Los Ángeles de Charlie: Al límite

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.

This is not a film to be taken seriously. I love it! It is just such an entertaining film. The action is enjoyable and well done, although it is unrealistic, but that is why I loved it. The acting is good, the writing is of course so intentionally cheesy and corny, but I loved the plot! The women are HOT HOT HOT, and that is something that matters. I do not get why this film gets too much hate. Honestly, it is just done as a popcorn action film, and it works!!! It really is mindless, and that is why it is easier to enjoy than maybe other action films like Spider-Man (although another similar action-packed film Wanted is just better in every way and not mindless actually). Still, this film works for me, and I think it is better than the original.

This movie is one half Mission Impossible and one half Airplane. The combination of which not only requires 'suspension of disbelief', but I'd say you need to string your disbelief up by the roof beams and flog it mercilessly.

If I haven't been clear enough, let me put it plainly: do not, I repeat, do not take this movie seriously in any way, shape or form.

That much should be obvious in the first 2 minutes when we see the angels walk into a Mongolian prison camp and start riding a mechanical bull to the tune of "Wild Thang" while kicking the asses of hundreds of 300-lb men. I won't tell you what happens in the next 2 minutes, but it makes the first 2 minutes look like a nature documentary.

I saw this movie last night and I'm still not sure what the plot is. But it was thoroughly entertaining (especially for a hetero guy who enjoys gratuitous booty shots). Some gags were pretty funny, while others were so lame you have to laugh anyway. But really the comedy is the fact that everything is so unbelievably unbelievable.

Glancing at some of the reviews here, I see that the tongue-in-cheek comedy was lost on a lot of people, and instead of having a good time they probably ended up hurling things at their TV screen. I'm just here to warn you, do not fall into that trap. Realize that it's a comedy. It panders to the lowest brain cell in your skull. And it delivers a wild ride.

P.S. The soundtrack absolutely kicks butt. J Geils Band, Bon Jovi, Loverboy, David Bowie, Journey... if you were alive & remotely cool in the 80s, you'll really dig it.

I see a lot of people giving this star studded movie 2 and 3 star ratings for it being "Ridiculous" or "Corny", but that's exactly what I expected it to be. None of the movies in this trilogy are suppose to be taken seriously. It's just chocked full of unbelievable antics and I doubt that it was considered anything but a comical joke by the producers and directors. This is suppose to be completely unbelievable and it's a parody of the 70's TV series that it takes it's namesake from.

If you can find some of the original shows from the television series, you will be surprised at how ridiculous they appear now. How this show stayed on from 1976 until 1981, with all the behind the scenes drama between the actresses, is beyond me. It's even more unbelievable than this movie or the other two.

There are some extremely interesting cameo appearances by several people, both actors and actresses, musicians, and comedian's. It's worth a watch to see a movie with John Cleese and Janet Du'bois , Willona from the epic 1970"s iconic TV show "Good Times" in the same film. Their are several people from the motorcycle world and the musician Pink.

This to me, is suppose to be exactly what it is, a parody of a TV show that was infamous for the behind the scenes drama that these movies are based on. I knew that these movies where going to be more about comedy and unbelievable stunts that no one could pull off in real life. It's not suppose to be serious. I think many of the low reviews know this , but they apparently have a different since of humor than my husband and I have when it comes to comedy/action films. I personally like this film better than the second installment of this trilogy. Rest In Peace , Bernie Mac. Your comedy, which would be condemned in 2022, was absolutely hilarious.

I liked "Charlie's Angels." It never took itself too seriously, and Bill Murray provided some comic relief, making the film more than just an hour and a half bikini advert. Something funny (or unfunny) happens in "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle": It's terrible.

