Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Patricia Lee I was a fan of the TV show "Charlie's Angels" back in the day, and I was looking for movies a favorite actor had appeared in. That's how I ended up wasting two hours watching "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle". I gave it a 2 because I'm certain there must be worse movies out there, but it is hard to imagine. This one couldn't decide if it was a campy comedy, an action adventure, or a big budget B-movie. It traded on names but was seriously short on entertainment value. I'm sure the script looked better on paper. How they spent $120,000,000 on this is difficult to understand. (Compare to Star Wars Episode VII at $200,000,000 12 years later.) Seriously, don't waste your time watching this. Take a nap, paint your living room, weed your flower beds, anything else. You'll thank me.

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!

ferretpossum This is a big, shiny, silly, camp summer blockbuster and I suspect most of the bad reviews are purely because it dares to make fun of itself in a way that Mission: Impossible, Die Hard, X-Men and all those dude- dominated action movies don't.But really, I have to worry about all those people who hated this on seeing it. Did they not see the first movie? Or perhaps they thought the original TV show was a cerebral example of 1970's TV programming.The fact is if you liked the 2000 movie, with all the silly in-jokes, cultural references, campy soundtrack and frankly ridiculous stunts then you'll enjoy this one just as much. Maybe more because it also has Demi Moore looking amazing and a Jaclyn Smith cameo.

jokerswild1 For the longest time I had remembered this movie being a big step down from the first movie. But after just watching it again, I'd say they're more or less equal.Surprisingly, this one actually has more of a plot than the first movie. It isn't exactly complex, but there is more interaction between the characters and a few examples of setup and payoff. Some of the jokes are pretty bad, particularly the ones centering around Dylan's former name, "Helen Zaas". Bill Murray is definitely missed, and the villains this time around aren't as good as Sam Rockwell was. Both movies are silly, but they're self aware. The filmmakers knew what they were doing with these movies, just wanting to make popcorn entertainment consisting of action sequences and attractive women. And for what these movies are, they aren't bad.