Rating: 
Summary: If you liked the 1st movie... watch that one again.
Review: This movie is up there with cradle to the grave, Congo, and The Island of Dr. Moreau. I don't know if I spelled the last one right, but who really cares when a movie sucked that bad.Anyways, back to the review. I loved the first movie, and when saw that Mc G and almost every character was back for the second movie, I went ahead and bought the second one from the strength of the first movie. Well now I know why Bill Murray was not in this one. He obviously read the script and ran. This movie is like one long drawn out music video. It should have been cut down to 20 minutes. the promotion should have been "buy the soundtrack and get the DVD for free!" Everything that was fun and spontaneous in the first one was contrived and over the top in this one. Almost nothing that was supposed to be funny in this movie was funny. The only real laugh I had was when Lucy's character started talking about doing all the sailors. That was pretty funny. Unfortunately one minute of comedy can not make up for the rest of the movie. Cameron was cute in the first movie, but she is almost starting to get to cocky about being cute. The best other example of this is Mel Gibson after braveheart. He had some great roles and did a good job captivating his audience, but after braveheart he always seemed to be over acting all the time. Look at the difference between Braveheart and the Patriot. You can also see pretty good examples in signs. The director needs to tell these great talents sometimes less is more. Cameron was very likable in the first movie. She was cute, innocent, and kid like, but she seems so confident in this movie that she almost is like "look at me, look at me, am I not just the cutest thing". Yes Cameron, you are cute, but the reason why you were cute in the first movie and not the second one was because you seemed a little shy. In this one you were all to happy to shake it all over the place. In the big butts scene in the first one she took a while to warm up and get into it. You do not see any of that in the second one. She is just all out there at the drop of a hat dancing completely choreographed sequences like she was J-low. "I meant to misspell that" The only truly choreographed sequence I can remember in the first one was a dream sequence. That does not count in my book. RENT THIS FIRST BEFORE YOU BUY. I own almost 700 DVD's and I can tell you this will not be a part of my collection as soon I can trade it in for the new teletubbies or Barney DVD if they will do me the favor and give me anything for it. If you have to buy it trust me wait a week and you will get it for half price. I really wanted to like this movie. I really did. I loved the first one but, as Hollywood often does, it tries to hard to out do the first one instead of handing the baton from the first to the second. This was one of the biggest flops of the summer. Now I know why it tanked at the box office. People like me were kind enough to tell you to save your money.
Rating:
Summary: All That is Wrong with Hollywood
Review: This is the worst film ever. I picked up this film because I thought "Hey, this is cheap and Lucy Liu was nice to look at in 'Kill Bill' and Cammy Diaz looks like that girl I used to work with that was so hot and I DO love cheesecake." What a mistake. At no point does this movie approach anything that is a conceivable reality. A Roadrunner cartoon seems like a National Geographic documentary compared to this piece of refuse. There is no joy, fun or semblance of coherence to any single element of this movie. It is a random, slipshod piece of bloated Hollywood trash that seems to have no target audience but instead seems to be concerned with having something for everyone and is convinced it is giving people what they want. It is filled with all the hip, cutting edge music from 1998 and McG's video direction past comes thru as the narrative is foresaken for glossy shots that are painful to look at. He knows nothing about shot composition. The movie is filled with abhorrent CG effects that ape the Matrix-school but look like they were done before the technology of the first Matrix movie. And wow, an orthodontist doesn't even see this much wire-work in a lifetime of practice. Perhaps the whole movie is best summed up at the final image when the Angels are all laughing like vapid, empty-souled, hollow-headed infants at falling gold confetti. Perhaps the movie-makers assumed the viewers would have the same reaction to shiny nothingness and enjoy this movie, but as it stands, the only audience that could be so easily fooled is jackdaws and magpies.
Rating: 
Summary: girls are more fun
Review: i loved this movie. it's so much better than the original. the only reason i liked the original is because cameron diaz was in it. there are many reasons to like this sequel. more fun , allot more action , and it's funnier.
Rating:
Summary: And they laughed all the way to the bank...
Review: Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle should have been renamed to
Charlie's Angels: Everything But The Kitchen Sink. Because? Well because the director took it upon himself to throw just about every plot cliche and pop idol, explosion, popular actor/actress to get you the viewer to see this drivel. Say what is the plot to this film? Plot? I equate the plot to Swiss cheese. Swiss has holes and the plot to Full Throttle has plot holes so big I can drive my car through them (I drive a Buick LeSabre BTW). I always thought that Charlie Townsend ran a detective agency and not a top secrete spy shop ala CIA, NSA...etc. The beginning of the film has the angels in Mongolia of all places trying to bust out a justice department workers. My question, which never is addressed, is how did this guy end
up in Mongolia, especially if he holds one piece of a ring that holds encrypted ids for the witness protection program? On top of that, the other ring, on the hands of another justice department worker is assassinated along with a whole team of agents. My question is if you knew the first ring was stolen, wouldn't you want to maybe lockup the 2nd ring instead of
giving it to some guy to waltz around with? Or better yet, why store this info on rings to begin with? Then lets stretch our disbelief by having 3 chicks perform all these physics defying martial art moves and escape Mongolia with the kidnapped worker sans the ring.
