Wordiezett So much average

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

sherylchilders82 I was 21 when this movie came out, and I had lots of friends who loved this. Maybe it's because it represents a particular time in my life, but I love this movie. I mean, I watched it again for nostalgia sake, but I'm not going to buy it and watch it over and over or anything. Yes, it is supposed to be stupid and funny, and I don't really think anyone ever thought this was supposed to be a masterpiece. It is an action comedy, with a feminine flair. No, it does not represent the original Charlie's Angels, which I once tried to watch, but couldn't. As a feminist, I obviously can't approve this for today, but even 15 years ago, this was still progress (just like I could never enjoy the original). Here's why young women loved this when it came out: Women are the central characters. It's fun / funny, and despite the stunts being purposefully unrealistic, the actors who play them are legitimate bad asses, if you know anything about them. To young women at the time, this wasn't just a dumb movie - this was a movie led by a cast of strong female actor role models. And, they were doing comedy (before Bridesmaids), when women didn't get the primary comedy roles very much (or action roles for that matter). Yes, it was a caricature of what we might eventually hope for. But, that was better than anything we had at the time. And, you do have to admit that it is genuinely funny at many parts, and it seems like everyone had fun making it. With all that being said, of course this is not a feminist piece. The women are objectified constantly. Yes, they're smart and crafty, but they all still have SOs in their life, either former or current male love interests (plus male on female violence with the ex is depicted quite graphically, even sexualized, which is terrible). And, the fact that the stunts are made to be so unbelievable alone is an insult, implying that women could not actually do impressive physical feats, so they have to exaggerate. I only hope that they at least used some women for stunt doubles, or that there were more female staff than the lead actors.

asc85 After the fun, well-done original movie in 2000 that was based on the classic TV series, the producers, plus Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu had a certifiable hit on their hands that would be able to spawn sequel after sequel, and generate tons and tons of money for all. So what did they do? They squandered it all with a sequel where they just assumed they could put just about anything out, and people would continue to go see it. Except the public isn't that stupid. Putting them in hot outfits and thinking you could get away with a ridiculous plot line, silly dialogue, and smug acting was arrogant beyond belief. I remember at the time when the bad reviews came out, Lucy Liu said something like, "I really don't care if people aren't happy with what we did." Well that's great, because you lost all those sequels and an easy way to make lots of money!

oscar-35 *Spoiler/plot- Charlie Angels: Full Throttle, 2003. These sexy 'angels' are back to go against a bad angel aided by trusty sidekick, Bolsley. These sexy agents of 'Charlie' fight to reclaims special titanium coded rings encrypted with information about ever person hidden in Govt Witness Protection Program.*Special Stars- Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore, Bernie Mac, Demi Moore.*Theme- Teamwork solves many problems in crime.*Trivia/location/goofs- Shot mostly in Southern California.*Emotion- Kinda schmaltzy, flat, predicable romp with three lovely ladies doing violent martial arts and driving high performance autos. The over exposed flat lighting of the film makes it look even more like a lifeless cartoon or just plain summer popcorn 'pap'. Pure escapist fare for the horny driving fast juvenile audience that enjoys such tripe.*Based On- The previous feature film and the popular TV series.

bowmanblue The first Charlie's Angels film, starring Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Lui, was a success, therefore it got the inevitable sequel. However, despite much promotion from the studio, it picked up more than its fair share of harsh criticism, turning it into a bit of a 'flop.' Personally, I really enjoyed it. Yes, it's daft. Yes, it's cheesy. And, yes, some scenes look more like they belong in an advert for shampoo. But, at the end of the day, it's pretty harmless fun. Before you watch it, you just have to sit down with the biggest pinch of salt you've ever taken to get the most out of it.The phrase 'in real life' isn't needed when watching Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. Nothing here is applicable to real life. Three wafer thin women kick the hell out of numerous muscular men (and Demi Moore) without coming away with a scratch. Stupid. But stupid fun. It never tries to take itself seriously, with its playful use of daft sound effects and numerous sexual innuendos. It's about as true to life as a Roger Moore James Bond film (of which I'm also a huge fan!).Men will doubtless have the added bonus of watching three Hollywood women in a range of 'flattering' and most revealing costumes. Maybe the producers of the film will try to make us believe that this is some sort of 'feminist' movie with powerful women beating up men. Hmm, that's one I won't dare to even try to debate! Ultimately, think of Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle as a life-action cartoon, as it's more cartoonish than real. If you think you can do that, you'll probably enjoy it. If you're all for realistic, gritty, dark action, then you're probably better off with something like The Bourne Identity, Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, or Daniel Craig's Bond reboot.Note: added kudos for the film-makers for getting Bruce Willis assassinated by his ex wife - made me chuckle anyway!