Rating: 
Summary: Took a great thing and ruined it !
Review: I loved the first one so much that I coudn't wait to see this one. What a disappointment! Is this movie supposed to be an unfunny comedy? Everything that was great about the first movie, they overdid in this one. It was a very sad thing for me to see how they ruined a good franchise. What was with Creepy thin man having on those freaky white contacts? And who wrote those cheesy lines that they were saying? This is a true review from a Charlies Angels (first movie) true fan. I think the people who gave those great reviews work for Columbia Pictures!
Rating: 
Summary: 3.5 star rating = Just a knotch above GOOD
Review: MY FEEDBACK:
1) If you could enjoy the first movie you should be able to enjoy this one. It was the same comedy/action found in the first but with a bit more sensuality.
2) Speaking about sensuality, it did get tiring after a while seeing all the butt and cleavage shots. It is like McG had to add a little something more than the first movie and he opted for more sex instead of better story. Too bad, which is why I knocked this rating down.
3) He did try to get a bit more characterization going by introducing a past to Barrymore's character and Lui's character. Cameron's character doesn't have so much as a past as an attempt to develop her continuing relationship with Wilson. Overall, I like the attempt made at deepening the characters. Whether the attempt was successful or not is a matter of opinion.
4) Demi Moore, was great! Her raspy voice and great 40+yr old chisled body didn't seem at all out of place in a movie dominated by 20 year old women. Hats off to Demi. OVERALL: I'm glad I rented it and didn't see it at the going movie theater rate. Will I own it? Probably not because my wife didn't like it at all and I thought it was only a tad better than GOOD, but far from GREAT. If they come out a with a third installment to the series I will definitely watch, but I won't be holding my breath for it. This is a take it or leave it flick.
Rating:
Summary: More of the same.
Review: Things to like about Charlie's Angels II: Crispin Glover is back as the freaky Thin Man w/ a penchant for coifs of hair. Lucy Liu kicking butt and taking names [Barracuda!]. Drew looking a bit more toned. Tom Green absent. Demi popping off Bruce Willis. Things to not like about Charlie's Angels II: Cameron Diaz doing the Calista Flockhart [Please return to Mask levels of weight and curves], Bernie Mac as Bosley [my god, what terrible casting, not worthy to carry Bill Murray's jock, maybe they can get Chris Rock to play Charlie in the next one], 40+ year old Demi w/out her implants. Oh well, things blow up, numerous Matrix pioneered effects are utilised [poorly], Bond movies are ripped off, and forced happiness team spirit is everywhere. Brain dead MTV video level escapism to be sure, under the guise of Girl Power! Yeah! Demi is an-ex angel who strikes out on her own to get rich w/ the aid of protective custody files to be sold to the highest underworld bidder. Robert Patrick shows up looking even older and more haggard than he did in X-Files, as a corrupt government agent in cahoots w/ Demi. Terminator 2 seems so long ago Robert. There are some laughs, and the pacing is frenetic enough that it will get you through the movie quickly, but at what lasting effect? At least it was better than Swimfan which I also saw recently, and the wife liked it.
Rating:
Summary: It's Just a Movie
Review: I belong to Netflix and rent movies to preview them. If I like one, I might think about buying it. After renting CA:FT, I am very glad I didn't buy it.
I have read many negative reviews here about CA:FT, and I agree with them. This is a very bad movie in virtually every catagory you can think of. However, I am not someone who is so totally obsessed by movies that they take over my life: I do not cry because the movie is bad; I do not go into a rage because the movie is bad. If it's bad, I turn it off and send the disk back. After all, it's just a movie.
Rating:
Summary: DO SOMETHING MORE CONSTRUCTIVE
Review: I have seen alot of bad movies in my lifetime and I had to say this is one of them. The effects is what really got my blood boiling as I watched the opening 10 minutes of this movie in which our heroes just happened to be above all of the laws of gravity and somehow able to move faster than .30 cal machine gun bullets. The plot absolutely sucks! Alot of people compare these stunts to the Matrix however there is no comparison. In the Matrix (the grand-daddy of Bullettime and ignoring Isaac Newtons and Alert Einsteins discoveries) however in the Matrix we realize these laws are able to be broken because the Matrix is not "real-world" therefore you can break those "fake-world" laws of gravity which is not really gravity. I would even go so far as any one of Jet Li's flicks or Crouching Tiger in which people pull off "how the heck did they do that" stunts, at least we have an understanding of why they are able to do these things (e.g it is explaned somehow or someway). With these "Angels" we have no explanation as to why they are virtually indestructable (Lucy Liu goes face first through a store window at 50 mph and has enough energy to fight like she just ate her wheaties). The stunts are just wayyy too over the top (the dirt bike race really did it for me in which one of the baddies does a jump. flips upside down in mid-air, gets off about 10 shots from a .45 and flips back onto his bike BEFORE IT LANDS!!). Also I would swear the Angels had degrees in Nuclear Physics or something (scene in which they are investigating the first murder is just pathetic). How they were able to figure out the murderer, murder weapon, how the victim was murdered, blahzay blah like they READ IT FROM A SCRIPT (hehehe). Sorry, little kids may like this but I just couldn't take it. The directors tried too hard to impress us or make these individuals into super-heroes. Did I meantion the plot sucks? ACTING- Subpar (Bernie Mac-embarrising, all three angels-good looks, bad acting)
PLOT- Huh??? There's a plot?
