Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
566 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Don't understand the bad reviews...
clotildevernyidrac15 February 2019
I don't know if it's because I didn't watch the TV Show, but I really don't understand why those 2 movies are discredited this much. Yes it's not realistic (at all), the stories are very exaggerated, and not very perfectionists, but I don't watch those movies for realism, I watch them to spend a good time, to clear my head, because I love the actors, and everything is so light! It does not sell more than what it is, and for that I really enjoy watching the 2 movies whenever I am in a bad mood!
30 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Is This What the Movies Have Come To?
Buddy-5119 October 2003
Attacking `Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle' is a bit like shooting secret agents in a barrel; there's just not a lot of sport in it because it's way too easy to do.

Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore return as the giggly, jiggly trio who, we're supposed to believe, are amazing, expert crime fighters. About the only way this material stands even a chance of succeeding is if the filmmakers treat it like some over-the-top, live action cartoon (or is it video game?) - which is pretty much what they've done. Unfortunately, it turns out to be a cartoon almost totally devoid of wit, creativity and charm. The plot mainly consists of finding ways to get the girls into campy costumes and situations. Thus we have the angels as nuns, the angels as welders, the angels as exotic dancers. The problem is that this cutesiness wears awfully thin after awhile, especially since that is pretty much all the screenplay manages to come up with in the way of entertainment.

The stunt sequences – which consist mainly of tedious slow-motion shots of the girls flipping through the air, karate-chopping the bad guys and dodging bullets - are so excessive in nature that we begin to understand what a detrimental effect `The Matrix' (however inadvertently) has had on filmmaking in the past few years. When any physical action - no matter how contrary to the laws of physics and gravity - is possible, how are we supposed to care what happens to the people involved? If no one seems to be in any real danger, all possible suspense is eliminated and we are left admiring the work of the special effects team and very little else. The `Charlie's Angels' films are not alone in this regard, but they do serve as handy warning signs of the potentially debilitating effect of this trend on the future of action movies.

About halfway through the film, Jaclyn Smith, one of the angels from the original TV series, shows up to dispense some veteran advice to one of our intrepid little cherubs. Though long past her prime, Smith is so goddess-y beautiful in her brief moments on screen that, not only does she outclass all three of the leading players, but she makes us, heaven forbid, even feel a twinge of nostalgia – however faint - for the original series. Frankly, I didn't think that was possible. Credit the makers of this fiasco for achieving at least that much with their film.
95 out of 155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Quite fun but the total lack of substance is a real problem
bob the moo6 July 2003
The Angels rescue Marshal Ray Carter from Mongolia but leave without what they presume to be his wedding ring. Later they find out that the ring is one of a coded pair that, once combined, unlocks the data for the location of the entire witness protection programme. The other ring has also been taken from it's holder and the holder murdered. The Angels are charged to bring back the rings but along the way they encounter secrets from the past including a violent old flame from Dylan's youth seeking revenge and an ex-Angel striking out on her own.

It was with a heavy (but open) heart that I went to see this film. I had enjoyed the first film (for all it's flaws) but I didn't really want to see a film that just went over the same ground. Happily CA2 didn't just make the same mistakes as the first film did – it actually went beyond them! One problem with the first film was that the plot had too many scenes that just seemed to happen without reason or consequence (the race cars scene for one). However here the majority of the scenes seem to exist outside the plot. It's like they knew that they wanted to repeat the essence of some scenes from the first film and, if they couldn't fit them into the plot, then they just dropped them in anyway. Scenes that were enjoyable in the first film were just not quite as funny the second time round.

The plot is so disjointed that it really does feel very episodic and I struggled sometimes to see the narrative flow – mainly because for large sections of the film there wasn't one. Characters are dropped in for little reason, scenes occur that are wedged into the plot simply because someone had the idea in isolation and got it added to the film etc. However I won't waste time debating this here as I think many agree that this film was never meant to provide substance. Which leaves us with style. McG is aptly named as he is responsible for a mass produced product that seems to lack invention or spark of it's own. It was possible to look at the first film as a tongue in cheek satire of blockbusters – but to do the same thing all over again made me realise that he wasn't satirising the cult of excess – he is actually part of it and worse, he hasn't got ideas of his own.