I mean, this movie isn't bad, it's just awful. The acting is even worse than the first, there's no Bill Murray, and what were all the stars making cameos in this film thinking? Bruce Willis, Owen Wilson, and others make brief appearences, but what about Demi Moore, Crispin Glover ("Back to the Future"), Robert Patrick (better remembered as the T-1000 in "T2"), John Cleese (or was that a cameo?), Luke Wilson, Bernie Mac (who now has his own very popular TV show--he didn't need this to hinder his career), Matt LeBlanc ("Friends"), and so on and so forth, who all took main roles? Okay, I understand LeBlanc taking part in the film, his career is going nowhere other than "Friends," but seriously, Luke Wilson?! Between this and "Legally Blonde 2," the man may never make a lead role again (like in "Old School," a much funnier and more fun film than this). And John Cleese! What's with him and small roles lately? "Harry Potter," "James Bond," all of his roles are supporting: Whatever happened to his acting career? And that's not to mention what in the %&#% Cameron Diaz is doing in this movie. Drew Barrymore...maybe. Lucy Liu...definately. Cameron Diaz...NO WAY! I really like Cameron Diaz, and she can act (see "There's Something About Mary"), but what in the name of H.G. Wells is she doing in this? And why does she act so bad in it? I understand playing homage to the show with bad acting and all like the first film, but this pushes the limit.

The direction style is worse, thanks to "McG," and Drew Barrymore manages to steal the show as the all-time worst actress in recent years. I know it's not all her--it's the script. Anyone who has to say the stuff these girls say in this film should know they're in trouble, and should mutter the lines with utter chaos, but it's unbearable how corny the things they say are. And just check out their acting in a dirt bike scene, when Liu and Barrymore are "worried" and "scared" that Diaz's character might be in trouble. Youch! Bad acting to a new extreme. This film has the mediocrity of a horrible B-movie from the seventies, with a huge budget splattered on top.

Originally titled "Charlie's Angels: Halo" (the name changed due to copyright on the video game "Halo"), "Full Throttle's" plot is one of the worst I've seen in a long time. It's horribly contrived. Where should I begin? In the beginning of the film, the three Angels, Natalie (Diaz), Alex (Liu) and Dylan (Barrymore) rescue a hostage (Patrick) from a bunch of Hungarians. Stupidity ensues when the Angels fall off a bridge, dodging a missile, and manage to grab onto a helicopter or something before the truck they were in blows up. When watching this scene, the first things that enters your brain is this: How in the world did this pass Columbia TriStar's eyes? I mean, that scene is the kind of stuff I used to think would be neat when I was about ten, only back then they didn't make feature films out of idiotic ideas. Anyway, on with the plot.

After rescuing Patrick, they find out he was carrying with him a ring on his finger that the Hungarians stole. This ring, when joined with another, reveals the entire database of those on the witness protection program and their real names. Good Lord, I didn't know that the Government kept the names of their protected witnesses on a super-duper ring gadget so easily stealable. I mean, didn't this pass the actors and actresses' minds--maybe the film might be a bit sore on the plot?

I suppose that's not why people go to see this movie. They go to see the girls in bikinis. That's not a bad idea, the first one was like that, but if you're going to have a plot at least make it non-laughable. Even the first film's plot was better than THIS!

One thing leads to another, pretty soon they find out Dylan (who entered the witness protection program years ago) is being targeted for assassination by the Creepy Thin Man (Crispin Glover). One thing I found funny is that Crispin Glover refused to return for "Back to the Future Part II," demanding what writer Bob Gale said was "unreasonable" perks, yet he returned for "Charlie's Angels 2" in a flash. Interesting, Crispin, I see you've learned from your mistakes--sadly, you've used your wisdom to return for a terrible film.

"Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" isn't just miserable, it isn't just awful, it is just so mediocre it hurts. It's like on gargantuan mess, filled to the rim with bad acting, horrible "Matrix" rip-off fight scenes, and a God-awful script, all of which makes "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" one of the biggest cinematic disasters in recent years. I could spend hours wondering why the beautiful and talented Cameron Diaz chose to appear in this film, but in all honesty, it hurts my brain just thinking about it. What hurts my brain even more is the fact that this film has grossed close to 100 mil already, meaning more sequels. I weep for those that paid to see this movie expecting a treat.

I'll say once more to the fans of the films that I enjoyed the original as a guilty pleasure, but this is too much for me. Please, no more sequels.

1.5/5 stars -

John Ulmer