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 3 of 55: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 548 reviews in total 

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?

8 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Pretty Women in Skimpy clothes

Author: Thomas Sandlin ( from Louisville, KY USA
18 June 2004

To me this was a shameless display of female flesh. I know most

men will say what's wrong with that! But when I watch a Movie I

want to be entertained by the story and the plot as well as the

scenery. To me this was a way for Demi Moore to show off her

new body. It was like Charlie's Angels meets the Matrix it was

overdone and unbelievable. The story itself was flimsy at best. I

enjoy looking at beautiful women as much as the next guy but at

least let it be in an entertaining way. I mean it is as if the said let's

see how many times can we use our new special effects technology and get away with it. Overall I would call it beautiful

women in tight skimpy clothes with Charlie's Angels as a subplot.I

certainly hope this is the last of Charlie's Angels. I Also hope that

the three ladies will take some much needed acting classes.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Its defenders define it as "spoof", but it's much closer to "spoor".

Author: ShadowDragyn from United States
2 August 2004

I am a fan of mindless action and horror movies. I have titles in my collection that most people groan at when browsing my shelves. I think it's fair to say that I have a rather large appreciation for movies whose sole purpose is to provide a "plot" only as a vehicle to present action. Because of this, I have defended numerous films to my friends over the years which they are determined to make me hate.

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is not one of them.

Over-the-top action is terrific when done right, and just plain bad when done wrong. This movie is a classic example of how not to do it. I'm all for checking my brain at the door and just having a good time, but when a movie is totally devoid of anything resembling a brain, when it's just flat *stupid*, I have to cry uncle.

This movie, like the recently unleashed-on-an-unsuspecting-public debacle that is Catwoman, has some people campaigning for it because it presents women in a strong, hero-type role. But what good does it do to take two steps forward and three back? Sure, these girls kick ass (in the most ridiculous of ways, but that's neither here nor there), but they also reduce themselves to sex objects every chance they get. It's nothing but exploitation without the fleshy payoff. Is that the sort of role model that feminists really want to see? Films like The Long Kiss Goodnight present a much more believable female action figure without reverting her every 5 minutes to a walking Viagra advertisement.

Luckily I caught it on cable. If I'd paid money for this, even as a rental, I'd likely have wasted even more of my life trying to get my stolen money back in small claims court. Maybe theaters should be able to get refunds for stuff like this. Perhaps, were that the case, Hollywood might think twice about damaging our psyches every summer.

2/10 just because the four female stars are so damn easy on the eyes.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Fun escapist nonsense with hot babes

Author: jokerswild1
24 April 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

For the longest time I had remembered this movie being a big step down from the first movie. But after just watching it again, I'd say they're more or less equal.

Surprisingly, this one actually has more of a plot than the first movie. It isn't exactly complex, but there is more interaction between the characters and a few examples of setup and payoff. Some of the jokes are pretty bad, particularly the ones centering around Dylan's former name, "Helen Zaas". Bill Murray is definitely missed, and the villains this time around aren't as good as Sam Rockwell was.

Both movies are silly, but they're self aware. The filmmakers knew what they were doing with these movies, just wanting to make popcorn entertainment consisting of action sequences and attractive women. And for what these movies are, they aren't bad.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Dangerous times can leave angels with dirty faces.

Author: tyler-and-jack from Edinburgh.
18 September 2010

McG gets his ass back in the director's chair, and the leading ladies all join him, for this sequel to the entertaining but daft Charlie's Angels movie.

There are very few changes here. Diaz, Barrymore and Liu once again play our crimefighting females and they're still given tasks by the voice of Charlie. Bosley has morphed from Bill Murray to Bernie Mac but, otherwise, it's business as usual.

From the very opening moments, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle sets out it's stall and says to the viewer "this is what you're getting so you can come along for the ride or switch off/walk out right now". And, let's face it, those who saw the first movie and returned for the sequel already knew what they were getting into even if this film ramps up everything and turns the already-flimsy material into nothing more than a loosely connected series of music videos.

Once again, everyone on screen appears to be having a lot of fun. The ladies and Bernie Mac get most of the screen time (as is only fair) but Matt LeBlanc, Luke Wilson and Crispin Glover return and show that they're game to go along with things. Then we have Demi Moore's much heralded appearance. Pink makes a cameo appearance and Justin Theroux provides us with one of the very worst "Oirish" accents ever put on screen.

