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 guide
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
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 7 of 56: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [Next]
Index 556 reviews in total 

51 out of 101 people found the following review useful:

Strong contender for worst movie ever made

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?

Killer, huh? I just got so excited. When it's big like that I just love to ride it hard and rough.

Author: Ben Larson from Leesburg, FL
14 May 2011

A Razzie for Demi Moore, and Razzie nominations for just about everyone else, including the picture itself. Hogwash!

I cannot think of the time when I was absolutely glued to the screen. There wasn't a second in this film that wasn't a thrill to watch. Come on, folks, did you think you were watching Citizan Kane or Grand Illusion, or Bicycle Thieves?

While the movie is never going to be considered a work of art, it is not kitsch either.

Forget about plot development. Whatever plot there was was just to provide an excuse for the entertainment, and entertainment it was. Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu were over the top. No one could realistically think they could stand the punishment meted out to them and not be a mass of quivering jelly. No one could believe that there was always something handy to get them out of a scrape. And, certainly no one could believe that Matt LeBlanc or Luke Wilson could be serious love interests.

It was PG-13 for the kiddies, and almost an R for those who watched closely. Great entertainment that had me glued for almost two hours.

I have to add that any film that features John Cleese is never a waste of time.

Was the above review useful to you?

Well... it looked nice .....

Author: knowledge from England
26 July 2003

Playing like a music video spliced with a fighting game, Charlies angels: full throttle is straight up eye candy, a film designed specifically to showcase a whole bunch of visually impressive things and though its not bad for being this way , it doesn't make for an 100 percent satisfying viewing experience .

The films main problem is that the tons of action and craziness on display is so frequent and superficial that you merely watch the film and acknowledge the fact that everything looks nice rather than get drawn into the film and be gripped by it .Also , the films climax isn't as satisfying as the likeably over the top one in the original and Bernie Mack doesn't get a proper chance to showcase his comedy styling the way Bill Murray did in part 1 .

There are some high points though, like the titular angels who make sexy and bubbly heroes. Also, the fight sequence in which the angels do battle with a bunch of evil sailors is impressive. On the comedic side of things, the stand out funny moments are a running joke in which Natalie's dad totally misinterprets descriptions of his daughters line of work and the fate of the guy who makes the mistake of slapping Dylan's bum.

On the whole, the film is a loud collection of action sequences and comedy sketches. And since not every colourful chunk of the film is really anything special , Charlie's angels 2 emerges as a colourful but unsatisfying viewing experience.

Was the above review useful to you?

Got what I expected

Author: ursirius from California, USA
22 July 2003

Infantile fun with the three giggling geese. Enjoyed it and accepted the movie for what it was, silly, stupid and fun. If you are looking for Oscar material, then you must be lost. The scene in the Mongolian Bar was fun and got a chuckle out of all of us.

Was the above review useful to you?

Sorry, but you don't get two free passes

Author: Walls Of Jericho from New England
22 July 2003

I liked the original Charlie's Angels movie, but this one just pushes it's luck. It's even more ridiculously fast paced and quick cutting than the first, and there seems to be a lot of little things going on that only the director and the cast know but don't let us see. Elaborate setups are made for minor plot points, and in some instances, there are shots that don't seem to have any connection whatsoever to what's going on. Granted, the chicks are hotter than ever, but as far as the movie itself, it's actually kind of annoying. It's short attention span theater to the max.

Was the above review useful to you?

Entertaining, but maybe two movies are enough.

Author: Victor Field from London, England
20 July 2003

The first movie was thin on plot, but good fun all round; "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" (a subtitle which, other than maybe referring to the movie's pace, has a lot less to do with the movie than its original subtitle "Halo") is a case of the same as before but lesser than before.

With Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu back in front of the camera (as Natalie, Dylan and Alex) and McG back behind it, the movie also restores all the elements the first one had - rapid-fire editing, glitzy shooting, wildly over-the-top action, endless songs on the soundtrack, our heroines being as sexy as possible etc., etc. - but the strands of gossamer that writers John August (also back from the first movie), Cormac Wibberley and Marianne Wibberley ("I Spy," "The 6th Day") call a plot are puffed out by some attempts to be... ulp... serious. Basically, the movie suffers whenever it takes time out to look at the personal lives of our Angels (Natalie's moved in with a guy, Alex's visiting her father - John Cleese of all people - and, admittedly the one most tied in to the alleged plot, Dylan's ex is out of prison), and the tongue-in-cheek humour that was one of the original movie's main virtues is reduced as a result, not least in some of the battle scenes; sometimes it feels like you're watching two different movies.

"Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" also brings up reminiscences of several different movies and TV shows, sometimes deliberately (Lucy's [and the movie's] very first line of dialogue - "Get off the babysitter" - is from "Risky Business"; one sequence is in homage to "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation"), other times less so (the major stunt in the opening titles is pinched from "GoldenEye," although it actually seems less ridiculous than it did there, probably because this entire movie is so outlandish that it fits right in... unlike the attempts to be serious). Unfortunately, the series this movie is most reminiscent of is McG's own "Fastlane," which though enjoyable enough was hardly a model for a great movie.

Bill Murray is also sorely missed (Bernie Mac isn't really a good substitute), and the only reason Demi Moore isn't the worst thing about the movie is that Pink is in it. (And never mind Miss Moore's flesh-baring; an uncredited Jaclyn Smith [briefly reprising her series role as Kelly, the only Angel to stay the course from beginning to end, in a scene that plays like a cameo on "The Simpsons" - complete with Dylan saying "Kelly Garrett!"] is the REAL flagbearer for the still-hot-over-the-age-of-40 in this movie.) It won't stand up to close scrutiny, but it wasn't designed for that; it's best to just sit back and let it wash over you, and it'll do its job. And it does it pretty well in the end.

In any case, it's hard for me to slate a movie with Cameron Diaz impersonating M.C. Hammer, or one which features the ladies showing Christina Aguilera a thing or 50 about strutting about in revealing lingerie (set to "The Pink Panther" yet). Just do "S.W.A.T." seriously, that's all I ask.

Was the above review useful to you?

Close to Heaven

Author: rogerdarlington from United Kingdom
18 July 2003

The final line of the movie occurs when the character played by Lucy Liu is questioned about her career choice: "It's a no brainer". You could say the same thing about this film. It's not high concept, it won't win any Academy Awards, and it's totally derivative - of the 1970s television series, of "Raiders Of The Lost Ark", of "The Matrix", and much else. Indeed the whole thing looks like an extended music video with thumping rock music and amazing stunts - not so surprising, given that the director is McG who has spent most of his life crafting such vacuuous but flashy material.

Nevertheless, as entertainment and fun, these angels are close to heaven. There is never any need to think, because it's all so simple and signposted - Cameron Diaz in a white bikini is obviously the cute cherub, while Demi Moore - still wonderful at 40 - in the black bikini has to be a fallen angel, while the guy who played the bad terminator and the one who is trying to put on an Irish accent have to be devillish villains. There are not many films with four leading roles for attractive women who kiss ass - so just enjoy.

Was the above review useful to you?

Hilariously Dumb

Author: jmissirlis1 from usa
18 July 2003

This movie was dumb and dumbererererer. Cameron and Lucy sure looked good though which is why I didn't leave the theater. Guys, turn off the brain and make believe it's 2:30am and you just channel surfed right into some soft core porn. From that angle, you won't be disappointed. Ladies, don't worry you can do the same. The guys in the movie look good too. How can a director make great special effects look bad. Leave it to McG. The first scene with the helicopter off the cliff was so ridiculous, I laughed out loud. If that was the intention, great job Micky G.

Was the above review useful to you?

Great action, but the story line leaves you confused.

Author: Melissapoage from Houston, Tx.
17 July 2003

I loved the first charlies Angels. I have been eagerly anticipating the second one. The first one had a definite flow and all three of the angels were working as a team on one project... the second one seemed to separate the trio and focus more on their personal lives and interests rather than the fact that they are crime fighting beauties. I loved all the cameos and the references to past films and t.v. shows but it seemed to me like they filmed each individual scene and then decided at the end how to put everything together with a story line that is thread thin and basically unbelievable.

Was the above review useful to you?

Unless you're a 9-12 year old girl, stay home.

Author: gisele88 from USA
17 July 2003

My husband and I went to this movie together and it was the first one we've walked out on in many years. The plot was shallow, the acting was horrible, and there was far more computer-genrated action than we expected causing the entire movie to lose what miniscule thread of credibility we assumed it might have to begin with. Oddly placed dance numbers added offbeat humor. I think that, for males, this is primarily a visual treat (scantily clad women and plenty of action, little cerebral work). Females above the age of 12 can easily find much better entertainment than this.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 7 of 56: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [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