Hence we have scenes that are more like music videos. The soundtrack pretty much covers the whole film, lest we should have a quiet moment to think! Also the action scenes are sub-par Matrix rips – once he may have gotten away with it but the joke has worn thin. The action is just silly and makes it very hard to get excited or involved. The opening sequence is just laughable and sets the tone – it's a shame as some of the fights are well choreographed and could have been good if they hadn't been pushed to being OTT. The constant use of slow motion and linger shots of the girls' asses or blowing hair also gets quite tiresome in the end. The film has quite a few good references to other movies (eg Cape Fear & Sound Of Music) however these only work if they exist as scenes themselves and not just as references. To show you what I mean, `The Simpsons' spoofed Cape Fear, but the episode stood in it's own right. In CA2 some references seem only to exist as references and not part of the film. The constant use of in-jokes and styles from other films stopped feeling like clever fleeting references and started to feel like McG just plundering for things to fill his film – I mean, doesn't even the concept of a quest for a ring sound familiar to anyone, never mind the Matrix effects?!

The cast is amazing and it is to McG's further shame that he makes poor use of the majority of them. The lead trio are good but (as the outakes show) seemed to have had more fun making it than I had watching it. Liu comes out the best for my money as she is the most convincing fighter and is the sexiest! Moore is alright in the support but she is poorly used – she really does have a very small role, most of which is to show off her new body. Mac is a major let down – from the trailer he had looked funny but the truth is that he gives a poor minstrel performance at best. He has a few funny lines but he is not as funny as I've seen him – his failure makes the loss of Bill Murray feel 100 times greater. Theroux is physically impressive but has a terrible accent that wonders from Northern Irish to Southern Irish to some sort of flat Scots at times. The support cast is deep and mostly wasted - Bruce Willis has about 3 words and 1 minute of screen time, Fisher, Patrick, Eve, LeBlanc, Wilson, The Olsen's, Smith, Forster and Pink (to name a handful) all have very little to actually do and it just turns their scenes into a game of `oh look it's …'. The biggest waste is Cleese who is given nothing to do but do bug eyes over cheap innuendo and whisper `ferret'.

Overall I'm aware that to make these points is a waste of my time as many fans of this film will acknowledge them and say `so what?'. Hell – I half enjoyed the film as a piece of fluff for a Sunday afternoon with mindless action and sexy ladies – but it's hard for that to totally suffice and, try as I might, I couldn't help but feel like I wanted something more from it.
48 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not good.
Chris10057530 January 2004
I liked the first Charlie's Angels film. OK so it was never going to make cinematic history, but it was fun in a kitsch kind of a way.

Not so the second. The storyline is disjointed, and the action sequences are so far overdone it's laughable. Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but when the Angels are flying around like Matrix Agents even dodging bullets, it just gets silly. There are numerous references to other films, but I get the impression that they're included as padding rather than genuine homages.

Demi Moore looks great, but is wasted in this compost heap of a film. If ever there was an argument for not buying a DVD before you've watched it, this is it.
31 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What On Earth Did You Expect?
ferretpossum13 July 2014
This is a big, shiny, silly, camp summer blockbuster and I suspect most of the bad reviews are purely because it dares to make fun of itself in a way that Mission: Impossible, Die Hard, X-Men and all those dude- dominated action movies don't.

But really, I have to worry about all those people who hated this on seeing it. Did they not see the first movie? Or perhaps they thought the original TV show was a cerebral example of 1970's TV programming.

The fact is if you liked the 2000 movie, with all the silly in-jokes, cultural references, campy soundtrack and frankly ridiculous stunts then you'll enjoy this one just as much. Maybe more because it also has Demi Moore looking amazing and a Jaclyn Smith cameo.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What do people not GET about this movie? (***1/2)
Ronin4720 October 2003
"Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" is, like the original 2000 film, something of a masterpiece of goofy surrealism. Say what you will, but the spectacular action scenes in this movie, as well as the comedy and often the "drama" are as off-the-wall and flat-out weird as anything in a David Lynch movie. In particular there is an action scene at a motorcross that obeys the laws of physics in about the same way that "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" does, and by doing so it's one of the most exhilarating action sequences I've seen in a long time.

It's also a perfect summer movie. Funny, fast-paced, exciting, colorful, and with a soundtrack that just won't quit throwing great, classic songs at you, this is a hell of a fun movie.

Of course Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu reprise their roles as Nat, Dylan, and Alex, but this time Bernie Mac takes over as Bosley. As much as I loved Bill Murray in the original, Mac really rocks this role and brings a spin to it that matches the tone of the movie better than Murray did.

