Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003) User Reviews

What On Earth Did You Expect?

[ferretpossum · 6/10 · 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.

Lighten up, peeps. It's a comedy.

[rooprect · 6/10 · 17 December 2010]

This movie is one half Mission Impossible and one half Airplane. The combination of which not only requires 'suspension of disbelief', but I'd say you need to string your disbelief up by the roof beams and flog it mercilessly.

If I haven't been clear enough, let me put it plainly: do not, I repeat, do not take this movie seriously in any way, shape or form.

That much should be obvious in the first 2 minutes when we see the angels walk into a Mongolian prison camp and start riding a mechanical bull to the tune of "Wild Thang" while kicking the asses of hundreds of 300-lb men. I won't tell you what happens in the next 2 minutes, but it makes the first 2 minutes look like a nature documentary.

I saw this movie last night and I'm still not sure what the plot is. But it was thoroughly entertaining (especially for a hetero guy who enjoys gratuitous booty shots). Some gags were pretty funny, while others were so lame you have to laugh anyway. But really the comedy is the fact that everything is so unbelievably unbelievable.

Glancing at some of the reviews here, I see that the tongue-in-cheek comedy was lost on a lot of people, and instead of having a good time they probably ended up hurling things at their TV screen. I'm just here to warn you, do not fall into that trap. Realize that it's a comedy. It panders to the lowest brain cell in your skull. And it delivers a wild ride.

P.S. The soundtrack absolutely kicks butt. J Geils Band, Bon Jovi, Loverboy, David Bowie, Journey... if you were alive & remotely cool in the 80s, you'll really dig it.

If you are looking for substance, look elsewhere...

[bowieandelfmanfan13 · 6/10 · 30 September 2005]

As the summary says. This movie is fairly poor in quality. The story is very confusing, and most of the plot points make no sense. Basically the only point to this movie is to see the angels in revealing outfits, which I find degrading. Also, the stunts weren't very impressive, and the script was dull and had no laughs.

The only reasons I gave it such a high score (and that I watched it) are that the David Bowie song/reference and Crispin Glover's brilliant performance. It's a shame that his appearance is mostly a cameo, and that he does not appear constantly throughout the film. Crispin is the only reason I kind of liked this movie.

If you're a Crispin fan, look elsewhere!

Quite fun but the total lack of substance is a real problem

[bob the moo · 6 July 2003]

The Angels rescue Marshal Ray Carter from Mongolia but leave without what they presume to be his wedding ring. Later they find out that the ring is one of a coded pair that, once combined, unlocks the data for the location of the entire witness protection programme. The other ring has also been taken from it's holder and the holder murdered. The Angels are charged to bring back the rings but along the way they encounter secrets from the past including a violent old flame from Dylan's youth seeking revenge and an ex-Angel striking out on her own.

It was with a heavy (but open) heart that I went to see this film. I had enjoyed the first film (for all it's flaws) but I didn't really want to see a film that just went over the same ground. Happily CA2 didn't just make the same mistakes as the first film did – it actually went beyond them! One problem with the first film was that the plot had too many scenes that just seemed to happen without reason or consequence (the race cars scene for one). However here the majority of the scenes seem to exist outside the plot. It's like they knew that they wanted to repeat the essence of some scenes from the first film and, if they couldn't fit them into the plot, then they just dropped them in anyway. Scenes that were enjoyable in the first film were just not quite as funny the second time round.

The plot is so disjointed that it really does feel very episodic and I struggled sometimes to see the narrative flow – mainly because for large sections of the film there wasn't one. Characters are dropped in for little reason, scenes occur that are wedged into the plot simply because someone had the idea in isolation and got it added to the film etc. However I won't waste time debating this here as I think many agree that this film was never meant to provide substance. Which leaves us with style. McG is aptly named as he is responsible for a mass produced product that seems to lack invention or spark of it's own. It was possible to look at the first film as a tongue in cheek satire of blockbusters – but to do the same thing all over again made me realise that he wasn't satirising the cult of excess – he is actually part of it and worse, he hasn't got ideas of his own.

