Charlie's Angels fans, if there's such a thing, will really dig the cameo made by Jaclyn Smith, the original cast member from the series, who seems to radiate on screen. That one cameo which references the original series seems to be more classy than anything this film can muster up. Aside from that there's also a pretty cool new villain amidst the one-dimensional thin man and Madison Lee. Justin Theroux plays the awesome Seamus O'grady whom I really dug. He's the mohawk wearing shirtless Irish ghost from one of the Angel's past who is always one step ahead of the girls and can really kick ass. The underused and mis-used Bernie Mac is hilarious as Bosely. Though he does little to assist the angel's and doesn't play an entirely prominent role in the film, he's very funny as usual with the usual one-liners and snappy comebacks.

I hated the original film. You see I've seen the original series from the seventies and it was basically a terrible show, but the girls were fun to look at. The feature film originally released was clunky, loud, all style little substance, and director McG a filmmaker who has yet to separate style with substance remaining a one-dimensional director with little future directs the sequel. "Charlie's Angels: full throttle". Ah, yes, the title indicates they're going all out this time, like they did for the original, and they're both given the same effect and they have the same thing in common, this loud messy film was just as bad as the original, and possibly worse for wasting great actors.

No, I'm not talking about the three chicks, uh--angels, I'll harp on them in a moment (pun intended), but I'm talking about the supporting cast, but we'll get to them in a little while. This hour and a half messy, loud, clumsy and clunky cartoon-ish action flick pulls a double dose of terrible with a plotline so predictable it might have come off the show, and you can guess the writers getting desperate when they pull off a celebrity cameo only eight minutes into the film...Bruce Willis...wait, isn't he Demi Moore's ex? Maybe, it's just a coincidence, maybe I'm just imagining nepotism brought him this role, and maybe tomorrow I'll win a Pulitzer.

Trust me, there are a lot of celebrity cameos in this film; too many to name. And like television shows, when a movie has a lot of celebrity cameos, it's a surefire sign of a weak film. In an attempt to retrieve some magical rings which hold information, the angels must confront an evil ex-angel Madison Lee who betrays the Charlie the talking box and wants to corrupt the agency. Now the girls must confront her henchman and retrieve the golden rings before Lord sauron--oops wrong film--before Madison discovers the identity of every client under the government's witness protection program. Could this have been a good film? Probably, and probably not. Perhaps if approached more seriously and perhaps if given three leads who could actually act, we'd probably had seen a decent action flick. The three leads ham it up to the extreme with their roles. All three look as if they've been on Ritalin for the past year giggling, laughing, cackling, smirking, scoffing, in every moment of the film acting like a bunch of bubble headed numbskulls who never seem to tone down their personalities.

Then we're supposed to believe their talented secret agents who are masters of disguise, yet they don't seem to realize their disguises are rather awful and they always seem to look the same, because heaven forbid we should forget who they are. Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu and Cameron Diaz, poor choices and grossly miscast and it's apparent during the viewing of the film as they commit to their roles like amateurs and are led by a director who couldn't pull off a good film if he tried. This is a vain film, because the entirety of the movie is spent focusing immensely on the three leads, their acting, their "comedy" (I use the term very loosely), and especially their bodies with a lot of shots of their legs, butts, and breasts while the supporting cast are barely ever shown and are given terrible subplots.

The supporting cast are tools. Moore is underused and simply shows off her body playing a one-dimensional villain that has little to no screen time and carries around two groovy guns but plays second fiddle to the main cast, John Cleese plays Liu's father who only has four scenes combined and flexes little of his comedic muscle, Shia LeBeouf plays Max who, I'm not sure why he's in here in the first place. What part is he supposed to play? Bernie Mac is wasted so much its criminal; he plays Bosley's cousin who doesn't take enough of a role in the film, but when he's onscreen he's funnier than everyone and is a scene stealer... that's why he's given little screen time; he's funny, this movie blows. You see? Simple little equation. Crispin Glover returns as Thin Man for a very small part where he has no dialogue, fights and seems to team with the girls, but he's used as another tool yet again, Luke Wilson is given a total of four scenes and his role is comprised of reacting to Barrymore, Matt LeBlanc is used in just the same facet yet again.

Why would they waste such a list of great actors? To focus on the three leads of course! The story is rather paper thin and is used as a background for a lot of computer effects containing a lot of flying, explosions, car chases, sled chases (you read right), ridiculous fight scenes, and, the frustratingly tired effect of slow-motion bullet shooting ala "The Matrix" ad nauseum. McG, that effect has been done to death. It's dead, so stop trying to bring it back. The dialogue is even worse comprised of small sentences, bad puns, and cheesy predictable one-liners galore that rarely ever form a paragraph. The one-liners are predictable and they come fast. Simply, it's a giant commercial with ads and product placement galore, a film that is given soft treatment for the potential of making money.

I gave it an R rating up above, the MPAA, the bane of all films graded this PG-13, why? Double Standard anyone? You decide if it's worth an R rating or a PG-13 rating. Here's a personal stock list of the scenes I felt were appropriate for an R rating: there's plenty of butt shots, chest shots, very sexually suggestive material including Diaz watering herself down in a giant martini glass, and the three angels dressed very scantily as dominatrix' whipping each other, there's an extra long shot zeroing in on Diaz' rear end, a lot gun shooting and people being shot, two impalings, one person being crushed by a giant billboard, and there's a lot of blood in the climactic last fight. Stop me if I missed anything. So would any self-respecting parent consider all that I listed suitable for a thirteen year old? No! But, hey would the film make money, and would the MPAA receive their pay-off from the studios if they gave it an R rating? Ah, it's all about getting the bucks, isn't it?

A terrible sequel to a terrible film, this has an array of talented actors it puts to waste only to spotlight the three leads. Vanity ridden, this loud clunky messy and cheesy action flick will appeal to anyone with ADD, but to those with sense, this is just an awful film. One of the worst of 2003.

[   Link to Us   |   FAQ   |   Top^   ]
All written reviews material and content are a copyright of Felix Vasquez Jr. and Cinema Crazed.
Content borrowed without written permission will not be permitted.

¤ ¤ ¤