Like the original, "Full Throttle" is thoroughly derivative, but in so many ways that it's completely unique also. It's like watching your favorite goofball martial-arts movie, going to a beach party, playing a video game, and listening to a great 80's mix tape all at the same time.

In other words, it made me feel like a kid again, and there's no higher compliment I could possibly give a movie. I think I'll leave it at that.
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"This film has the mediocrity of a horrible B-movie from the seventies, with a huge budget splattered on top."
MovieAddict201629 July 2003
I liked "Charlie's Angels." It never took itself too seriously, and Bill Murray provided some comic relief, making the film more than just an hour and a half bikini advert. Something funny (or unfunny) happens in "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle": It's terrible.

I mean, this movie isn't bad, it's just awful. The acting is even worse than the first, there's no Bill Murray, and what were all the stars making cameos in this film thinking? Bruce Willis, Owen Wilson, and others make brief appearences, but what about Demi Moore, Crispin Glover ("Back to the Future"), Robert Patrick (better remembered as the T-1000 in "T2"), John Cleese (or was that a cameo?), Luke Wilson, Bernie Mac (who now has his own very popular TV show--he didn't need this to hinder his career), Matt LeBlanc ("Friends"), and so on and so forth, who all took main roles? Okay, I understand LeBlanc taking part in the film, his career is going nowhere other than "Friends," but seriously, Luke Wilson?! Between this and "Legally Blonde 2," the man may never make a lead role again (like in "Old School," a much funnier and more fun film than this). And John Cleese! What's with him and small roles lately? "Harry Potter," "James Bond," all of his roles are supporting: Whatever happened to his acting career? And that's not to mention what in the %&#% Cameron Diaz is doing in this movie. Drew Barrymore...maybe. Lucy Liu...definately. Cameron Diaz...NO WAY! I really like Cameron Diaz, and she can act (see "There's Something About Mary"), but what in the name of H.G. Wells is she doing in this? And why does she act so bad in it? I understand playing homage to the show with bad acting and all like the first film, but this pushes the limit.

The direction style is worse, thanks to "McG," and Drew Barrymore manages to steal the show as the all-time worst actress in recent years. I know it's not all her--it's the script. Anyone who has to say the stuff these girls say in this film should know they're in trouble, and should mutter the lines with utter chaos, but it's unbearable how corny the things they say are. And just check out their acting in a dirt bike scene, when Liu and Barrymore are "worried" and "scared" that Diaz's character might be in trouble. Youch! Bad acting to a new extreme. This film has the mediocrity of a horrible B-movie from the seventies, with a huge budget splattered on top.

Originally titled "Charlie's Angels: Halo" (the name changed due to copyright on the video game "Halo"), "Full Throttle's" plot is one of the worst I've seen in a long time. It's horribly contrived. Where should I begin? In the beginning of the film, the three Angels, Natalie (Diaz), Alex (Liu) and Dylan (Barrymore) rescue a hostage (Patrick) from a bunch of Hungarians. Stupidity ensues when the Angels fall off a bridge, dodging a missile, and manage to grab onto a helicopter or something before the truck they were in blows up. When watching this scene, the first things that enters your brain is this: How in the world did this pass Columbia TriStar's eyes? I mean, that scene is the kind of stuff I used to think would be neat when I was about ten, only back then they didn't make feature films out of idiotic ideas. Anyway, on with the plot.

After rescuing Patrick, they find out he was carrying with him a ring on his finger that the Hungarians stole. This ring, when joined with another, reveals the entire database of those on the witness protection program and their real names. Good Lord, I didn't know that the Government kept the names of their protected witnesses on a super-duper ring gadget so easily stealable. I mean, didn't this pass the actors and actresses' minds--maybe the film might be a bit sore on the plot?

I suppose that's not why people go to see this movie. They go to see the girls in bikinis. That's not a bad idea, the first one was like that, but if you're going to have a plot at least make it non-laughable. Even the first film's plot was better than THIS!

One thing leads to another, pretty soon they find out Dylan (who entered the witness protection program years ago) is being targeted for assassination by the Creepy Thin Man (Crispin Glover). One thing I found funny is that Crispin Glover refused to return for "Back to the Future Part II," demanding what writer Bob Gale said was "unreasonable" perks, yet he returned for "Charlie's Angels 2" in a flash. Interesting, Crispin, I see you've learned from your mistakes--sadly, you've used your wisdom to return for a terrible film.

"Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" isn't just miserable, it isn't just awful, it is just so mediocre it hurts. It's like on gargantuan mess, filled to the rim with bad acting, horrible "Matrix" rip-off fight scenes, and a God-awful script, all of which makes "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" one of the biggest cinematic disasters in recent years. I could spend hours wondering why the beautiful and talented Cameron Diaz chose to appear in this film, but in all honesty, it hurts my brain just thinking about it. What hurts my brain even more is the fact that this film has grossed close to 100 mil already, meaning more sequels. I weep for those that paid to see this movie expecting a treat.

I'll say once more to the fans of the films that I enjoyed the original as a guilty pleasure, but this is too much for me. Please, no more sequels.

1.5/5 stars -

John Ulmer
57 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A disappointing film lacking the wit and charm of its predecessor.
bradsherman21 February 2004
I watched this film at the recommendation of my 13 year-old daughter. I like the original film version of a few years ago but Full Throttle lacks the wit and charm of its predecessor. It therefore had to rely on action and special effects which I found boring (and I like action films). The dialogue was weak and, in particular, the special effects were disappointing for this day and age. There was too much obvious work in front of the blue screen and the situations were so preposterous that I eventually gave up on the film after enduring too much of a particularly ridiculous chase. I've only ever walked out on two other films in over 40 years. There is much better entertainment available.
57 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
with that budget six good movies could have been made
pace-113 July 2004
What do you say about a comedy that isn't at all funny a spoof thats to heavy handed and loud that its just irritating Boy I wish I could get a job where with out any talent I could waste millions of dollars make a incoherent piece of tripe (that did not do that well ) and be told sure you can make the last installment of this overdone franchise.Is any body else really sick of these MTV directors with there million of blazing editing cuts to create these false epics.How many good movies from struggling directors will never be seen because Hollywood is still looking for that big score picture. doesn't matter if good or not just loud and flashy. OH those lovable bean counters.
78 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fantastic, live-action cartoon fun!
CMUltra12 July 2003
We caught a double at the matinee today and perhaps I found CA:FT so much fun due to the comparison of the pretty lousy League of Extraordinary Gentlemen we had just seen. But, fun it was!

I went in hoping for more of the satirical flair that made the first one enjoyable. CA:FT delivered. This is the way movies about campy TV shows *should* be made. An over-the-top parody that keeps you gasping and laughing the entire time.

If you want "realistic" action, this movie is NOT it. This is a live-action cartoon, beautifully shot in a kinetic MTV style. Cameos are numerous ("Is that Bruce Willis?" "Hey, Pink!") and watch for plenty of little homages to various campy TV series of the same genre.

Most of all, sit back and enjoy! The three angels are as goofy as ever with their satire-sincerity and "fierce" poses. They each have a distinct personality trait which helps all the little subplots keep moving along.

The supporting cast was fine too. Bernie Mac's Bosley was an improvement over the first. Lots of laughs! Demi's Madison character was okay, but I kept getting the impression she was trying too hard. This is a parody and Madison should have been a hammed-up villainess, but Moore remained too seriously focused. This caused the character to seem out of step with the rest of the movie. John Cleese was fine too. His part was small and generally consisted of the tired joke of miscommunication about his daughter's (Liu) occupation.

If you enjoyed the first Charlies Angels, see this! If you like goofy, all-out action fun, see this! If you want drama, skip this.

7 out of 10.
39 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Dollar for dollar, the worst movie ever made.
brawny6411 July 2004
$120,000,000 down the drain.

It's an action movie that's not exciting, a parody that's not funny, and an adventure that's not adventurous. It is a mystery - a mystery that anyone would like it. It even lack sex appeal.

Maybe McG needs to work on TV with a much smaller budget and less famous actors. He clearly can't get anything from the "angels" who seem more interested in laughing than acting. This movie cements their reputations (and Demi Moore's also) as truly bad actors. I don't feel bad for any of them.

I don't know about Bernie Mac. Is he that bad, or does he just get horrible roles? The best actors in the first film were Bill Murray and Tom Green. In the second? John Cleese and Matt LeBlanc. This is not what you want.

There are several random cameos throughout, not unlike the random plot itself. Much of the movie is a string of T&A, music, pyrotechnics and CG action. It truly is one extremely long music video - like Thriller would look like if created by two monkeys and an ATM machine.

I thought the $92 million "original" was bad, but the sequel managed to be about $28 million worse. Maybe someday, someone will make a film about how McG got $200 million to make two movies after directing a couple of popular music videos.