Hence we have scenes that are more like music videos. The soundtrack pretty much covers the whole film, lest we should have a quiet moment to think! Also the action scenes are sub-par Matrix rips – once he may have gotten away with it but the joke has worn thin. The action is just silly and makes it very hard to get excited or involved. The opening sequence is just laughable and sets the tone – it's a shame as some of the fights are well choreographed and could have been good if they hadn't been pushed to being OTT. The constant use of slow motion and linger shots of the girls' asses or blowing hair also gets quite tiresome in the end. The film has quite a few good references to other movies (eg Cape Fear & Sound Of Music) however these only work if they exist as scenes themselves and not just as references. To show you what I mean, `The Simpsons' spoofed Cape Fear, but the episode stood in it's own right. In CA2 some references seem only to exist as references and not part of the film. The constant use of in-jokes and styles from other films stopped feeling like clever fleeting references and started to feel like McG just plundering for things to fill his film – I mean, doesn't even the concept of a quest for a ring sound familiar to anyone, never mind the Matrix effects?!

The cast is amazing and it is to McG's further shame that he makes poor use of the majority of them. The lead trio are good but (as the outakes show) seemed to have had more fun making it than I had watching it. Liu comes out the best for my money as she is the most convincing fighter and is the sexiest! Moore is alright in the support but she is poorly used – she really does have a very small role, most of which is to show off her new body. Mac is a major let down – from the trailer he had looked funny but the truth is that he gives a poor minstrel performance at best. He has a few funny lines but he is not as funny as I've seen him – his failure makes the loss of Bill Murray feel 100 times greater. Theroux is physically impressive but has a terrible accent that wonders from Northern Irish to Southern Irish to some sort of flat Scots at times. The support cast is deep and mostly wasted - Bruce Willis has about 3 words and 1 minute of screen time, Fisher, Patrick, Eve, LeBlanc, Wilson, The Olsen's, Smith, Forster and Pink (to name a handful) all have very little to actually do and it just turns their scenes into a game of `oh look it's …'. The biggest waste is Cleese who is given nothing to do but do bug eyes over cheap innuendo and whisper `ferret'.

Overall I'm aware that to make these points is a waste of my time as many fans of this film will acknowledge them and say `so what?'. Hell – I half enjoyed the film as a piece of fluff for a Sunday afternoon with mindless action and sexy ladies – but it's hard for that to totally suffice and, try as I might, I couldn't help but feel like I wanted something more from it.

Dollar for dollar, the worst movie ever made.

[brawny64 · 1/10 · 11 July 2004]

$120,000,000 down the drain.

It's an action movie that's not exciting, a parody that's not funny, and an adventure that's not adventurous. It is a mystery - a mystery that anyone would like it. It even lack sex appeal.

Maybe McG needs to work on TV with a much smaller budget and less famous actors. He clearly can't get anything from the "angels" who seem more interested in laughing than acting. This movie cements their reputations (and Demi Moore's also) as truly bad actors. I don't feel bad for any of them.

I don't know about Bernie Mac. Is he that bad, or does he just get horrible roles? The best actors in the first film were Bill Murray and Tom Green. In the second? John Cleese and Matt LeBlanc. This is not what you want.

There are several random cameos throughout, not unlike the random plot itself. Much of the movie is a string of T&A, music, pyrotechnics and CG action. It truly is one extremely long music video - like Thriller would look like if created by two monkeys and an ATM machine.

I thought the $92 million "original" was bad, but the sequel managed to be about $28 million worse. Maybe someday, someone will make a film about how McG got $200 million to make two movies after directing a couple of popular music videos.

It could be worse, though - "Charlie's Angels 3: One Last Job"

A disappointing film lacking the wit and charm of its predecessor.

[bradsherman · 1/10 · 21 February 2004]

I watched this film at the recommendation of my 13 year-old daughter. I like the original film version of a few years ago but Full Throttle lacks the wit and charm of its predecessor. It therefore had to rely on action and special effects which I found boring (and I like action films). The dialogue was weak and, in particular, the special effects were disappointing for this day and age. There was too much obvious work in front of the blue screen and the situations were so preposterous that I eventually gave up on the film after enduring too much of a particularly ridiculous chase. I've only ever walked out on two other films in over 40 years. There is much better entertainment available.

