Genres

Visitors Review

2013-05-25 01:37:52

Interesting

I saw this yesterday and thought it was awesome mostly because of theentertaining dance and violence scenes; the whole things is ratheroutlandish but keeps at such a fast pace you don't have time to think aboutwhat's going on. Hat's off to those beautiful dolls, Cameron Diaz, DrewBarrymore and Lucy Liu! Danny Glover palys an important role, and DemiMoore plays the fallen angel. The voice of John Forsythe whole did the TVseries is included in this one. 7/10

Walter 2013-05-24 08:35:45

Full Throttle...... to absolutely nowhere....

Okay, I know this sequel was made just to make money and cash in on the popularity of the first "Angels" movie. But did it really have to suck as much? I mean there was no story, Bernie Mac is so played out it aint even funny, the entire movie is pointless. The only semi-positive thing were the girls, most of them are cute and sexiness is abundant in this movie...Barrymore, Liu and Diaz. But honestly not one of them is super gorgeous. And Demi Moore?, please...nothing real on that body, a Sharpie marker has less plastic on it.But im not here to bash the actors. Im here to bash this sorry excuse for a movie, James Bond movies are over the top...this Throttle crap is way, way over the top. I felt like I should have been 13 years old not 30 to truly enjoy it.While this film wasnt for me, I cant speak for you...so watch it and write your own review.

kevin- 2013-05-20 09:10:31

What the !@!#

This movie is poorly directed. The plot(if there was one) was jumpyand had nothing original. We've had enough of Camron Diaz's lilstupid antics--it did not work for her again in this film, rather thanbeing amused by her charmy *cute* (michelle tanner dances), iwas irritable & annoyed. While a few theatre goers were laughingtheir butts off to Bernie Mac, I was sitting there saying to myself"This guy isn't funny.". This movie has really dumb/cheesy jokesand has the "force you to laugh" comedy. Charlies Angels: FullThrottle was a poor film, which left me asleep and verydisappointed that I have paid to see such a hyped sexy womandriven film. I AM DISGUSTED. No fun/entertainment here! Thisgets a 1/10!

2013-05-20 03:25:04

Quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen in my life...

The only thing that I am at all pleased about this movie is that I saw it for $3 after it had gone to the cheap theaters (and notice how quickly after it was released THAT happened - there's a reason). Actually, I was annoyed to have even spent $3 on it, and would probably have been annoyed if I had seen it for free. It's just that bad.To further explain: this movie is far from finished - you get the distinct impression you are watching a rough draft, as this isn't so much a movie as a sequence of (oftentimes unrelated) scenes watched back to back. The plot was so thin, it was utterly incapable of holding this hodge-podge of scenes together; what results is some lame jokes (almost all repeats from the first film), a lot of pointless action, several pointless characters (what was the point of that orphan kid, or the "thin man" from the first movie, anyway?), and about 2 wasted hours of your time.Under no circumstances should you see this movie in a theater, and I strongly encourage you not to even rent it - it really is just THAT BAD.

rshjwood 2013-05-17 15:50:09

FULL THROTTLLE CRAP!!! LOOKOUT BECAUSE IT'S MESSY!!!

I don't know how I could explain how bad this movie really is, but whenhavesomeone like C.Diaz and and the rest of the gang I guess this is what youshould expect. I have not seen anything good from Diaz exept Vanilla Sky,and the only reason she did so good in that movie was she was with TomCruz.These movies suffer from bad casting, they could have been so much morewitha better choice of actors. And the so called "funny" scenes had nothingfunny about them and the matrix rip offs!! oh! aren't we tired of theMatrixripoffs yet? i mean they are really getting old!I give it 1 out of 10.

Zoopansick 2013-05-17 00:56:16

"It empowers young women"....yeah right!