It could be worse, though - "Charlie's Angels 3: One Last Job"
38 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An insult to the TV series
Toxic_Sausage2 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
43 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Strong contender for worst movie ever made
Dimme8 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.
57 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Enkidu27829 October 2003
This movie lacks anything worthwhile. The story is rehash and the cinematics get annoying within the first ten minutes. Constant closeups and slow motion get too aggravating that this movie looses its entertainment value very quickly.

Although whenever one watches a movie, a bit of "suspension of reality" is to be expected. But with this movie, it becomes laughable and lame. I had flashbacks of watching "The Core" with some of the cheesier moments.
33 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bad - Worse - CA2
ateisti25 September 2003
There are good movies, bad movies, and very bad movies. And then there's Charlie's Angels 2. After 5 minutes of watching this movie I realized what I had gotten myself into. Unfortunately, I am one of those people who have to watch a movie they've started to the end, no matter how much it sucks. And this movie is the king amongst vacuum cleaners.

It's full of incredibly unconvincing stunts, bad jokes and mediocre acting. Add a banal plot, and you've got yourself by far the worst movie of 2003. Recommended for masochists only.
26 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Outrageously great romp of fun, action and comedy!
MadWatch1 July 2003
If you haven't read the person's review that stated "For those that 'get it'....", then read that one. That reviewer states some good points.

Commenting that the movie lacks plot, is cliched, is 'over the top' is like complaining that a Shakespeare play is a lousy action movie; Charlie's Angels 2 is *meant* to be an over-the-top, outrageous, spoofing, comedical parody-type action movie. The characters don't just do action, they do "over the top" action. The stunts are not just amazing, they are "over the top". Part of the comedic elements are derived from characters doing *exagerrated* action sequences, thereby spoofing action movies. The movie broke out in a musical number during the High School reunion scene!! The movie is not *meant* to be a serious philosophical analysis of life!

In my opinion, the movie was awesome. It had stunts, action, comedy, great acting (within the parameters of what the movie intended), great dialogue (again, within the parameters of what the movie intended) and moved at an excellent pace. The cameoes were the cherry on the sundae (although I dont know who "Eve" or "Pink" are....).

IF you view the movie in the style it was intended to watch, this is an excellent movie (9.5 out of 10). If you view this movie too seriously (imagine watching Leslie Neilson's Naked Gun movie with the mindset that you are watching a CSI movie), then you will be disappointed.
35 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Exhilarating! Just pure fun!
UniqueParticle14 July 2019
I remember being very young, using an old mac computer, waited for the trailer and saw this with my family. I wasn't reviewing back then; I loved it a lot though. Some very epic action, stunts, gorgeous cast, great jokes and memorable moments just like the first one, just under par. This has a measly 4.9 I think it deserves at least a 9.2 maybe I am just weird! I love the cast: Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, Demi Moore, Justin Theroux, the late great Bernie Mac R.I.P., Shia Labeouf, and Robert Patrick. All around blast always fun to watch!
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's not meant to be serious, but fun! So enjoy it for what it is!!!
tefin15 July 2003
First of all, I noticed a lot of people dissing the film and saying how it's plot is thin, the characters aren't well developed, etc... well, that is kinda the point. Charlie's Angels, the tv series, was full of camp, and over-the-top antics and did exploit the use of sexy women. The movie(s) are based on this very notion, meaning that if you go to see the movie, you're going to see some campy-spoof, with some heavy moments, of a campy 70's show.

If you're into a fast and fun movie, filled with lots of action, noise and over-the-top scenes, then Charlie's Angels is for you! It's got a lot of great action, and even though it seems pointless, it's fun! Isn't that the whole point for seeing a movie in the first place - to have fun? I love drama, and other sorts of movies, but you really can't expect it from Charlie's Angels!

The one thing that is at the center of the movies, of course, is the chemistry between Natalie, Alex, and Dylan. Diaz, Liu, and Barrymore have a wonderful chemistry together and they make things fun, yet sincere.

This movie, with the addition of Demi Moore, ROCKED! It was a solid kick ass movie. It's just about fun, enjoyable and uplifting girl power at it's best! So sit back and enjoy it for what it is, and stop worrying and stressing over the plot - cause it's not about plot, it's about campy-fun! :)
18 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
When ego meets!
wu-zi-mu1 November 2005
Cameron Diaz: Hey girls remember that movie we did called Charlies angels?

Lucy and drew: Yes of course we had great fun on it and everyone loved it, why?