Shia LaBeouf has a small role, as does John Cleese and eagle-eyed Jackass fans may be pleased to see Chris Pontius in the mix as well. There are also small moments for Robert Patrick, Robert Forster and Bruce Willis. Eric Bogosian appears for seconds and even acts as diverse as Eve and the Olsen twins get shoehorned in here.

It may not be as self-indulgent and vomit-inducing as, for example, The Cannonball Run II but it certainly has that feeling that everyone just had so much fun that they wanted to see what they could get away with and who else they could invite along for the ride. And you have to either just laugh or cry when a movie of this sort references the fantastic Cape Fear. I laughed, I enjoyed myself while also loathing myself at the same time and I couldn't help but approve of McG's blatant lack of shame.

Oh, and there's another great selection of songs here (which many may find unsurprising, considering the MTV nature of the scenes) to accompany the far-fetched antics of the angels.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

I thought James Bond was unrealistic!

Author: Glitter_dragonfly from Dorset, UK
11 July 2003

Well i have literally just got back from watching this movie and while i wouldnt say it was awful, i wouldnt put it up there with Lord of the Rings or any other great films!

The stunts are mind blowing and its worth watching just for that! Though you cant help but think what did 'Charlie' beef the angels up with to be able to do all of those stunts :o)

The script is corny and predictable! Nuff said.

The ending, well i wont give it away but it does suddenly become very scrambled and all over the place. I personally got lost in the last 10/15 minutes and couldnt understand what had actually happened or why it happened, script again i guess.

it is a sexist film, though you cant help but drool over the outfits (well as a girl I couldnt help, lol) but you do think were some of them really needed!!!

John Cleese is appearence was great! and I think Pink was brilliant in her tiny little guest role as the Coal Bowl Starter! Though there are a couple of twins in the film i really could of done without seeing!!!

Overall, if u need to chill out go watch this just dont try and make any sense of it!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A big fan of the first, bitterly disappointed by the second.

Author: ada-p from Australia
7 July 2003

First I'd like to say that I LOVED the first Angels. I saw it as often as some nuts saw 'Titanic' so you know I speak as a person that loves the direction style and fight choreography. That in mind, this movie stunk. I'm not saying it's dreadful but it really isn't as good as the first. It's like McG over reached with this script and it went from a movie to a video game to down right 'eye-roller'.

Demi's role was miniscule for all the hype. The sexy terminator, Robert Patrick, was great as always despite his small role. Bernie Mac; oh my goodness. The guy doesn't tickle my funny bone at all. He doesn't fill the shoes of Bill Murray who had presence. And the bit at the end with the bomb was painfully stupid. If Bill read the script before declining to sign up, I think I can see why he declined even if it were put down to problems with Lucy. The fight sequences were sped up and relied completely on the wires. As another critic said, it looks more like a video game.

While the first movie at least orbited around realism (even the dodging bullet bit was well directed) this movie flies off into outer space. Flying from an exploding motor bike and somersaulting onto another in mid air? Actual flying by Demi? I think McG wanted the sequences to be fun but they are overdone and rediculous. And the ending was a bit cheesy. I left the original movie feeling empower and energetic, but left the theatre last night headachy and tired. It is, well, a bit silly.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Lighten up, peeps. It's a comedy.

Author: rooprect from New York City
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Sequel carries on the magic

Author: walsh-22 from United Kingdom
10 July 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

They really don't have much luck with their clients, I think they should go into another business as their clients are always double-crossing and trying to kill them.

I didn't think it was possible but I love this film better than the first. I really enjoyed all the undercover scenes where they play at being Criminalists (classic, reference to CSI), nuns or dockworkers. One of the best soundtracks for a film I have ever heard, really well chosen, they fitted so well with the sequences. It was good to see the Girls back in action especially with those amazing stunts and Martial arts moves.

Although I missed Bill Murray, Bernie Mac was just as hilarious as Murray was in the first one so was the perfect replacement. It was great to see one of the original angels Jaclyn Smith who happened to be my favourite angel in the series and it wasn't just because I shared her character's first name. She still looks so amazing so did Demi Moore who made the perfect villain and actually looked like she was relishing the role.

Also, Bruce Willis does a small cameo in the film and the audience get to find out more about the thin man (Crispin Glover). John Cleese also made an appearance as Lucy Liu's confused and worried dad.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 55: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [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