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 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
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 5 of 55: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 550 reviews in total 

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

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

10/10
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 alongside the first two Harry Potter films. 10/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

One of the most entertaining, funnest, and enjoyable films in years!

Author: Red_Identity from United States
23 April 2009

This is not a film to be taken seriously. I love it! It is just such an entertaining film. The action is enjoyable and well done, although it is unrealistic, but that is why I loved it. The acting is good, the writing is of course so intentionally cheesy and corny, but I loved the plot! The women are HOT HOT HOT, and that is something that matters. I do not get why this film gets too much hate. Honestly, it is just done as a popcorn action film, and it works!!! It really is mindless, and that is why it is easier to enjoy than maybe other action films like Spider-Man (although another similar action-packed film Wanted is just better in every way and not mindless actually). Still, this film works for me, and I think it is better than the original.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Did you know we have personal demons?

Author: fortey from Ontario
9 July 2004

It's quite true. There are times in our lives when we think awful things or worse, do them, and the cosmos punishes us by sending a foul, unwholesome beast of unspeakable horror to torment us for the rest of our days. Call it a living, waking hell. Now, it starts out small. Your socks go missing. Maybe a pair of underwear. You misplace your keys. You stub your toe. You eat bad tuna and get violent diarrhea. You 'accidentally' set your hair on fire. But in truth, it's our own, personal, evil little demon causing these troubles.

Now, somewhere in my past (maybe a past life, who knows) I did something horrifying. What was it? I can't say. I don't recall any atrocities but surely there was one, for the universe threw so much energy into my tormentor demon that it grew. It grew and festered and suddenly it was no longer a shadow, but a real physical thing. A monster that others could see. This foul beast rose up and called itself McG and went about on a master plan to do the foulest thing to me that it could imagine. It directed Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.

My punishment is an incoherent mish mash of random and ungratifying T&A, somebody's mom in a bikini (they call her Demi Moore around these parts), utterly preposterous action sequences not the least of which involves the Even Stevens Boy on dirt bikes and a shoot out that defies not only physics but common decency and my sense of shame. But did it defy my tormentor's shame? Surely not.

If not for Uwe Boll's House of the Dead, I would be positive that Charlie's Angels Full Throttle would be the sulphurous, fire laden afterlife in which I would be tortured eternally. Alas, it is merely McG's way of saying to me "Hey Fortey...I'm utterly incompetent, wanna go watch an Offspring video? I like bright colors!! Where are my mittens?!"

In closing, I must go soap my eyeballs to remove the layer of milky ooze my body set up as defence against witnessing another minute of this film and I assure you, your time would be better spent inspecting your dog for ring worm than watching this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Charlie's Goofballs

1/10
Author: jmh2350 from Phoenix, AZ
25 January 2004

Probably the worst big-budget piece of cinematic garbage of 2003. And that's a compliment, because usually there is something that can be salvaged from garbage, but not in this case. Nothing, and I mean nothing, works in this movie, and nothing (again, NOTHING) is smart about this movie. It is more highly contrived than most "action" flicks, the action looks almost entirely fake (which of course it is, but it should not make the audience so acutely and painfully aware of it!), the dialogue is somewhere between stupid and idiotic, and the humor is, shall we say, as funny as the old proverbial screen door in a submarine. Directorially, it is pieced together like a series of very overstylized and mismatched music videos. The Angels are neither appealing nor particularly bright beyond an I.Q. level of, let's generously estimate, 70! Pathetic is another word that comes to mind. Skip it if you have any self-esteem or self-worth as a fan of good movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: DunnDeeDaGreat from Woodbridge, VA
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Outshines the original "Charlie's Angels"