Cameron: well... let's make a sequel!!!

Drew: yeah sure, the first was well directed, had great music and a wonderful script, so everyone will love this one!!! but how do we make this one as good?

Drew: The script? yeah whatever the script!!!

Lucy: well the movie is gonna have us in it so there's no need for McG to work hard. In fact, he can just mess about with all sorts of stupid action sequences and silly plot outlines!

Cameron: yeah but how does that fit into the script?

Drew: The script, who cares about that it's gonna have us in it so everyone will love it!!!

Lucy: What about cameos?

Cameron: Cameos? come on nobody goes to the movies for Cameos so let's just have any stupid pointless Cameos in this one!

Drew: Or how about in the story my name is revealed to have one been Helen Zaas?

Cameron: OK, but how does that go in the script?

Drew: Who cares about the script everyone will love it!!!

Lucy: Hey, how about we have a new Bosley in this one and have a bit where you see Bill Murray on a background photo?

Cameron: Hmm? how does that fit into the script?

Lucy: what is with you and the script? Who cares about the script? it's got us in it so let's find a good actor for Bosley!


Cameron: OK I'll phone up and ask

( Ring Ring, Ring Ring)

Bernie: Hello?

Cameron: Hi this is Cameron Diaz, I was wondering if you would like to play Bosley in Charlies angels 2?

Bernie: OK sure, what's it about?

Cameron: Who cares, it's got us in it so everyone will love it!

Bernie: OK

Lucy: What did he say?

Cameron: He said yes

Drew: OK let's go do it then!!!
17 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nonsense, unreal and way too fake !!!
keVin-1914 June 2004
This movie is simply too fake !!! Action sequences are way over the top... totally rubbish... man...this movie is really challenging my common sense... it's not Spiderman movie, it's not Terminator movie... c'mon... make it more human !!!

Yucks... did not finish watching the movie... maybe some of you might like the movie...i don't just doesn't suit my taste... This will be one of the few movies i'm ever going to vote (awful)... so the rating is ...

1 out of possible 10. Since i can't give 0.

Yup... it is that bad...
30 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I think it's an insult to the original!
franseca21 October 2003
I saw Charlie's Angels Full Throttle today -- it was an insult to the original! While Diaz, Liu and Barrymore are sexy women, none of them holds a candle to a classic like Farrah Fawcett.

The movie was one situation after another that put them in ridiculous costumes and weird sexual innuendo. Correction: BAD weird sexual innuendo.

And Demi Moore as the angel-turned-bad? Blah! Again, a sexy woman, but substandard acting: her performance was flat and passionless.

As for the fight scenes: the martial arts were HORRIBLE! It was a badly choreographed computer-generated matrix-esque MESS! Incidentally, I never went to see Charlies Angels in the theater because the previews made it look so corny -- and even they didn't do justice to the depths of corniness of this atrocity! The ONLY nifty part of the movie -- the anti-angel solo (Moore) had two golden DesertEagle50s! *droooooooooooooool* Now THOSE were cool!
15 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
That Sucked!!
efh173715 July 2003
Well that sucked! The first one was great, but this, this was terrible. If I had wanted to see the Matrix, I would have rented it! That's all this was. Silly "Dumb and Dumber" meets "the Matrix". It was awful!!! Far worse than "Legally Blonde 2". (and that sucked as well!!)
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretty Women in Skimpy clothes
tomsandlin18 June 2004
To me this was a shameless display of female flesh. I know most

men will say what's wrong with that! But when I watch a Movie I

want to be entertained by the story and the plot as well as the

scenery. To me this was a way for Demi Moore to show off her

new body. It was like Charlie's Angels meets the Matrix it was

overdone and unbelievable. The story itself was flimsy at best. I

enjoy looking at beautiful women as much as the next guy but at

least let it be in an entertaining way. I mean it is as if the said let's

see how many times can we use our new special effects technology and get away with it. Overall I would call it beautiful

women in tight skimpy clothes with Charlie's Angels as a subplot.I

certainly hope this is the last of Charlie's Angels. I Also hope that

the three ladies will take some much needed acting classes.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just awful!
KMeister125 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!
19 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not Worth it
mabrajano5 July 2003
This movie was a great disappointment, the opening sequence was just too unbelievable. The movie just seems to jump around with regards to the plot, the movie did not flow. You never actually see them acting like detectives at all, they are just doing one stunt after another. I would definately give it a pass.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed