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 10 of 55: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [Next]
Index 542 reviews in total 

The biggest disappointment of the summer

3/10
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?

This movie has a better storyline then most porno flicks

Author: (qadirmagsi@hotmail.com) from Karachi, Pakistan
11 July 2003

It has a storyline slightly better then a porno flick and does not have the 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 *****

Was the above review useful to you?

Havin' a Charlie Good Time!

Author: zuwarrior
11 July 2003

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!!

Was the above review useful to you?

Idiotic

Author: jungpfeffer from US
10 July 2003

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!

Was the above review useful to you?

well it a chicks flick !!

Author: SecretAffair from Boulevard of broken dreams
10 July 2003



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

Was the above review useful to you?

C.A.F.T has got my V8 going

Author: rohan_g from Australia
10 July 2003

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

Was the above review useful to you?

ONe of the most FUN,ENJOYABLE and POPCORN HOLLYWOOD films I have seen in a long time!!!!

Author: chrisnewberry600
10 July 2003

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Park your brain at the door and just sit back and enjoy!!!

Author: Madryoch from Sydney
9 July 2003

Charlie's Angels II definitely won't win any Oscars for substance or drama, but it's an enjoyable flick just the same. No doubt other reviewers will have panned the film for its superficiality, lack of originality, hamminess and paper-thin plot premise, but let's be honest here - did anyone really expect anything different walking into this film? It's one of those films that make fun of itself and the industry in general, and doesn't take itself too seriously. In today's stressful world sometimes people just want to go into a theater and watch a flick to forget their problems for a couple of hours. It's a great way to kill a couple of hours watching some good (if unoriginal, but who cares) Matrix-like cinematography, and a pretty awesome soundtrack. It's a couple of hours of eye- and ear-candy, and as long as people know that when they walk in then they can set their expectations accordingly and they won't be disappointed.

Besides, if you haven't reset your expectations after watching the opening action scene then you're awfully slow on the uptake!!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

Girl, Your Really Don't Got Me Now

Author: jbels from Chicago
9 July 2003

I know this will sound awful, but the only reason to see this movie is for Cameron Diaz's many butt shots. My wife couldn't stand it anymore, particularly the scene in the strip club, but it was the only element that made the movie for me. Otherwise is was chokingly bad. Bring back Bill Murray. And fire that stupid bad imitation of Colin Farrell forever from the movies.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 10 of 55: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [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