9/10
Author: zardoz-13 from United States
6 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Yes, the new summer movie sequel "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" outshines the original "Charlie's Angels" (2000). This helium-filled hokum with its high octane action sequences, bevies of bikini-clad babes, and naughty but nice PG-13-rated sexual innuendos qualifies both as funnier but far more violent. Aside from the conspicuous absence of both Bill Murray and Tom Green, virtually everybody from "Charlie's Angels" returns, with former music video director Joseph McGinty Nichol, credited simply as McG, back in the saddle calling the shots. (Reportedly, Murray refused to reprise his role as Bosley, because Lucy Liu and he hated working together on the first film.) Like its original big-screen predecessor, this slightly longer (105 minutes compared with 99 minutes) sequel takes the classic prime-time TV series beyond anything Farrah Fawcett and her curvaceous cohorts could ever have imagined. Not only does "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" kiss off realism with blissful abandon, but also this swiftly-paced, super-charged, wish-fulfillment fantasy earns half of its kudos for its well-crafted homages to popular Hollywood hits as well as its interesting cameos. Watch closely, and you may catch a glimpse of Carrie Fisher of "Star Wars," Bruce Willis of "Die Hard," Eric Bogosian of "Talk Radio," original Angel Jaclyn Smith herself, and the Olsen twins. Meanwhile, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu portray women empowered either by their mastery of modern technology or their combat skills to thwart their evil-minded adversaries at the behest of a disembodied male voice on a speaker phone. Happily, "Full Throttle" never takes itself seriously. Further, nothing in this action-oriented chick flick remotely looks believable. Beyond its superbly-staged Hong Kong martial arts fights and Russell Carpenter's luminous wide-screen cinematography, "Full Throttle" represents actress Demi Moore's long-awaited comeback movie after a string of film flops including "G.I. Jane," "The Juror," and "Striptease." While the first "Angels" movie dealt strictly with revenge against their unseen boss Charlie, "Full Throttle" focuses on a dastardly plot to expose the identities of everybody in the Federal Witness Protection program. Never heard of the Witness Protection Program? Essentially, law enforcement relies heavily on this program so people will testify against major league criminals. Afterward, the government gives these brave souls new identities, so they can escape reprisals from the convicted criminals or their criminal organizations. In "Full Throttle," the lead villain, Madison Lee (Demi Moore) has her henchmen steal two rings worn by different guys in the Dept. of Justice. When these two rings are combined, they yield an ultra-secret computer program with everybody's new identity. Naturally, "Full Throttle" takes full advantage of this "Lord of the Rings" idea and gives the concept a clever make-over to accommodate their storyline. Although this constitutes the main plot, "Full Throttle" really concerns the theme of friendship between our trio of Angels. Dylan (Drew Barrymore), Alex Lucy Liu), and Natalie (Cameron Diaz) have moved into a new place, and Natalie's boyfriend Pete (Luke Wilson of "Home Fries") keeps trying to pop a certain question. Worst than any villain with whom they must contend, Dylan and Alex dread Natalie's inevitable departure because they fear Pete wants to marry her. Invariably, at least according to Dylan, this means that Alex and she will have to break in a new Angel.

The charm of the "Charlie's Angels" movies lies in their giddy, effervescent innocence. The bubble bursts only with an occasional moment of drama when someone dies or extracts a bloody shard of glass from their ribs. Otherwise, McG directs with his customary flair. Watching "Full Throttle" is like riding a roller coaster. Actually, "Full Throttle" resembles a video game more than a live-action movie. Most of the graphics appear computer-generated more than real-life. However, in a flashy, frivolous film like "Full Throttle" that proves more an asset than a debit. Moreover, McG plays everything for a laugh, and he has the light touch to make it work repeatedly without making it seem too silly. The opening sequence when the Angels rescue a U.S. Marshal (Robert Patrick of "Terminator 2") from a Mongolian strong-hold is the best scene. You can tell that the James Bond movie "GoldenEye" served as their inspiration, but the same thing occurred in the original "Charlie's Angels" when they cribbed their opening scene from "Moonraker." What is important is that they add enough variation to their make-over so the scene succeeds on its own more than as a slick rehash. Demi Moore makes a strong villain, stronger than Kelly Lynch from the original. Mercifully, Tom Green is gone, but Alex's boyfriend Jason (Matt LeBlanc of "Friends") shows up again, and we get to meet Alex's befuddled father played by Monty Python alumni John Cleese. Further, the superficial but exciting screenplay by John August and co-writers Wormac and Marianne Wibberley develops the Angels characters while at the same they foreshadow events in the story. Indeed, the bulk of the story is action, action, action, but it is refreshing to see a movie that actually foreshadows and fleshes out its characters.

Although the clever one-liners and risqué dialogue verge on sensuality, "Charlie's Angels" avoids graphic depictions of anything realistic or unsavory. Nevertheless, based on the star wattage of our three heroines and McG's light fingered directorial prowess, "Full Throttle" is a lot of fun from teenagers and adults.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Hollywood proves again that it has money to burn.

Author: modius from United Kingdom
27 December 2004

Okay, I'll be honest, I didn't like the first Charlies Angels movie - it was too fluffy, but I did like the action, some of the jokes, and most importantly I enjoyed Crispin Glover's Thin Man.

So what happened in the second movie? It seems the movie producers just drove a dumper truck filled with money and said they wanted to make a summer action movie without actually thinking about how the audience is actually meant to enjoy a movie that is more about personal ego than it is about the story, plot or stunts.