Ok first off the movie itself is really dumb and shallow. Still it canbefun, especially if you are just looking for some mindless entertainment,lord knows I can only watch The Seventh Seal so many times before, I cravestylized violence and one liners. I was in such a mood when I went to seeCharlie's Angels. I left the theater thinking that it was pretty dumb,butBernie Mac was funny and it kept me awake. The real problem I have withthemovie is the way it's promoted and with the lack of ANY originality.Starting with the promotion. I have seen at least 3 different interviewswith Demi Moore and the "Angels" who say things like "This movie showsthreestrong female characters, and proves women can be tough too". That is soblatantly wrong that it makes me mad enough to post. This movie has nopositive role models. It is total T&A and when they promote it asanythingother then that I feel insulted. If you say that's what you are selling,ok, I have no problem. But when you try to elevate the content of a turdlike this, you are smacking every person with any smarts at all in theface.The characters have no depth and the audience doesn't care about them atall. They say in the beginning that they are "3 very different women",butthat's BS. They are all hot chicks who know kung fu and make stupidjokes.They aren't smart at all. **Minor Spoiler** When they find the footprintinthe house, Drew Barrymore (I think) says what the shoe is and where it wassold and in a few seconds they add it all together and know who they arelooking for. That isn't intelligence, that's just a cheap way to 1)spoofCSI (I'll go into spoofing later), 2)cop out of ANY detective work, whichthe Angels in the series at least had SOME (not much) of, 3)moving thestoryalong (I can't believe I just said story in reference to this movie) and4)allowing people to describe the Angels as being "Smart" on the imdbmessage board. In the action scenes the angels beat up the bad guysreallyeasily and there is no tension at all, in fact I have felt more tension inaHitchcock ending credit sequence then I did in any fight scene in FullThrottle. I say this because it removes any vulnerability from thecharacters. They are just untouchable super chicks who have beenpredestined by the writers to win every fight and solve the great"mystery"with no effort at all. There is nothing to them. That means they arewhatsome in the "Biz" call 2-D characters. NOT role models for girls, and noteven particularly memorable female action characters. Of which there aremany, who (with a few exceptions) are dumb, but sexy chicks, who with onekick can knock out a huge muscle bound thug. The problem is not that theyare women, the problem is that they are mindless characters who are allroughly the same character duplicated ad nausem. The Angels here are nodifferent, and in fact where more rounded in the television series thentheyare here. And let me tell you something, the TV series was not called"jiggle tv" for nothing.Anyways that aside there are many problems with the movie. The main oneisof course the lack of plot, but as I said there have been many fun actionpictures in the past which though lacking plot, are fun and at leastvisually interesting. My theory on why this movie in particular seemsexceptionally plotless is because of the countless, spoofs, cameos, andblatant rip-offs (Which I have laughably heard as being described as"influences"). The high number of spoofs and rip-offs show just howlittlethe writers had to try when "writing" the "plot". **SPOILER** Oh and btwifthe plot itself is a retread of the first movie, in which the villains usethe angels to get some high tech device under the guise of rescuing ahelpless victim. C'mon!!!! I know it's a sequel, but they could have donealittle more with the plot, or as I refer to it "The excuse for dancing,cameos, and stupid action". And the action is stupid. The bullet dodgingis slightly tweaked from the Matrix-style bullet dodging. You see in thematrix it was original and it looked better. The CGI here is HORRIBLE!!!You would think that they would at least spend the money to get some goodspecial effects, but they don't. Even the bits of glass and debris fromexploding buildings looks cut and pasted onto the screen, not to mentionthecharacters. The cameos are mostly stupid and give the film a really fakefeel. Cameos can be funny and entertaining, see Austin Powers Goldmember.But I don't think anyone in the theater was laughing when they saw Eve orPink. John Cleese got laughs just because he was Cleese, and people loveMonty Python. But for one second let's look at what he actually did. Hehad a couple brief scenes and all he had to do was look shocked and askhisdaughter to do the ferret (what's up with that anyway?). His role couldhave been played by anyone else and didn't call for any of his talents ofcomedic timing nor did he have any good lines. In fact his role couldhavebeen removed all together. The cameos just take you out of the movie asdothe constant rip offs. A movie like this is supposed to be escapist fun,but it failed. I was just counting the celebrities who pimped themselvesout and get more exposure. But I'm sure they would say that they wantedto"join the fun" of making Charlie's Angels FULL THROTLE!!! YET ANOTHERthingthat really disrupted the flow of the movie was the constant changing ofloud music. This soundtrack must have like 50 songs on it, because Iswearthey would change the music like every 30 seconds. The most hilariousdisplay of music and stupidity ***BTW another spoiler, but really if yougetoffended by this one, I'm glad I made you mad, cause you deserve it*** iswhen they flash back to Barrymore and her Irish Mafia boyfriend "8 yearsago", where, dressed like hair-metal rockers they are rocking out to BonJovi. I don't know about you, but in 1995 I don't think Bon Jovi was toopopular. You would think that music video meister McG would have knownthat, but he didn't. This may be minor, but to me it strikes at the coreofthe films flaw, which is that nothing is put together, it's all a jumbledmass (or mess, whichever you prefer). I mean if they can't even get theirpop music timeline right, what can they do right? Nothing. The film isjust like a music video. It just jumps all around, from cameo topointlessdance sequence to fake action scene to cameo to another cameo to spoof tostupid make up to cameo to bad cgi etc. etc. etc.The final verdict is that this movie is bad and McG is the worst directorinthe world.

