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
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 6 of 56: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 553 reviews in total 

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Absolute And Utter Garbage

1/10
Author: GoodbyePorkPieHat from United States
20 November 2005

I accept that most movies and TV require some suspension of belief, and that's half of the fun.

The original premise of "Charlie's Angels" (or "She Spies") was that three beautiful women could use their training, intelligence, disguises, and, in particular, their feminine wiles to fight crime and injustice. I found this . . . ummm . . . "believable".

For that matter, "Superman", "Spiderman", "Alien", or "Harry Potter" are "believable" because the original premise is fantasy or SciFi.

But the two don't mix.

After watching the first fight scene in this movie - with its Matrix-like ignorance of physical laws, the strand that suspended my disbelief was stretched spider-silk thin. But after they flew 400 feet through the air to land on a helicopter a few minutes later, it snapped completely.

Fortunately, I was watching it on TV, so all I had to do was change channels. I spent more time writing this review than I did watching the movie.

It's interesting to note that most people with brains enough to write a review give this movie "one star", and even though the votes actually follow a Bell curve in general, there is a huge spike at the bottom.

But if you like mindless dreck (or are appropriately chemically altered), you might like this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

There just aren't words...

1/10
Author: carisa666 from Texas
28 October 2003

to describe how truly awful this movie is. I want my two hours back. And I want to throttle all the people involved in this movie. Why do they subject us to this slop?

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Just Awful

Author: DUKEJBM from Right Here
7 August 2003

This crap does laugh at itself but it doesn't know what it wants to be. Because it doesn't take itself seriously, we `treated' to a healthy dose of self-mockery and some truly idiotic action sequences. Take that one at the beginning, where they tumble off a bridge and climb into a helicopter while it and they are plummeting to otherwise certain destruction. I can honestly say that the scene is the stupidest thing I've ever seen perpetrated in a non-cartoon action movie. If there was some nudity I could forgive this awful plot. There's simply not enough skin shown to send blood rushing away from my brain and to my privates. If you're male and at all coherent, this movie just flat out stinks.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

My Guilty Pleasure Of The Week

5/10
Author: christian123
2 June 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle may not be an Oscar quality film but I enjoyed it and its really a guilty pleasure of mine. The Angels--Natalie, Dylan, and Alex--prepare to strike without warning as they go undercover to retrieve two missing silver bands. These are no ordinary rings. They contain valuable encrypted information that reveal the new identities of every person in the Federal Witness Protection Program. When witnesses start turning up dead, only the Angels, using their expertise as masters of disguise, espionage and martial arts can stop the perpetrator, a mysterious "fallen" Angel. The plot sounds cheesy which isn't a bad thing as the TV show was cheesy as well. I think the execution is a little disappointing though as the film didn't really make a lot sense. It was pretty much action sequences followed by one another. The action sequences were pretty good but they were tied together with a thin plot. Most of the cast returns with a few new additions. Drew Barrymore played Dylan and she did a good job. Cameron Diaz also did a good job and seemed to really be enjoying herself. Lucy Liu does a good job as well and this film works a lot better thanks to these three actresses. Bill Murray is out and he is replaced by Bernie Mac. Mac does an okay job though he does get a little annoying sometimes. Demi Moore returns as the fallen angel. She plays her role well an she also looks great. Luke Wilson, Matt LeBlanc, John Cleese and Crispin Glover all appear and all have minor roles. I was a bit confused to see Crispin Glover as I'm pretty sure he died in the first one but its Hollywood and anything goes. Shia LaBeouf is only the film for a little bit yet he is annoying every time he is on screen. Also what happens in the end with him is incredibly stupid even for this film. McG directs and does kind of a messy job. Most people will probably hate this film while others will view it as a so bad its good type of film. I'm more with the latter as I did enjoy this film. Yes, the dialog was lame and the story didn't really make sense but if you can look past those then you should be able to enjoy this sequel. Is this one better then the original? No, the original was more fun to watch and it had Bill Murray. In the end, this film isn't really worth watching but if your looking for something you can just shut your brain off and enjoy then this film might fit the bill. Rating 7/10, not the best film of 2003 but you could do a lot worse.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Just Terrible

1/10
Author: Kevin Butler from Sudbury, Ontario, CANADA
8 December 2003

I would have given this a zero if possible. The first movie was not bad, it was a pleasant surprise. My son wanted to watch this (he's 13) and he was really disappointed. After this bomb we watched "The Getaway" with Steve McQueen and he said "now that is a good movie".

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

"Sh** Sandwich" - Spinal Tap

1/10
Author: faustbos from Norway
8 April 2004

I'm in Awe, with emphasis on the awful. This movie is proof positive that the movie going public gets what it deserves. People have already wasted their money on this film, and i'm sure we will see another opus by McG in the form of Charlie's Angels 3.

Not even mindless fun.

Its a shame because as watching this film I tried to pull out bits that might have held some faint hope of a plot, such as an angel gone bad.... heck lets explore that, my god, at LEAST TRY.

We even got a great cameo by Jaclyn Smith, I'm sure put there for fans of the original show, however, I doubt any real fan of Charlie's Angels would have lasted that long, or at the very least would have been busy cleaning up vomit off the floor during the cameo having lost all bodily control by what had previously transpired.

And then the closing credits. Apparently for lack of anything redeeming in this film, and i mean ANYTHING, at least we're to presume that the girls had a good time. Though, I envisioned a team of lawyers standing off camera pointing to their contracts which amongst other things, required the girls to have a good time, or else be in breech.

This movie, and I use the term lightly, is as bad as I've seen. IMDB needs a ZERO rating.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Unrealistic,redikoless movie without a story.

1/10
Author: peter9016 from Gothenburg Sweden
8 December 2003

I haven´t seen the first one but i think the second one is the worst movie i ever seen.It´s no story at all and bad act.It is also unrealistic in a high grade and redikoless.I can´t believe that Lucy Liu is so good in Kill Bill but so bad here.No good at all.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

Just awful!

1/10
Author: KMeister1 from Western US
25 May 2005

The first "Charlie's Angels" movie was a bit of brainless fun, but "Full Throttle" went nowhere fast. The plot, such as it was, had something to do with the women trying to recover two rings containing the names of people in the Witness Protection Program. The film contained lots of action and lots of wardrobe changes for the leads but who cares? And Bernie Mac, who is usually funny, just stank up every scene he was in. (Nothing wrong with having an African American "Bosley," but give him some decent material.) The action scenes were so preposterous that they made me roll my eyes. Yes, the three leads and Demi Moore all looked great, but even that wasn't enough to save this junk. Avoid at all cost!

Was the above review useful to you?

37 out of 73 people found the following review useful:

An insult to the TV series

1/10
Author: Toxic_Sausage from Chicago
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

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 101 people found the following review useful:

Strong contender for worst movie ever made

1/10
Author: Dimme from Norway
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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 6 of 56: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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