add to the fun, yet Shia Lebouf is even more annoying that before (How is that possible??) I will add, I'll never be able to hear the "Pink Panther Theme" without visualising Cameron Diaz's ass in a thong.

As for Demi Moore, she remains one of the most talented and beautiful women in movies, and her ladylike sexiness is in rare supply. Any movie becomes promising just by having her name in it's cast.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

What On Earth Did You Expect?

6/10
Author: ferretpossum from United Kingdom
13 July 2014

This is a big, shiny, silly, camp summer blockbuster and I suspect most of the bad reviews are purely because it dares to make fun of itself in a way that Mission: Impossible, Die Hard, X-Men and all those dude- dominated action movies don't.

But really, I have to worry about all those people who hated this on seeing it. Did they not see the first movie? Or perhaps they thought the original TV show was a cerebral example of 1970's TV programming.

The fact is if you liked the 2000 movie, with all the silly in-jokes, cultural references, campy soundtrack and frankly ridiculous stunts then you'll enjoy this one just as much. Maybe more because it also has Demi Moore looking amazing and a Jaclyn Smith cameo.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

!

1/10
Author: MarvelGirl44 from Texas
15 July 2004

BAAAD! Stupid movie. Stupid stunts. They only reason I think they made this movie was too show off three actresses' bodies. It was a horrible movie with stupid mistakes. For example, one moment the guy has no shirt on (again) but he is in full motorcycle gear in the next second or two. Crazy awful stuff. In the first movie, the stunts were pretty fake, but this one is terrible. I just want one of them to die because there are somethings that no way could they all survive after surviving the horrible explosion they were just in right after they kicked a hundred trained assassins' butts (I know I exaggerate). Also, in one part they jump out naked only to have to change into clothes. Why don't they just wear clothes in the first place. So stupid. I must admit that I liked the relationship thing between Natalie & Pete in this one just like in the first one. I just think that this movie was a waste of time and it did not pass the sequel test. It was one of the worst I've seen actually.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 2 of 56:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history