2013-05-16 17:36:07

Run For Your Life!

Along with Lara Croft: Tombraider 2, this is the worst sequel I've ever seen. Luckily I bought the DVD used or I would really be upset. As a chick I am all for chicks kicking men's butts in films, but Full Throttle was insulting to women, blacks and anyone with sense. I would love to explain the plot, but it was so overshadowed it didn't seem to matter. The action sequences were lame, boring and predictable. They did the same flips, turns and giggles they did in the first film. The only difference was that that film had a decent plot and was entertaining. Full Throttle is a full disappointment to the T. It was obvious that the directors and writers ran out of anything original. They relied on half-naked women, a desperate Demi Moore and an ignorant black character played by Bernie Mac who wasn't shown but a few times in the film.Unless you're a teenage boy with raging hormones, don't waste your time with this. Fans of the first one will be terribly dissapointed in this mess of a sequel. The filmmakers should have quit while they were ahead. I just hope there is not going to be another one. Full Throttle sort of bombed at the box office ( proving that you need more than trashy-dressed women to make a bad movie work ). Hopefully the bombing will keep them from making a third sequel. We can only pray! This film is just plain insulting to women and was obviously made for a cheap buck. I feel sorry for all the actors because they deserved a better film follow-up to the 2000 hit. I mostly feel sorry for Demi Moore. This horrid film was supposed to be her comeback role. Well, she didn't quite make it.

2013-05-16 07:16:52

About the same as the first

They should have stopped at one film, it would have been enough, but if people will go and see sequels, I guess, why not make them? I'll say the same here as I did about the first film, it's a nothing better to do rental movie. It isn't boring, but it's similar to the Austin Powers type movie, the spoofing goes over the top and gets a bit monotonous and predictable.

2013-05-16 11:26:04

Wow - bad movie

I saw Charlie's Angels - Full Throttle expecting a bad movie, and that's what I got. Even with low expectations going in, I was disappointed, and didn't finish watching it.

robertbrantz 2013-05-15 21:27:31

How can this go so wrong?

This movie is a testament to the lack of ideas in Hollywood. The cast isamazing and I wont even begin to list every star. Just imagine that BruceWillis is cast as a guy who dies within 20 seconds of hisappearance.Can a movie with that kinda luxury still suck? Yes, it can. Full Throttle isboring because the storyline fails. It is not exciting, I didn't care at anypoint what happened. Of course it was supposed to be light entertainment,but this was so light that it was a MTV video, which can entertain for maybe3 1/2 minutes. However, this monstrocity lasted almost 1 1/2hours!

2013-05-15 18:08:08

IT'S GOOD MOVIE!!!

THIS MOVIE WAS GOOD. THIS MOVIE WAS DOING GREAT. SOME SCENES WERE NICE AND IT WAS FUN. THIS MOVIE WAS GOOD QUALITY BUT THE FIRST ONE WAS BEST.I ENJOYED THIS MOVIE.

2013-05-15 11:13:21

"Charlie's Angels: Full Throtlle" is Plastic, but fantastic!

This is my favourite movie of all time! Trust me, if you have not seen it you do not know what you are missing! Cameron Diaz gave an amazing performance. She was brave and acted like she was head of the angels. Lucy Liu took shy girl Alex into my all time favorite angel. Drew Barrymoore didn't have a hair out of place and wasn't as tough as her character really is. I enjoyed the plot of the movie was brilliant. By the way they are not angels! The fighting was great and men should check out Cameron in a bikini and Demi in her bra. Girls, Matt Le Blanc looked sooooooooooo HOT. I liked this because they don't have so much fighting and they also go back in Dylans (Drew Barrymoore) past. You should also see this movie if you just want to howl with laughter.

firewoman 2013-05-13 21:01:54

Fully a waste of time

Terrible. This director must have ADD or something. Way too much ofeverything its trying to offer. I know its not supposed to be Hamlet butthere was just nothing other than attempts to outdo the first one whichwasa bit over the top for me. It just jumps around so much you are motionsickand totally lost. The stunts were just insane and hard to digest as well,the old show looked better compared to this nonsense. Too much of a goodthing is an understatement here.And we wonder why actresses in the business have a hard time gettingrespect. Be sexy but dont be just plain stupid. All I could thinkbesidesthis is so horrible was what is up with Cameron Diaz???!!! The last fivefilms I have seen her in have her jumping around making idiot faces anddancing like a bafoon. Move on woman, have some pride!!!! I guess themoronact is working for her though since she is making all that money, what asadworld we live in today. Again, then we wonder why actresses/women ingeneral get no respect!

