nofreelist.com
keyword
 
reviews (a to z)# a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

home :: latest reviews :: reviewer profiles :: statistics :: diary :: links

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)

  Directed by: McG
Starring: Drew Barrymore, John Cleese, Cameron Diaz, Crispin Glover, Lucy Liu, Bernie Mac, Demi Moore, Justin Theroux
Links: Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle on the IMDb, Official site, Buy on DVD, Buy on Video
Genre: Action

This movie gets: 6.00 (2 ratings)
nofreelist.com Ranking: Ranked equal 129th of 187 movies (2 ratings minimum; see full chart)

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003) is also mentioned in em_fiction's review of Mulholland Dr. (2001).

"Hey McG: please don't McMake another one of these McMovies." - a review by mino

OK, Charlie's Angels (2000) wasn't exactly The Shawshank Redemption (1994). I'm the first to admit it. It was kind of dumb, in fact. The plot was weak, the performances fairly wooden, the action sequences exciting but rather too farfetched, and the comedy often fell flat.

That said, though, it was at least moderately enjoyable, because it knew it was stupid. It was one of that recent crop of self-parodying movies which took its own stupidity, in fact, and ran with it.

The plot was knowingly weak, as if to say ‘yeah, we've got no plot. What do you care?’. The performances weren't supposed to be any good, the action sequences didn't care how farfetched they were, and the comedy was as deliberately groanworthy as it was tongue-in-cheek. All this combined to make a movie that was — well, that was fun, if nothing else.

In the case of this sequel, though, I think they kind of forgot why they did all that in the first place. There's a fine line between that sort of nudge-nudge-wink-wink parody, and a genuinely bad, badly-acted, plot-free, ludicrous, and unfunny movie. While Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle doesn't jump all the way across that line, it teeters pretty close to the edge in parts.

Many parts of the film just try too hard — I mean, I'm a red-blooded heterosexual male who likes semi-clad female flesh as much as the next guy, but there's a big difference between the ‘tee hee! that's naughty!’ underwear-or-lederhosen-clad angels of the first movie, and the pole-dancing-for-the-sake-of-pole-dancing angels in the second. I'm not complaining that much, mind, but even so: there were any number of points in this movie where a cheeky parody became a genuinely bad example of that which they were trying to parody.

My biggest problem with the movie, though, was the presence of several gaping plot holes. These have already been covered by pearly, so I don't have much to add; except to say that, if I was a criminal mastermind, and I'd stolen two platinum rings containing a whole bunch of super-secret names and addresses, the first thing I would do once I'd taken a peek at the data would be to make a copy. I mean, what sort of genius supercriminal says ‘OK, we've got both rings. Decrypting… yep, sensitive data is there, all right. OK, let's go and get a pizza.’? Honestly. I'd be all like ‘Sure, angels, come and take the rings back. Go nuts. Because I, mino, evil wrongdoer, have cunningly made several copies of this information on blank CD-Rs which cost no more than fifty cents each. Here, have the rings. Hell, I'll send them to you by courier if you like. I don't need them any more.’. Maybe these criminals don't realise that you buy CD-Rs at the supermarket these days.

One shouldn't expect The Usual Suspects (1995), plotwise, when going to see this movie, I know, but something at least vaguely coherent would have been nice.

Now where was I? Oh yes, stupid movie. Director McG has, with this movie, managed to take his previous success, duplicate it nearly exactly, suck (nearly) all of the fun out of it, and no doubt make millions of dollars. I guess that has to be worth some points.

mino gives this movie 5 out of 10.
Review created on Thu 7 Aug 2003

"G to the I to the R to the L POWER" - a review by pearly

I don't remember the television series on which this movie is based as being so over-the-top, but I guess that's what it takes to get people's attention nowadays: superhuman stunts, and Cameron Diaz's wiggling ass. This one is just as ridiculous (more?) as the first (Charlie's Angels (2000)), with the angels this time chasing after an enemy who has stolen a pair of platinum rings which, when put together, are able to list off the new identities of anyone that's been put under witness protection. This enemy turns out to be, eventually, a former Charlie's angel herself, namely Madison (Demi Moore).

Things I liked about Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle:

  • The Simpsonsesque parodies, especially the one of C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation, less so the one of The Sound of Music (1965), which wasn't so much a parody as just the music being played because the girls had dressed up as nuns (the theme from The Flying Nun would have been just as appropriate).
  • John Cleese. I think I'd like Cleese no matter what, and I like him in this - it's just unfortunate that his character is so involved in the stupid "I am inferring from what you're saying that Alex (Lucy Liu) is a prostitute" storyline.
  • The guest star appearances. I don't usually like appearances for the sake of getting bums on seats, but the cameos in this were fairly non-intrusive (e.g. Pink), so it didn't bother me much.

Things I didn't like about Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle:

  • The name. Why does every sequel have to try to disguise the fact that it's a sequel by appending stupid stuff after the original movie name? No-one's falling for it, and you can bet everyone on the street, except anal losers (ahem, mino), is calling it Charlie's Angels 2 (or, perhaps if you're slightly less of a loser than mino, but a loser nonetheless: Charlie's Angels II).
  • The Jimmy Bosley character, played by Bernie Mac. If you had tried to think of a way that they could have replaced Bill Murray in an acceptable fashion, the last thing you would think of would be to get this idiot on board. Nothing that involved him was funny, and all of it was meant to be.
  • The platinum ring storyline: important people carrying sensitive data in the form of rings. Is anyone actually falling for this? Haven't these people heard of computers with databases and encryption technology? Or, forget the computers, even rings with encryption technology would do - so that if they got their hands (fingers) on the rings, they'd still have to enter some sort of password, decryption key, or... something... anything!

What it comes down to is that this is exactly the kind of movie you'd expect from a director who doesn't even have a first name, and whose background is in music video. It's big, it's loud, it's colourful, it's fun, it's fiction. Go in expecting anything else, and you'll come out hating.

pearly gives this movie 7 out of 10.
Review created on Thu 7 Aug 2003

Movie review statistics

Number of reviews: 2
Average rating: 6.00
Lowest rating: 5 (by mino)
Highest rating: 7 (by pearly)
 
Rating Percentage
1 
 0%
2 
 0%
3 
 0%
4 
 0%
5 
 50%
6 
 0%
7 
 50%
8 
 0%
9 
 0%
10 
 0%

Reader comments

  1. i love urmovies with charlies angels i dont care what other people think i really like it i just wish u guys would of kept him aliva at the end cuz he's to cute to die and the plot was great

    Rating given: 10

    A comment from Ally on Wed 25 Feb 2004 14:55 #

Those who have commented give this movie: 10.00 (1 rating)

Add a comment

Your name:
URL:
Email address:
Make public?
Anti-Spam question:To prove you're not a horrible spam-leaving robot, please answer the following question (use numbers):
If I have 11 Best Adapted Screenplay Oscars and win 6 more Best Adapted Screenplay Oscars, how many Best Adapted Screenplay Oscars do I have?
Comment:
Rate this movie:

You may use the <em>emphasis</em> and <strong>strong emphasis</strong> HTML tags. URLs beginning with ‘http://’ will be turned into links. Line breaks will display as entered.