STUNTS- Are these the Angels or Neo, Morpheous and Trinity? The falling Truck/Helicopter/Ladies is sorry. Last time I was in school the heavier an object the greater its gravitational pull towards earth. How they were able to fall of a dam, land on the helicopter, start and fly the helicopter before being smashed is beyond me
Rating:
Summary: Not a PG-13 flick - closer to X
Review: ..not wasting too many words on this flick ... they ruined Charlie's Angles ... not suitable for teenagers or younsters ... disgusted me.
Rating:
Summary: The death of cinema
Review: Ordinarily, I wouldn't even waste time even thinking about "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle." Then I realized that somebody, somewhere, must speak out against this idiotic excuse for a movie. We rented this flick on a slow (slow, sloooow) weekend night and somehow sat through to the end. A few of the gags and cameos at the beginning of the movie provoked some unexpected laughs from Yours Truly. Then, after about half an hour, I realized what a boondoggle mess "Full Throttle" is and the laughter ceased. I hate this movie NOT because I am "anti chick-flick" or "anti-women" or because I doubt whether female actors can produce a mindless action flick as well as a Tom Cruise or a Harrison Ford can. I hate this movie because it represents a kind of death of cinema. Because it has no plot, no story WHATSOEVER, merely a series of lame, pointless action scenes building up to nothing at all. I hate it because it cheats the audience with one gimmicky, ridiculous, unbelievable CGI action sequence after another. I sat staring at the screen in slack-jawed disbelief during so many scenes. I mean, does producer Drew Barrymore think we're stupid, or what? "The Matrix" movies contain just as many CGI shots (OK, more), but at least they contain a kernel of plot, some semblance of story. I could go back into ancient mythology and find the inspirations for Neo, Morpheus and the like. Not so "Full Throttle." Its most basic inspiration is, like so many of today's big-budget Hollywood train wrecks, a TV crime show that's more than 25 years old. It's so bad that it doesn't even qualify as a bad sequel -- it couldn't possibly make any difference that this film had a predecessor. Its real inspiration is cynicism; Drew Barrymore hit upon an idea for a pop cultural franchise that would keep her career alive, and Sony is going to milk it for every dollar. Fortunately, "Full Throttle" wasn't exactly "full throttle" at the box office. People caught a whiff and stayed away. This movie is why I loved "Open Range." Everyone associated with any "Charlie's Angels" movie should be ashamed. It's certainly a black mark on Cameron Diaz. Please, please, please, spend your time and money on something with at least half a brain. This movie is an hour and a half of my life gone forever.
Rating:
Summary: This one misses...and how...
Review: Charlies Angels:Full Throttle is a major disappointment...aimed at teens and CGI enthusiasts...this sequel loses the experienced film-watcher right away. First the cast: I am fond of Drew Barrymore - but let's face it -she's marginally talented as an actress, and likes to portray herself as a bad-ass when you know the girl has never yearned for a hot meal in her life... Lucy Lui: The only Angel to escape this ground-zero with any dignity - eventhough she's not even in the film (consciously)...and no one thinks Cameron Diaz is cuter than Cameron Diaz - if I have to endure another goofy smile or butt-shaking dance-by-herself sequence, I swear I'm gonna retch.
Bill Murray: Absent and missed. Bernie Mac: Dull and uninfluential (but that's probably the script's fault, which can be blamed for a fair share of this mess) Demi Moore: Finally, a role that requires litte effort on her part - superb**ch... Directed with the obvious burden of topping the original, this 2hr. music video is shockingly violent (eventhough the Angels don't use handguns - there are plenty of bullets and blood - coupled with militaristic references and settings - just in case your belly isn't full of war...) The special effects are not believable - and I don't know about you, but that ruins it for me. In a word - a total joke that's not wotrth the plastic it's pressed on.