HollywoodYuck 2013-05-13 09:17:53

Farrah, come back!

Obviously targeted to males ages 8-14, with lots of action and empoweredyoung ladies in bikinis. Embarrassing, silly, mindless, unbelievable.Thisis acting? Spectacular special effects, obviously going for licensingopportunities (video games, breakfast cereal premiums, etc.) The old TVAngels were much better looking, and the plots and situations were almostplausible. A painful experience.

jungpfeffer 2013-05-11 08:25:53

Idiotic

I don't think there are enough words in the English language to express justquite how disappointed I was with this movie... Ok, so I only went to watchthe movie in the first place because Rodrigo Santoro (one of my favoriteBrazilian actors) was in it - and I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate todiscuss the dimensions of his role because, although I will stronglydiscourage anybody from watching that movie, I also don't want to spoil itfor anybody who decides to check it out for themselves. But the movie issilly, childish, poorly written and completely detached from the series inwhich 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 appropriatename would be Charlie's Sluts." It has more scenes of Cameron Diaz, DrewBarrymore and Lucy Liu half naked and shaking their cabooses than there areexplosions. 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 theroad to International recognition, I suppose that just a shot in a Hollywoodmajor production is something impossible to turn down... The rest of themovie is... (what is the word I'm looking for?)... (oh, yeah)...idiotic!

Fengshui172002 2013-05-10 22:17:37

Mixed Emotions...*spoilers ahead*

Upon seeing this film, I was curious about it. The first film was IMO wasTHE FILM! It had kick ass action, funny one-liners, terrific acting, andagood plot. This second edition to the Charlie's Angels franchise isprettygood, but there are some parts that made me say "What were theythinking?"Like the scene where the Angels use a flame thrower, and Seamus walks outofthe flames unharmed and his hair unsinged, or the scene towards the endwithDemi Moore's character flying with no explaination off a roof (that wastheonly thing in the scene that bothered me though; I could see the Angelsusing the lights as ropes). The plot did seem to be a little confusingthefirst time I saw it, but as I kept seeing it, I think understood it. Hereitis (from what I can tell): Two titanium rings encrypted with the newaliasesof people in the witness protection program are "stolen" in an attempt togather all the major crime families and bring them to justice. Thissophisticated (or insane) plot is all concocted by the fallen Angel,MadisonLee, who was injured in a case because of her inability to work withpartners. I'm pretty sure that when she was injured, it affected herpsychologically, and that combined with her need for independence droveherto her status as a rogue Angel, and she became power hungry (remember,shesaid "Why be an Angel when I can play God?"). She set her sights on theTownsend Detective Agency, where her ordeal began, and in her fragilestate,decided to take revenge on Charlie by taking out his current Angels. Intheend, she was killed herself, a testament of irony. In the actingdepartment,I think this one succeeds the first one, adding mo0re characterdevelopement. The dialogue is good, but the innuendos are tedious, andthescene where Alex' dad mistakes her for a stripper, I was NOT laughing. Idolike the fact that the movie payed homage to other movies/TV shows. Thescene that makes me laugh , though, is the scene where Natalie hides inthebathroom stall. Hilarious! I think bringing Bernie Mac on board as Bosleywas a good idea. He has better chemistry with the Angels than BillMurray.Demi Moore looked amazing for someone who's given birth and did a helluvajob as Charlie's "fallen Angel". I can't picture anyone else as MadisonLee.Jaclyn Smith reprising her role as Kelly Garret was awesome. Her scenewasone of my favorites in the whole movie, and she looked stunning. I likethescene with the Thin Man (Crispin Glover) and Dylan; it's a sweet momentandgives us a glimpse of his character. Emmers (Rodrigo Santoro), and Seamus(Justin Theroux) are hot. Dayum!! Holla! The music for the movie wasprettycool, it even prompted me to download some of the songs (everytime I hear"Danger, High Voltage", I'm 'a think of that hot surfer). Overall, thisfilmis a great summer movie, albeit with a few flaws. If you're not a fan ofthis franchise, fa'geddit! But if you are, rock on!