Strong contender for worst movie ever made

[Dimme · 1/10 · 8 April 2004]

Director McG sure know how to shoot a slick scene. He just doesn't understand why. This movie (and I'm using the term loosely) is entertainment for and by people with attention deficit syndrome.

Directed as a never ending pop video it's the movie substitute for lying on the couch watching MTV.

The pop music drones in the background every second of the movie as gorgeous babes kick ass i slow motion. It's Bay Watch with a budget.

Plot, development, build-up and dialog are elements usually found in most movies. They are as alien to this flick as it is devoid of entertainment value. Incoherent, badly edited action sequences tied together with awkward one-liners as substitute for dialog constitutes what can be called the "structure" of this movie. That is, to the extent this movie has any structure. It is a celebration of the end of cinema.

Not stylish but vulgar. Not entertaining but embarrassing. Not fun but sad.

Star studded as any action flick I've ever seen, it was fascinating for me to watch the extent and speed that this move wastes and disposes talent. Anybody who appears on screen in this stinker should be ashamed of themselves. Kudos to the producers for coating pure sh**e with enough sugar so that mindless teenagers will suck it down without noticing it's real taste.

I weep for this movie.

Good Entertainment Movie

[TaylorYee94 · 7/10 · 22 July 2020]

Wow, the lowest rating movie I've ever watched. I do not understand though. Lots of actions, humors, and chemistry among three angels. Two hours pass fast, and audience enjoys three main actresses' charm

Compared to the first movie, the story is messier, but it's more flavorful in actions, humors, and events. I loved the cast including new ones such as Demi Moore and Shia Labeouf.

Pretty Horrendous!

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 11 May 2009]

The first film was flawed, but that was a lot more enjoyable than this. The script was terrible, and what was worse, the actors couldn't do anything with it. Plus, Bill Murray is a noble absentee, and he was what made the first movie. The stunts, where well executed in the first movie, were rather tedious to put it kindly. The plot was slow, predictable and uninteresting. I don't think any of the film was funny at all. I really admire Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu, and they are one of two reasons why I am not giving this a 1. Another was the brief appearance of Demi Moore as the seductive villainess Maddison Lee. All in all, I thought the film was awful, too many wardrobe changes, faults in the script, tedious stunts, and unconvincing villains. All in all, a film that makes the first movie look like a masterpiece, which of course it isn't. 2/10 for the girls and Demi Moore(who deserved much better than this). Bethany Cox

This Is Funny As It Should Be. It's A Parody People!

[jsmith98-1 · 7/10 · 12 February 2022]

I see a lot of people giving this star studded movie 2 and 3 star ratings for it being "Ridiculous" or "Corny", but that's exactly what I expected it to be. None of the movies in this trilogy are suppose to be taken seriously. It's just chocked full of unbelievable antics and I doubt that it was considered anything but a comical joke by the producers and directors. This is suppose to be completely unbelievable and it's a parody of the 70's TV series that it takes it's namesake from.

If you can find some of the original shows from the television series, you will be surprised at how ridiculous they appear now. How this show stayed on from 1976 until 1981, with all the behind the scenes drama between the actresses, is beyond me. It's even more unbelievable than this movie or the other two.

There are some extremely interesting cameo appearances by several people, both actors and actresses, musicians, and comedian's. It's worth a watch to see a movie with John Cleese and Janet Du'bois , Willona from the epic 1970"s iconic TV show "Good Times" in the same film. Their are several people from the motorcycle world and the musician Pink.

This to me, is suppose to be exactly what it is, a parody of a TV show that was infamous for the behind the scenes drama that these movies are based on. I knew that these movies where going to be more about comedy and unbelievable stunts that no one could pull off in real life. It's not suppose to be serious. I think many of the low reviews know this , but they apparently have a different since of humor than my husband and I have when it comes to comedy/action films. I personally like this film better than the second installment of this trilogy. Rest In Peace , Bernie Mac. Your comedy, which would be condemned in 2022, was absolutely hilarious.

