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
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 9 of 56: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 554 reviews in total 

Utter crap and I thoroughly enjoyed it!

Author: Stu Chandler (chanelit-1) from London, England
14 July 2003

I know my summary might be a contradiction in terms, but so is the movie! It has no real plot or character development and is just one long series of action sequences, but is done with such a sense of fun that it's pure brain-out enjoyment.

The angels are out to get two rings back, which when put together unlock the names of all those on the Witness Protection Program. Cue many fight scenes, dirtbike racing (possibly the most over the top sequence of the entire film) and much mayhem.

Leave your brain firmly at the door before you go in, sit back and just enjoy it for what it is - mindless entertainment. Certainly the best fun I've had in the cinema for a while.

Was the above review useful to you?

It's not bad if you liked the first.

Author: Rynn from AB, Calgary
14 July 2003

There is no doubt in my mind that if you did not like the first Charlie's Angels movie you won't like this one much better. This movie is similar to the first one with the exception of a bit more character development. It is not a bad movie if you like mindless action although I found that the sexual innuendoes become a bit tedious after a while. Unless you are a Charlie's Angels fan I recommend that you wait until this one comes to video.

Was the above review useful to you?

The only movie I almost walked out on in 2003

Author: Larry Smith from USA
13 July 2003

This has to be one of the dumbest moviest I have ever seen.

Some of the scenarios are totally impossible (helicopter), making me feel duped. High tech is okay, but the E.T. fantasy (re flying bicycles) type garbage insults me.

The childish humor is definitely potty oriented. Writers should go back to their jobs at the shoe store.

The only thing that saves this mess from the Delsey tissue is the occasional cutesy posturing of Cameron.

On the scale of 1-10, this is definitely below the waterline.

Was the above review useful to you?

Almost unwatchable

Author: Sleel
13 July 2003

The plot (what there was of it) was trying to go in multiple directions at the same time. The comedy made use of hackneyed and offensive stereotypes (barbarous Mongolians, dumb blacks) or smirky in-jokes about the girls, who have a whopping one film history together, which is not nearly enough for self-referential humor.

The action scenes were horrible distortions of reality. I mean, I can suspend disbelief for most movies, but villains who can fly simply by wearing a dress with big sleeves and a full skirt, people dodging bullets by flipping away from them, a full-speed car crash (including ejection from the crash) with only a couple of scrapes to show for it, and girls jump-kicking guys who mass twice what they do to project them 5 to 10 meters away and then landing in the exact same spot they jumped from is a little too much. Being bludgeoned by such blatant unreality doesn't produce suspense or even "kewlnis", it produces laughter.

If this movie had for one second taken itself even a little bit seriously, it would have been unwatchable. The only thing that made it tolerable was that everyone involved treated the movie as one big joke. The only real humor of the movie -as opposed to a gag or the hilariously bad special effects- was the dialog sequence with Matt LeBlanc and John Cleese, where a mistaken premise by Cleese makes LeBlanc's "innocent" remarks have a double meaning. I suspect that dialog was written by Cleese as it seems to have some of the hallmarks of his style.

If you want to see a stupid "action" movie, with indestructible heroines and yet more effects-enhanced extreme sports crap thrown in to appeal to those who actually care, this is the movie for you. If you want real humor, a plot, excitement, thrills, or anything that will engage more brain cells than necessary to make your eyes track movement, see something else. It's a slightly entertaining movie that misses getting a vote of two only by virtue of its not pretending to be more than it is; dumb entertainment. 3/10

Was the above review useful to you?

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle -

Author: Niall Murphy from Ireland
13 July 2003

Directed by McG, starring Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, Demi Moore, Bernie Mac, John Cleese, Justin Theroux, Matt LeBlanc, Luke Wilson and Crispin Glover.

Once upon a time, after a very long time, three lady detectives made the jump from the TV to cinemas. When they did, they brought in one of the biggest hits of 2000 with $124m, and inspired just as many arguments as they had on the small screen about which one of them was the coolest/hottest. Now that they're back for another tug on the cash cow, you can have that argument all over again - but it could prove more memorable than this disappointing sequel.

After a gag-filled - but CGI overloaded - opening dust-up in Mongolia, the Angels (Diaz, Barrymore and Liu) are sent to track down two rings containing the new identities of police informants. Mixed-up in this mixed-up plot are a former angel (Moore), an 'Irish' mobster (Theroux) who looks like he spends most of his time at punk gigs and the first movies villain, The Thin Man (Glover).

With such a flimsy storyline, stitched around one setpiece after another, '.Full Throttle' runs out of juice the faster it tries to reach a conclusion. Bernie Mac (as the new Bosley) and John Cleese (as one of the Angels' dads) are too funny not to see more of, a very hot/cool Demi Moore deserved far more screen time and the action scenes are so cartoonish you'll give up on them long before the final Hollywood showdown.

Director McG and the scriptwriters peddle some nice in-jokes (send-ups of 'CSI' and 'Cape Fear', references to 'Grease', 'The Blues Brothers' and 'M:I2') but never get a handle on turning a great cast and a few decent one-liners and into a fully-formed film. You could chop most of it into three-minute segments, add music and show the results on MTV and there's nothing to suggest that three years down the line either you or these angels should come back for more.

Nice outfits, though.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: kingrollo from Palo Alto, CA
13 July 2003

What an incredible trash movie. The only bright moments are the appearences of John Cleese. No wonder, since he seems to be the only real actor on the cast. Otherwise, nothing but a long braindead MTV video. So anything this movie has going for it? Sure, T&A galore, but face it: an issue of Playboy is cheaper, and much less of a waste of time. But then again, John Cleese isn't in Playboy.

