|Page 10 of 55:||               |
|Index||550 reviews in total|
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
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
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
jump 20 feet in the air, walk through fire, and stop time.
A total disappointment!
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.
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
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
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'.
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
It has a storyline slightly better then a porno flick and does not have
graphic sex. What more can i say...... except.
WHY HAS THIS MOVIES EARNED 67 MILL'S AND IS STILL NO 3 ON THE BOX OFFICE
** out of *****
The Angels are at it again! The sequel hosts a bevy of cameo appearances, new sight gags and pop culture references. While I admit that some of the stunts are ridiculous and realistically impossible to pull off, especially during the dirt bike sequence, this movie's all about having fun. And that's exactly what I had when watching this film. I thought the action was great and vastly improved than the first. Lucy Liu is hot, and Demi Moore is even hotter!! Woo-hoo!!
I don't think there are enough words in the English language to express just quite how disappointed I was with this movie... Ok, so I only went to watch the movie in the first place because Rodrigo Santoro (one of my favorite Brazilian actors) was in it - and I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate to discuss the dimensions of his role because, although I will strongly discourage anybody from watching that movie, I also don't want to spoil it for anybody who decides to check it out for themselves. But the movie is silly, childish, poorly written and completely detached from the series in which it's supposedly based. My thoughts as I walked out of the theater were "I don't know why they bother to call it Charlie's Angels; the appropriate name would be Charlie's Sluts." It has more scenes of Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu half naked and shaking their cabooses than there are explosions. And at least half the time that Demi Moore is on the screen, she's wearing something underwear-like. For Santoro, a foreign actor on the road to International recognition, I suppose that just a shot in a Hollywood major production is something impossible to turn down... The rest of the movie is... (what is the word I'm looking for?)... (oh, yeah)... idiotic!
after i seen this movie it was a ride not a bad movie and nor also a good movie if you kind of type with the genius movie this it not a good one for you to see it, but if you just want have a fun i might suggest you this kind of movie. it got humor with NEW BOSLEY ( Bernie Mac ) and butt-kicking Chicks ( Cameron Diaz , Drew Barrymore , Lucy Liu ) and Badass Chick ( Demi Moore ) and also not to forget UGLY THIN MAN ( Crispin Glover )whose fall in love with Dylan's hair ( Drew Barrymore ). it like watching THE MATRIX but with lot of CHICKS, the movie doesn't tell why OLD BOSLEY ( Bill Murray ) left and why Madison Lee ( Demi Moore ) gone bad from an ANGEL to a Devil. but it still good to enjoy and you will see lot of familiar face in this movie and the DIRECTOR McG doing a great work in directing this movie so i give this movie 8/10
I really don't know why there are so many people out there in the land of
IMDB, who have a negative perspective of Full Throttle, because I thoroughly
enjoyed it. In my neck of the woods, we would refer to Charlie's Angels as
gammin, because it is cool, yet kind of cheesy, but then again the movie was
deliberately made like that. Ease up people if you don't like three
beautiful women having fun, using their feminine charms to get the job done,
then we might as well pack our bags and live in Saudi Arabia. The writers
have gone out their way to inject some humour into this movie, and the DOP
was done a fantastic job with the camera angles. I am sure if there was a
subtext in the movie, go out and have fun.
McG great job.
7 out 10
I feel I have to write this passage (calling it a review would be too blasé)
to make a comment for the people who ENJOY movies.
Charlie's Angels is a film that will be, and is, hated by critics and other pretentious zealots. I may be wrong, but I don't think the people behind Charlie's Angels (1 & 2) were planning on making The Godfather or Jules et Jim, or even making a timeless Hollywood classic worthy of Ford and Hawks. I think they just wanted TO HAVE FUN!
Now I understand that having fun with the movies these days is frowned upon; it's considered immature, easy and pointless. Thank god these people don't run studios!!!! I agree that most studio heads are idiots (to be nice!) but we get classics sneaking out every once in a while. Charlie's Angels is not a classic and should never be considered one. It should never enter a top 50 great movies list. But for Top 50 harmless, take-your-mind-away-from-the-real-world, fun-fun-fun-films, this is a high ranker! I preferred the first but the second was no let down.>
The ridiculous stunts and fight sequences made for exciting action (hey now, calm down, this isn't Woo). The innuendo satisfied every guilty pleasures. And with risqué clothing and beautiful men and women it made for eye candy. Now I may not be on the same intellectual level as those who hate this movie but I think I came off better for it. I mean I didn't just waste £10! I had a great night out, I laughed (with the rest of the audience may I add), I cheered and I was entranced. Not bad. I think the problem with all these anal reviewers and film goers these days is that if they enjoy a film like Charlie's Angels (babes + sexy clothes + guns + fast cars + silly stunts = enjoyment) then they are uncool, they are showing signs of immaturity! I hate bad silly films, Daddy Day Care anyone.
But I find it hard to comprehend a film like Charlie's Angels being made. ITS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE!!! I mean McG (bad name!) must have thought; `I can't remember the last unpretentious, balls to the floor, fun, chaotic, harmless film I saw.' And got Charlie's Angels revving. Lets face it - unless your a moron, a film hater or an anal retentively pretentious fool there can't be many reasons to hate this film. Production wise it isn't a failure; it was well shot in today's MTV saturated style, with a pop soundtrack that summizes the whole film, acting which didn't grate and some darn funny (if predictable) lines!
Now if you want to see great films, don't see this one. If Hollywood would not make this but instead would make a million films to the standard of Raging Bull, brilliant, but they won't because it is `show business' and to quote; `With out the show; theres no business.' So how about making a Charlie's Angels every year?
Because at least then I would be guaranteed one ENJOYABLE trip to the cinema. Not another Phantom Menace or ............. (add your own let down here). So please, don't go to see this wanting to destroy it or wanting to see Personal Velocity, cause you won't enjoy it, just see it to have a fun night out like you used to have before you became another soulless adult.
|Page 10 of 55:||               |
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|