Bad - Worse - CA2

[ateisti · 1/10 · 25 September 2003]

There are good movies, bad movies, and very bad movies. And then there's Charlie's Angels 2. After 5 minutes of watching this movie I realized what I had gotten myself into. Unfortunately, I am one of those people who have to watch a movie they've started to the end, no matter how much it sucks. And this movie is the king amongst vacuum cleaners.

It's full of incredibly unconvincing stunts, bad jokes and mediocre acting. Add a banal plot, and you've got yourself by far the worst movie of 2003. Recommended for masochists only.

Don't understand the bad reviews...

[clotildevernyidrac · 8/10 · 15 February 2019]

I don't know if it's because I didn't watch the TV Show, but I really don't understand why those 2 movies are discredited this much. Yes it's not realistic (at all), the stories are very exaggerated, and not very perfectionists, but I don't watch those movies for realism, I watch them to spend a good time, to clear my head, because I love the actors, and everything is so light! It does not sell more than what it is, and for that I really enjoy watching the 2 movies whenever I am in a bad mood!

Fantastic, live-action cartoon fun!

[CMUltra · 7/10 · 12 July 2003]

We caught a double at the matinee today and perhaps I found CA:FT so much fun due to the comparison of the pretty lousy League of Extraordinary Gentlemen we had just seen. But, fun it was!

I went in hoping for more of the satirical flair that made the first one enjoyable. CA:FT delivered. This is the way movies about campy TV shows *should* be made. An over-the-top parody that keeps you gasping and laughing the entire time.

If you want "realistic" action, this movie is NOT it. This is a live-action cartoon, beautifully shot in a kinetic MTV style. Cameos are numerous ("Is that Bruce Willis?" "Hey, Pink!") and watch for plenty of little homages to various campy TV series of the same genre.

Most of all, sit back and enjoy! The three angels are as goofy as ever with their satire-sincerity and "fierce" poses. They each have a distinct personality trait which helps all the little subplots keep moving along.

The supporting cast was fine too. Bernie Mac's Bosley was an improvement over the first. Lots of laughs! Demi's Madison character was okay, but I kept getting the impression she was trying too hard. This is a parody and Madison should have been a hammed-up villainess, but Moore remained too seriously focused. This caused the character to seem out of step with the rest of the movie. John Cleese was fine too. His part was small and generally consisted of the tired joke of miscommunication about his daughter's (Liu) occupation.

If you enjoyed the first Charlies Angels, see this! If you like goofy, all-out action fun, see this! If you want drama, skip this.

7 out of 10.

An insult to the TV series

[Toxic_Sausage · 1/10 · 2 May 2004]

This is a nice example of the garbage that comes out of Hollywood. I remember the the TV show from the 70's and to see it become an MTV video for the big screen is a shame. This almost as bad as the hacking of "Starsky & Hutch," another great series.

To still insist they fight as if the girls were in "The Matrix" is old and boring. That whole scene in the beginning when they drove off the dam into a helicopter was pathetic. There is no integrity in this film because it is not believable at any point...

Don't waste your time...

2 out of 10

Is This What the Movies Have Come To?

[Buddy-51 · 19 October 2003]

Attacking `Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle' is a bit like shooting secret agents in a barrel; there's just not a lot of sport in it because it's way too easy to do.

Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore return as the giggly, jiggly trio who, we're supposed to believe, are amazing, expert crime fighters. About the only way this material stands even a chance of succeeding is if the filmmakers treat it like some over-the-top, live action cartoon (or is it video game?) - which is pretty much what they've done. Unfortunately, it turns out to be a cartoon almost totally devoid of wit, creativity and charm. The plot mainly consists of finding ways to get the girls into campy costumes and situations. Thus we have the angels as nuns, the angels as welders, the angels as exotic dancers. The problem is that this cutesiness wears awfully thin after awhile, especially since that is pretty much all the screenplay manages to come up with in the way of entertainment.

The stunt sequences – which consist mainly of tedious slow-motion shots of the girls flipping through the air, karate-chopping the bad guys and dodging bullets - are so excessive in nature that we begin to understand what a detrimental effect `The Matrix' (however inadvertently) has had on filmmaking in the past few years. When any physical action - no matter how contrary to the laws of physics and gravity - is possible, how are we supposed to care what happens to the people involved? If no one seems to be in any real danger, all possible suspense is eliminated and we are left admiring the work of the special effects team and very little else. The `Charlie's Angels' films are not alone in this regard, but they do serve as handy warning signs of the potentially debilitating effect of this trend on the future of action movies.

About halfway through the film, Jaclyn Smith, one of the angels from the original TV series, shows up to dispense some veteran advice to one of our intrepid little cherubs. Though long past her prime, Smith is so goddess-y beautiful in her brief moments on screen that, not only does she outclass all three of the leading players, but she makes us, heaven forbid, even feel a twinge of nostalgia – however faint - for the original series. Frankly, I didn't think that was possible. Credit the makers of this fiasco for achieving at least that much with their film.

Bad

[Enkidu278 · 1/10 · 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.

McG couldn't even direct traffic to save his life.

[ichabod81 · 2/10 · 8 April 2005]

Wow. This piece of junk hits about a 9.5 on the s**t-o-meter. The first had a few good things going for it, namely Bill Murray and Sam Rockwell. Neither of which it cashed in on. All of this is largely thanks to McG, aka the "director".

It would be one thing, if Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle would take itself seriously, but since the "original" didn't do that, why should they bother this time around either. Except now they go so over the top with the ridiculous action and dry, stupid humor that the audience is left with two obvious choices: to walk out or take two in the chest and one in the head.

Avoid at all cost and pray there won't be a third of these turds.

* / *****

Brutal.

[Rooster99 · 1/10 · 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!

A Lot Of Fun. I Enjoyed It

[slightlymad22 · 7/10 · 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.

An insult to anyone with an IQ over 80: pure Hollywood trash

[Private Ryan-2 · 1/10 · 3 November 2003]

While one is expected to suspend your disbelief when watching any movie, this atrocity named "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" is just beyond ridiculous. Easily, this is one of the worst blockbusters ever made, and one of the most unbearable pieces of garbage released by a major Hollywood studio.

It's understandable that the core audience for this movie is almost exclusively teenagers, but the flick lowers every standard to such low levels that it becomes a joke. The producers may keep justifying this mess with the good old "it's just camp," or "it's just fun." Whatever; it doesn't fly. The movie is an insult to anyone with an IQ over 80. Namely:

• The Charlie's Angels can fly through the air, jump away from explosions every 10 minutes, and defy gravity on a constant basis for no reason at all. It's only funny the first twelve times...

• The paper-thin plot is laughable, replaced with an overwhelming amount of "Matrix-like" CGI effects displaying the girls dodging bullets in the air in slow motion. This is done so many times during the movie that it makes you hope nobody uses this effect ever again in a movie. Ever!

• Characters, all of the sudden, develop the ability to fly (Demi Moore).

• Characters, all of the sudden and without much explanation, go from being "bad: to being "good" (Thin Man), and from being "good" to being "bad" (Demi Moore, Robert Patrick).

• The jokes are lame, unfunny, and worst of all, rehashed straight off the first movie.

• John Cleese should fire his agent for getting him into this mess.

• Bernie Mac. Why, oh why?

• Did I mention the girls constantly fly away from explosions, and defy any law of physics with no apparent explanation (mind you, these Angels do not live inside the Matrix.)

With the overblown production budget of this horrendous flick, you could produce five or six half-decent movies. This movie is a disgrace, another example of the mindless trash that Hollywood keeps popping out. Avoid at all costs.

I give it a 1/10 because there's no "0" option in the rating.

Not as Good as the First but Still Fun

[MrsOrange · 7/10 · 7 November 2019]

I really love the first Charlies Angels movie but this one never really did it for me. Maybe it's because Bill Murray isn't in it but it just doesn't feel as fun as the first. Mind you, I'd take a million of these over any more Marvel movies. It's got great unforced Girl Power vibes and the leads all seem to be having so much fun in these roles. The stunts are pretty cool too!

Nonsense, unreal and way too fake !!!

[keVin-19 · 1/10 · 14 June 2004]

This movie is simply too fake !!! Action sequences are way over the top... totally rubbish... man...this movie is really challenging my common sense... it's not Spiderman movie, it's not Terminator movie... c'mon... make it more human !!!

Yucks... did not finish watching the movie... maybe some of you might like the movie...i don't know...it just doesn't suit my taste... This will be one of the few movies i'm ever going to vote (awful)... so the rating is ...

1 out of possible 10. Since i can't give 0.

Yup... it is that bad...

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

[eric262003 · 8/10 · 19 April 2016]

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.

So far the third best sequel I've seen this summer

[DunnDeeDaGreat · 6/10 · 28 June 2003]

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is the crowd pleasing, mindless summer fun we go to the movies for in the summer time. These movies aren't meant to win awards or be realsitic, they are more about having fun and boy did Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle entertain me for two hours. The angels Diaz, Barrymore and Liu all come back to their roles eager and welcome and all three are just as much fun to watch as they were in thr first one. The chemistry between the three is some of the strongest I've ever seen for a trio of women since The Heroic Trio in an action film involing women. Bernie Mac as Bosley steals every scene he's in and it looks like he had tons of fun working on the movie also. I hope they bring him back for the thrid movie. McG is a good action director and sure sometimes the action sequences are unbeliveable but to me it was all part of the fun. Demi Moore was good in her villian role even though she ahd limtied screen time and the always good Crispin Glover is down right creepy as The Thin Man. With plenty of pop culture refences, eye candy and one liners if you want some mindless summer entertainment then this is the movie for you. I give it *** stars.

Will the last person out please slap McG.....HARD!

[Rob_Taylor · 2/10 · 18 April 2004]

What can one say about this movie? Words like peurile, pointless, ridiculous, inane and so on spring immediately to mind. One reviewer commented that it was entertainment for sufferers of Attention Deficit Disorder, and I can't argue with that. If anything, that's being kind. It's more like entertainment for three year olds. At least, the last time I saw such utterly ridiculous action scenes was in a Roadrunner cartoon when I was a kid. From the opening "truck containing helicopter falls off dam..." scene it just goes downhill all the way.

Now, when I was younger, I thought it would be cool if films had more music in them, some nice rock or even pop tunes here and there. But you can take things too far, and McZero has done exactly that here. Not just pop songs populate the film, but songs who's clever lyrics enhance the scene they're being played over.......not! You'll be cringing in embarrassment by the third or fourth song, trust me.

The best thing about the film was the guy playing Bosley, whom I hated at the start, but grew to like in direct proportion to my growing contempt at the rest of the film. He alone kept me watching to the end.

The angels were OK-ish, but the guy playing the "Irish" baddie needs some serious voice coaching. His accent was the worst Irish attempt I've seen since Burt Reynolds in Universal Soldier 3 (or was it 4?). Anyhow, he has all the menace of Scooby-Doo on Valium and overacts atrociously. There's one scene (I'll call it the Terminator 2 scene) where he looks off meaningfully to one side at the end of the scene. I can't really describe it, you have to see it. Suffice to say I could hardly breathe I was laughing so much.

And Demi Moore.....Well, let's just say that all the King's plastic surgeons and all the King's beauty therapists can't hide the fact that she is getting old. Nor can dating kids half her age or less, but we won't go there. If this is her comeback I doubt we'll be seeing much of her in the future.

All that McZero has done here is produce an endless music video with ludicrous action sequences interspersed throughout. That's it. There's bugger all plot, bugger all acting and pointless cameos from actors who really should know better.

Things I learnt from this film, contrary to accepted physics and common sense:

If you fall off a dam, there's enough time whilst you're falling to climb inside a helicopter, cold start it, then fly it to safety before being smashed to pieces.

Also, never have an accident on an off-road motorbike, as they automatically explode on impact.

"Irish" bad guys are fire-resistant.

A Kevlar vest will stop a .50 calibre handgun round at ten feet.

Desert Eagle's (the above mentioned handgun) have so little recoil and are so easy to handle that even an aging has-been actress can use one in each hand.

I could go on, but you've probably got the idea by now that I was far from impressed with this film. So let's just say that, if you're three years old this movie rocks! Otherwise it's a concrete block on it's way down to the bottom of the Ocean of Movie Obscurity. And deservedly so.

NOT recommended.