Rating: 
Summary: ¿McGenius¿
Review: With the latest cinematic opus from director Joseph McGinty-Nichol, CHARLIE'S ANGELES: FULL THROTTLE, the audience is treated to a cinematic bauble that refracts the iconography of the classic 70's television series through the sensibilities of
one of the most promising American directorial talents of the past 20 years. Drawing form sources including, but not limited to, The Old Testament and American cinematic history, McGinty-Nichol's film is truly one for the ages. New to this ANGELS installment is Demi Moore, appearing here as former Angel Madison Lee. With her character, McGinty-Nichol attempts to put a contemporary spin on the Biblical creation myth in which the Archangel Lucifer is cast out of heaven and
condemned to walk in shadows til the end of time. Enraged at being cast out of Paradise, Lucifer searches for ways to strike back at the Creator and his work. In THROTTLE, McGinty-Nichol has found his Lucifer in the guise of Ms. Moore (returning to the screen from her own cinematic purgatory of the past 5 years). Throughout the piece, Moore's Madison Lee lurks in the background, biding her time and pulling the strings as she orchestrates her plan to destroy that which Charlie (read: God) holds most dear: His greatest creation - The Angels. Biblical allusions aside, this edition of the ANGELS franchise culls a number of key sequences from a more recent text - namely, the pages of American cinematic history. Innumerable films are paid homage to, from RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, to SINGING IN THE RAIN, to CAPE FEAR, to SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER, to
FLASHDANCE, to THE PINK PANTHER, to CABARET, to THE JERK, to THE
SOUND OF MUSIC, to Bond Films, Elvis Films, Hong Kong Actioners, Busby Berkley Musicals, Beach Blanket Bingo Films, and even films of the silent era. (Mr. Glover's virtuoso performance as "The Creepy Thin Man" in this piece draws heavily from the
overly-theatrical performance methods of the stars of silent films, and, as such, works nicely as an homage to the pre-talkie era.) McG moves effortlessly from one genre and era to another, inevitably and appropriately climaxing the film with a sequence that has as its backdrop an A-list Hollywood film premiere. His metaphorical stroll through the films of the past culminates with a literal stroll down Hollywood Boulevard and The Walk Of Fame. In addition, the climatic premiere is that of a "big dumb action film" titled MAXIMUM EXTREME 2. Here we find another in a long line of none-too subtle nods/acknowledgement that McG is well aware of exactly the type of film he's authoring. ("MAXIMUM EXTREME"/"FULL THROTTLE"... What's the dif?) So, in essence, the journey undertaken in FULL THROTTLE is one of conception, gestation, and birth. At its core, this film is a rollercoaster ride through film history (gestation) culminating in the
release (birth) of a surrogate/stand-in film for McG's latest cinematic offering (child). FULL THROTTLE is, in essence, a Love Child whose parents are Film History and McG. Now, though there is an overabundance of quoting from films of the past on display here, this is not to say that said film is not relevant or contemporary. FULL THROTTLE is anything but. In addition to calling upon the audiences' knowledge of the cinematic past, for the historically impaired, Mr. McG includes innumerable reference to his own debut feature. The impromptu "U Can't Touch This" dance sequence references the Cameron Diaz character's affinity for old skool hip-hop, which was readily apparent in Soul Train sequence from the original film. Other references - too many to list in their entirety - include the Diaz character's Spider Man underoos, which, prominently featured in the first ANGELS film, make a return cameo appearance here. Also, the audience is treated to a redux of the Drew Barrymore character's attempt to stop an assault by a (male) aggressor by extending her legs into a "V" (read: girl power). By layering his film with touchstones from both the cinematic past AND the cinematic present, McG subtly carves out a space for his own oeuvre in the hallowed halls of film classics from years gone by.
Rating: 
Summary: Hollywood Being Stuipd As Usual
Review: As a teenager, I loved Charlie's Angels (the TV series). I was actually pleasantly surprised by the first movie. This movie, on the other hand, is a perfect example of what Hollywood does best: take something that works perfectly fine - and screw it up!
Instead of spending all that money on a good script, they gave it all to the Special Effects and Stupid Stunts Department and let them run amuck - and amuck they ran. The stunts in this movie are so stupid, so ridiculous and so unbelievable - even for an action movie - I felt embarrassed. I spent must of the movie just cringing and shaking my head. What the heck were they thinking?!
| 