Was the above review useful to you?

Everything I expected, But not what i hoped.......

Author: Philip Tsatsas ( from Sunderland, England
12 July 2003

The angels are back in there very own sequel, dedicated to making it harder, funnier, cuter and with more suspense than ever in `Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle'. Director McG returns to his favorite chair to make it all happen the way he did 3 years ago with the first movie. The film features pretty much everything the first one gave us from cheesy jokes, over exaggerated fight scenes to blown out of proportion action stunts. Never really being a fan of the now franchise I still pushed myself to the ticket man with the hope that maybe the sequel that had been so hyped up over the passed few months, could in fact deliver what it's predecessor tried so hard to do. Once again I noticed a generation of films that have been wasted and fed into the minds of people who are simply satisfied of seeing, no story, three unconvincing pretty girls that are failing in the quest for humor, and un-thrilling over done action. What is happening to those great popcorn flicks you enjoy and then forget about with no hard feelings? This film features three decent actresses that are wasting there time with a director that blatantly pawns of his modern style of filmmaking from people who have created something new with the intentions of using it intelligently. I could count the number of times I chuckled through this film on one hand, and truthfully say that I was never under the spell of suspense at any moment because it was all so unconvincing. Which sadly enough is a shame because we all see these movies to drop reality for a few hours un-intelligently. Demi Moore's feature comeback as femme fatale `Madisson Lee' was the only cheer raiser in the film. Not having much screen time gave the famous actress that extra edge that made her glow and simply stunning. After having said that, those who considered the first `Charlie's Angles' a gripping piece of blockbuster fun, will undoubtedly enjoy this feeble piece.

As for those who feel my poor appreciation for the first film, this sequel has something for us to keep us in the cinema but not enough to gain the title of `decent trash'.

Was the above review useful to you?

Prime example of the state Hollywood is in

Author: jack_horner01 from London, England
12 July 2003

When you go to see Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, be prepared to have part of your brain rot away. This has got to be one of the most demeaning films i have ever had the displeasure of watching.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against silly films, but only when there is something else to make up for it. Spy Kids is OTT, but it has reasonable action, funny gags, and it works in the world it sets. Old Sckool is cliched, but it is hilarious, and has some of the funniest moments to grace the screen in years. CA:FT has nothing going for it. The plot stinks, the action looks like a small child choreographed it, the acting is the hight of poor, the jokes are about as funny as watching grass grow, and there seems to be no sense of time.

For some unknown reason. The Angels are able to change costume instantly, they can defy the laws of both physics and gravity. They seem to be super human. And to all of this, not a single one of them is good looking. Demi Moore is the only female in the cast that looks bedable. I am not saying that the cast have to look attractive for the film to be any good, but if you are going to hype the characters to be godesses, then at least make them look half decent.

From an objective POV, you could see this film stinking from a mile off. What studio in there right mind, would trust a film to a guy who calls himself Mc G!? That name just speaks for itself. I honestly believe that guys like this make a mockery of film. People with real talent and vision spend their whole lives working very hard, striving to become directors, only to lose out to complete fools like Mc G. I think it is not only a shambles, but an embarrasment to the film industry. They have finally done it. Hollywood has finally killed the medium of film.

Let us hope that a ray can be found at the end of the tunnel. Otherwise cinemas will shortly have nothing to offer but films by guys with appreviated names about absolutely nothing. Audiences will become mindless idiots, as they are sat for 90 minutes and watching complete drivel. Attentions spans will reach an all time low, and soon fights will errupt for no reason. Entire cities will fight against their neighbours. Countries will fight each other, and an apocalypse will shortly follow. All this because a guy named Mc G decided he would make the most horrifically poor film he could.

The only reason i gave this film some merit was because they actually managed to string together a beginning, middle and end.

Was the above review useful to you?

The biggest disappointment of the summer

Author: jdiliddo from Portland, Oregon
12 July 2003

I loved the first movie, I gave it a 9 of out 10. The energy and story was exactly where it should have been. The sequel, Full Throttle, was terrible; the best parts of this movie were those that referenced the first. The original movie had cool, silly action and kick-ass music to highlight the fact that this is Charlie's Angels - and not to be taken seriously! The sequel fails completely in this respect; it seems to have a dozen or so music/action sequences already planned out with nothing to string them together. The first movie had the Angels doing totally impossible stunts but you knew it was C.A. and you didn't care. In this movie it was painfully obvious that the Angel's stunts were 100% CGI; they seems to be able to fly, jump 20 feet in the air, walk through fire, and stop time.

A total disappointment!

Was the above review useful to you?

It's all about brainless fun nothing much

Author: dhenzio22
11 July 2003

The angels are back with more actions and more enemies. Worth the wait??? Ummmm. Well, the winning formula of the first charlie's angels are here but we've seen it, nothing much has been added to. Bill Murray never returned rather he was replaced by Bernie Mac (unwise idea!). Let's not forget Demi Moore's return to screen after years of absence. Demi Moore as Madison Lee is Ok. The three actresses did their part with right amount of fun. The major letdown of the movie is the CGI effects wherein the acrobatic moves are obviously computer-generated plus the most unbelievable scenes you'll ever see! (How they managed to survive from that death-defying scenes!) This movie is full of idiocy yet charming enough, funny enough and quite good enough. RATING: 6/10

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 56: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [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