In this sequel, the girls are hired by the government to recover two small rings that hold the entire list of people on the witness protection scheme. I don't know about you but I felt it was odd that so much data could be stored into such small rings, not only that - they were so damn easy to steal too! Then we get to the whole subplots of Dillion's romance with an Irish thug and how she can't kill him but can easily kill 1,000 other random men. The thin man makes a welcome return but doesn't actually do anything. He now is a complete joke. I mean, he was almost cool in the first and now we have a joker. This movie really shows that executives don't really care about this movie. I don't even think the stars cared either.

Then we get to the stunts and the overall dumbing down of the whole kung fu. In the first the kung fu was fresh and demanding. Now we can see the quick cutting between frames when the girls are fighting and the way the girls' arms are bending when they punch. Then we have Demi Moore as the Evil Charlies Angel.

Okay, she was good in a sort of pretty kind of way - but her "knowing of the Charlie's Angels' fighting style" was not really used as well it could have been. Instead Moore uses twin gold Desert Eagles (which she struggles to keep up) and cries about how Charlie didn't really love her and how she had ambition to become more than an angel. Okay, but why exactly does this make her the bad person? The end fight sequence is pretty lame too. Why is Diaz the only character to be able to fight Moore? I think the director should have watched the ending of Jackie Chan's "Project A" where three heroes face one super-bad guy, the director could have had a similar sequence, but instead ruins it with a homage to "Hollow Man"...

Despite all this, the movie and its potential - it is ruined a lot by the bad stunts ruined by badly rendered CGI. I still remember with affection movies like Blue Jean Cop and some of the earlier Jackie Chan movies where stunts meant action and action meant danger. So why has Hollywood forgotten about it? I don't know, all I know is that in this movie, we are proved once again that Hollywood has money to burn.

Overall this movie is rated a 1/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Charlie's Spiderwomen?

1/10
Author: JesperT from Cape Town
25 October 2004

What a waste of time. The first "Charlie's Angels" movie was not my cup of tea, but I actually liked the series. But let us not forget that this was a time when "Loveboat" and "Family Ties" were considered high-speed entertainment...

"Full Throttle" is not even at their level when it comes to the jokes, and far below them when it comes to acting.

I never liked Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu as actresses, and Drew Barrymore has always annoyed me. I only ever liked her in "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" where she surprised me positively - but with focus on stunts and a ridiculous plot (if there is one at all) she does not get a chance to show that she can actually act. In "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" she actually plays opposite Sam Rockwell who also has a major role in the first Charlie's Angels.

The "women kick serious behind" thing that apparently is part of the the concept is just plain pathetic.

Especially the ending scene where the 3 heroines fly around like 3 Spiderwomen chasing the flying Demi Moore is pityful, and is far away from the spirit of the TV series, which I think at least the first movie managed to capture somewhat better.

Maybe that was never the intention, but then again, I don't think it was ever the intention that I had to watch the movie. I wish I hadn't.

Only positive aspect: the soundtrack.

I give it...a 1. I was debating whether I should give it a 2 for the soundtrack + it is afterall still not the worst movie of all time. Nevertheless remains a complete waste of time and money and at the end of the day that is justification enough for me.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Gave me a headache.

1/10
Author: ssenate from Syracuse, NY, USA
11 July 2004

Is it just me, or was it the fast/slow/fast/slow overused special effects that actually caused pain in my head? The main difference between this and a groundbreaker like "The Matrix" was that the special effects in the context of the movie were essential to the alternate reality artificial intelligence world that the movie was portraying. Here, "McG" simply has a chest of full of expensive toys, and wants to show them off to make everyone jealous, but has no clue how to use them. "McG" makes Ed Wood's films look good. Special effects are icing on the cake, not the cake itself. "McG" has not yet learned that. The morning after seeing "Full Throttle", my head still hurts.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

absolutely one of worst high budget films ever made

1/10
Author: perfectisolation from Santa Monica, CA
6 June 2004

Absolutely one of the worst high budget films ever made. starting the absolutely insipid opening of all the angels managing to catch up to a falling helicopter (which flew off a flat bed truck they were driving) start it in mid air, and fl to safety three feet before crashing. Then it moves such a stupid and grotesque scene - cameron diaz moving furniture in her new house listening to mc hammer. of course when the other girls come in the room, the camera zooms in on their faces independently all happy tooo....all start danicng together. for no reason than to have the scene.

then, the introduction of the new bosely, we meet bernie mac who quickly questions what a stun gun is and proceeds to stun himself to near unconsciousness all in under 10 seconds. he overacts even more than billy crystal. so so so so so so so so so bad is the acting in this movie.

so bad, such unoriginal direction, music, any and everything.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 5 of 55: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [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