2013-05-08 13:30:36

a matter of perspective

When I saw this movie in the theater, I had one of the best movie experiences in recent memory. The movie was wonderfully over the top, well paced, exciting, sexy, full of delightful surprises and gags and just plain fun. Moreover, I haven't laughed so much out loud at the movies in ages. So I was surprised afterwards when I went online to read reviews of the movie and found that it was almost universally panned. Well, let me set all you critics straight -- the movie is almost entirely camp and fantasy. To actually critique it against any serious criteria is to miss the point of the movie entirely. In fact, I kept on saying throughout the movie, "Oh my God, that's so stupid!" But with a big grin on my face. Which, of course, was the intended audience reaction. My only criticism is of Demi Moore, who was the only one to receive praise among the critics who panned the movie. The problem with her role and performance was that she was the only one who played it straight, which made her villian seem completely out of place in the movie. That the critics found her the only good point in the movie goes to show you where they're coming from!

modius 2013-05-08 05:15:51

Hollywood proves again that it has money to burn.

Okay, I'll be honest, I didn't like the first Charlies Angels movie -it was too fluffy, but I did like the action, some of the jokes, andmost importantly I enjoyed Crispin Glover's Thin Man.So what happened in the second movie? It seems the movie producers justdrove a dumper truck filled with money and said they wanted to make asummer action movie without actually thinking about how the audience isactually meant to enjoy a movie that is more about personal ego than itis about the story, plot or stunts.In this sequel, the girls are hired by the government to recover twosmall rings that hold the entire list of people on the witnessprotection scheme. I don't know about you but I felt it was odd that somuch data could be stored into such small rings, not only that - theywere so damn easy to steal too! Then we get to the whole subplots ofDillion's romance with an Irish thug and how she can't kill him but caneasily kill 1,000 other random men. The thin man makes a welcome returnbut doesn't actually do anything. He now is a complete joke. I mean, hewas almost cool in the first and now we have a joker. This movie reallyshows that executives don't really care about this movie. I don't eventhink the stars cared either.Then we get to the stunts and the overall dumbing down of the wholekung fu. In the first the kung fu was fresh and demanding. Now we cansee the quick cutting between frames when the girls are fighting andthe way the girls' arms are bending when they punch. Then we have DemiMoore as the Evil Charlies Angel.Okay, she was good in a sort of pretty kind of way - but her "knowingof the Charlie's Angels' fighting style" was not really used as well itcould have been. Instead Moore uses twin gold Desert Eagles (which shestruggles to keep up) and cries about how Charlie didn't really loveher and how she had ambition to become more than an angel. Okay, butwhy exactly does this make her the bad person? The end fight sequenceis pretty lame too. Why is Diaz the only character to be able to fightMoore? I think the director should have watched the ending of JackieChan's "Project A" where three heroes face one super-bad guy, thedirector could have had a similar sequence, but instead ruins it with ahomage to "Hollow Man"...Despite all this, the movie and its potential - it is ruined a lot bythe bad stunts ruined by badly rendered CGI. I still remember withaffection movies like Blue Jean Cop and some of the earlier Jackie Chanmovies where stunts meant action and action meant danger. So why hasHollywood forgotten about it? I don't know, all I know is that in thismovie, we are proved once again that Hollywood has money to burn.Overall this movie is rated a 1/10.

2013-05-05 10:11:44

Well, It Has One Benefit

"Charlie's Angel-Full Throttle" was like watching one long music video. After a while, you forgot whether or not there was a story line. You are so side-tracked with all the constantly changing visual affects every other minute. I believe the story revolved around the retrieval of two coded rings that held the names of those in the witness protection program. A former angel (Demi Moore) goes into business for herself in stealing the rings and then selling them to the highest bidder. There is one thing I have to give the movie credit for. It provides female action heroines. They can kick any man's butt. Although unrealistic is approach, it does provide motivation for young women.

2013-05-04 16:33:28

Slitting My Own Throat Would Be More Fun

I tried very hard to get into Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, but it's so bad I think slitting my own throat would have been more fun. I ended up just channel surfing the night away. I can't believe crap such as this gets made year after year, guess that's what happens when you replace studio heads with clueless MBA clones that can't make a decision without consulting the day's horoscopes. Even more upsetting are "directors" like McG who kept getting gigs without showing an ounce of ability to tell a story, or direct for that matter. I think I can do better working from my trash bin of bad ideas than McG can on his best days, and I only have half a brain!