IMDb > Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 55:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 543 reviews in total 

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: Rob Taylor (Rob_Taylor) from London
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

When ego meets!

Author: wu-zi-mu from United Kingdom
1 November 2005

Cameron Diaz: Hey girls remember that movie we did called Charlies angels?

Lucy and drew: Yes of course we had great fun on it and everyone loved it, why?

Cameron: well... let's make a sequel!!!

Drew: yeah sure, the first was well directed, had great music and a wonderful script, so everyone will love this one!!! but how do we make this one as good?

Drew: The script? yeah whatever the script!!!

Lucy: well the movie is gonna have us in it so there's no need for McG to work hard. In fact, he can just mess about with all sorts of stupid action sequences and silly plot outlines!

Cameron: yeah but how does that fit into the script?

Drew: The script, who cares about that it's gonna have us in it so everyone will love it!!!

Lucy: What about cameos?

Cameron: Cameos? come on nobody goes to the movies for Cameos so let's just have any stupid pointless Cameos in this one!

Drew: Or how about in the story my name is revealed to have one been Helen Zaas?

Cameron: OK, but how does that go in the script?

Drew: Who cares about the script everyone will love it!!!

Lucy: Hey, how about we have a new Bosley in this one and have a bit where you see Bill Murray on a background photo?

Cameron: Hmm? how does that fit into the script?

Lucy: what is with you and the script? Who cares about the script? it's got us in it so let's find a good actor for Bosley!


Cameron: OK I'll phone up and ask

( Ring Ring, Ring Ring)

Bernie: Hello?

Cameron: Hi this is Cameron Diaz, I was wondering if you would like to play Bosley in Charlies angels 2?

Bernie: OK sure, what's it about?

Cameron: Who cares, it's got us in it so everyone will love it!

Bernie: OK

Lucy: What did he say?

Cameron: He said yes

Drew: OK let's go do it then!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: tefin ( 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!

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:


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:


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?

29 out of 55 people found the following review useful:

Outrageously great romp of fun, action and comedy!

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:

Even better than the original and the best live-action film of the last decade

Author: Stompgal_87 from United Kingdom
11 April 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Having already enjoyed the breathtaking original, I wanted to see this sequel as soon as it was publicised. I saw this at the cinema with a family aide (a person who takes disabled and autistic people on 1:1 outings to give their families a break) and when she asked me what I'd thought of it when it finished, I found it better than the first. Not only was it as funny, silly and action-packed as the original but also I got to learn more about some of the characters through their back stories, particularly Dylan and the Thin Man, who I thought had died in an explosion in the original.

While a reviewer for the Radio Times gave this film one star and said it had no plot, I figured that there is a main plot; that involving the Angels trying to retrieve two titanium rings from two members of the Witness Protection Agency. The plot was as gripping and engaging as that of the original. While the first half of this one is the funniest, the second half has the most action-filled scenes with as much hard work put in the stunts as the original and a touch of heartache when Dylan temporarily leaves the Angels and heads for Mexico where she receives guidance from Kelly Garrett, one of the Angels from the original mid 1970s - early 1980s television series. Throughout the film, I also enjoyed spotting references to the previous film such as Natalie saying she loved tickets and later pulling down her Spider-Man pants in the boys' toilets at Pete's school reunion, Jason mentioning his initial thought of Alex being a bikini waxer and the photograph of the Angels on the beach, first seen when Dylan temporarily leaves the agency. I also liked some of the plot twists, especially Pete looking as if he is going to propose to Natalie but instead announces he bought them both a puppy named Spike (as shown on the dog tag in the box). The soundtrack here is a bit better than that in the first. While the incidental music was composed in a similar manner to that in the original, there were four recognisable instrumental pieces (the piece of classical music played during Alex's brief chess scene, the 'Pulp Fiction' theme, The Lonely Goatherd' from 'The Sound of Music' during the convent scene and the Pink Panther music played during the raunchy dance scene at the Treasure Chest) and a great mix of songs such as MC Hamner's 'U Can't Touch This,' Pink's 'Feel Good Time (this film's main song),' Bon Jovi's 'Livin' On A Prayer,' the Prodigy's 'Breathe' and 'Firestarter (which cleverly accompanied the flame-throwing scene and may have been an allusion to one of Drew Barrymore's childhood films) and 'A Girl Like You' by Edwyn Collins.' The Angels were as excellent as in the original with Natalie being funnier than she was in the original, Jason and Pete made welcoming returns while the new Bosley, played comically by the late Bernie Mac, Dylan's old flame Seamus O'Grady and fallen Angel Madison Lee were worthy new characters. There were also some decent cameos from Pink, the Olsen Twins and Jaclyn Smith.

Overall this superb girlie action comedy was well worth the watch, much better than the original and undoubtedly the best live-action film to come out in the last decade. 10/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

I'm getting too old for this...

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?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:


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 55:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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