Of course as the angels try to track down who stole the ring, they uncover that Dylan (Drew Barymore's character) is in the witness protection program (plot cliche). Why who would've thunk of that?! Also lets add that Dylan's ex-boyfriend, get released from a maximum security prison. Only after serving 8 years in jail. Well - I guess thats believable, right? Sort of like having John Giotti get out of jail and nobody says anything. Hello? While we're at it, why not throw in Crispin Glover's Thin Man character from the 1st Charlie Angels film. Crispin's character is now reduced to a mysterious screaming, hair sniffing Gomez Adams wannabe instead of the more intriguing martial arts sword
wielding henchman of the first film. Also the director and writers try, why I'll never know, to make Glover's character sympathetic and get the audience to feel for this guy.
Like all of a sudden the movie wants to be character driven instead of plot driven? My response to this is perhaps the director needs to get off the junk and think about where this story is going. But, hey, lets not stop there. Perhaps the audience will become board at lack of plot and the switching between driving this puppy by character or something trying to be a plot. Lets throw in some pop stars like Pink or hey, Bruce Willis into the mix to generate some interest! Hey, how about throwing in Jacqueline Smith into the film to give a T.V. Charlie's Angels passing the mantle to the new Charlie Angels. Wouldn't that be great. By this time my wife is asking me why I'm more interested in reading my Newsweek magazine instead of watching anymore of this nightmare. Of course this movie wouldn't be complete without the coveted blooper reel as the credits role. Yes, nothing like watching out take after out take of Barymore, Diaz, and
Liu yuk it up over flubs and gaffs. I can't help but wonder if they are laughing because they are having a good time or laughing at us for watching this really unwatchable film.
Rating: 
Summary: It's a good movie but not all I expected.
Review: this movie is realy not a sequal to Charlie's Angles; it does have more acltion and a deeper plot, the movie just doesn't have that cuteness the first one did. It the same kind of multilayer plot as in a Mission Imposible movie, and the main villan is a former Charlie's Angles operative.
My favorite sequence in the film is the motorcross! It's a combination of free style and dirt bike raceing, they make it look like there are 100 motercycles on the track at the same time going different directions and doing big tricks in a no holds bared, fight to win, race!
Rating:
Summary: a matter of perspective
Review: 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!
Rating: 
Summary: Brainless, virtually plotless, but a COMPLETE BLAST!!!
Review: Sometimes going into a movie with REALLY lowered expectations is a good thing, and that's exactly what I did when I saw "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle." Though the first film had its good, fun moments, it inevitably grew old and tiresome toward the end and never really solidified itself as even a "good bad" movie. "Full Throttle," though, is somehow amazingly fun and even some kind of a good movie. Director McG takes modern pop filmmaking to its zenith with Matrix-inspired fight scenes, outlandish special effects, and (surprisingly) laugh-out-loud comedy. Not to mention a few PG-13-envelope-pushing scenes that make this an instant classic for any guy. Sure, the plot of the movie is REALLY thin, if even existent, and some of the subplots test a sensible viewer's patience (one involving Barrymore's character and a Witness Protection Program is eye-rollingly ridiculous). McG knows that his movies would pretty much flop if heavy on plot, so he fills the void with fantastic action sequences and cleverly executed pop culture references that are more of a film-lover's treat than a spoof (look for nods to "Singin' in the Rain," "Night of the Hunter," and even TV's "CSI"). Much like first movie, though, it does have its rough spots where it sags, but they are not as numerous as "Full Throttle"'s predecessor and they are redeemed. How can one forget a drop-dead sexy Demi Moore; Cameron Diaz swimming in a martini glass or riding a mechanical bull; or the Angels grooving and writhing in a seductively bawdy, full-blown dance number? That's the great thing about "Full Throttle." It manages to coast COMPLETELY on brainless whimsy and not really insult the viewer in the process. In fact, in a way, it's kind of rewarding. "Full Throttle" has the look of a cutting-edge action spectacle, but the sensibility of a classic adventure flick. Guys may be taken by the female beauty in the film (as this reviewer was), and women may scoff at it, but even the serious filmgoer won't be able to keep a grin off their face. It's great fun, but don't go into this expecting a "Raiders of the Lost Ark"-quality picture, because "Raiders" this ain't. This review may be glowing, but it's still not hard to see the dramatic and narrative limitations of such a film. Do yourself a favor, though, and forget all of that heavy film jargon. Why beat "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" down when it succeeds so well in being the funnest, most viscerally exciting movie of the year?
Rating: 
Summary: Is this what the movies have come to?
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: NO MORE ANGELS.
Review: THIS UNRATED VERSION IS FALSE AND DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING. THERE IS NO FOUL LANGUAGE OR SKIN ANYWHERE IN THIS MOVIE. IT'S A TRICK TO GET YOU TO RENT THE VIDEO. AND IT'S TO COVER UP WHAT AND AWFUL MOVIE THIS IS. SO RIDUCLOUS AND THE TERRIBLE ACTING MAKES IT EVEN WORSE. RUN DO NOT WALK AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE IT SURLY IS ONE OF THE WORST OF THE YEAR.
Rating:
Summary: Great for girls and boys...
Review: Even as a female I liked this movie and can not wait to see this version of it. As a fan of the Matrix movies I can tell you this has better action scenes then even that. The dirtbike scene is an especially good example as it's style allowed for a more real feeling then the harsh (obvious) computer affects of the Matrix (reloaded).
It's best to see the first movie before seeing this sequal though as there are some reffrences to it.
For what this movie is I give it five stars. If your looking for a good action show with tuff women, luaghs, cool affects and great stunts then this is the movie for you.
| 
