This film was actually better than the 2000 film - Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003) Discussion

[–] RyanCShowers 15 years ago

Agree!

"i wasnt myself last night. or maybe i really was" veronika decides to die

reply

[–] agspiess 15 years ago

I disagree. I think the stunts and fight sequences were so over the top that they just weren't believable.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] judy-229 15 years ago

it wasnt believable at all. but I enjoyed it to the full!
so I agree, bvut I liked the first too :D

Harry Potter isn't everything, but it's right up there with oxygen!

reply

[–] jsma15 15 years ago

I actually haven't seen the first film in awhile, but my sister bought me the DVD for this film a few years ago, and it's become a cult classic somewhat with my friends and I (it joins the prestigious list of movies like Showgirls, Glitter, The Sweetest Thing, etc.). We know we should all feel ashamed of watching movies like this, and then admitting to watching them, but we can't help it, we still pop one or the other into the DVD player for the sole purpose of watching them (after a few joints and vodka Pepsis, of course). We still have such tremendous fun watching movies like this, it's ridiculous! It's like an addiction.

I should definitely buy the first Charlie's Angels DVD, since we've played Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle so damn often, it's beginning to show signs of wear.

You are a whore, darlin'! We all are. We take the cash, we cash the cheque, we show them what they want to see. - Showgirls

reply

[–] djhowe69 15 years ago

The chemistry between the stars was just as good as the first movie if not better, but there was too much crappy CGI that didn't seem to be well thought out before adding it to the movie.

reply

[–] glean7 15 years ago

I agree.

reply

[–] Red_Identity 15 years ago

i agree
it was funner

http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/thread/124607950

reply

[–] gridoon 15 years ago

I think they're of about the same quality. In fact, they could be one long movie.

reply

[–] ShepherdSpy 14 years ago

Fun Movie,*beep* Oirish Accents,tho..

If Book was in Intelligence B4 finding God,does that mean He's a Shepherd Spy? (Thank You,Spike..)

reply

[–] moviestar26 14 years ago

This movie was better than the original. The only element lacking however was Bill Murray.
Anyway what was with the irish accent ?. It was making Justin appear pathetic. What was the need for it ?.

reply

[–] ShepherdSpy 14 years ago

Only that He and his Gang represented the "Oirish Mob"...

If Book was in Intelligence B4 finding God,does that mean He's a Shepherd Spy? (Thank You,Spike..)

reply

[–] moviestar26 14 years ago

That was a bad idea.

reply

[–] Global_Warming_is_a_Hoax 14 years ago

I happen to agree with the OP. I had to watch the two films plus a few episodes of the series for an extra credit project for one of my classes and I found that the sequel was much better than the original 2000 film in so many ways! One of the problems for me was Bill Murray. He is much too dry. He's more funny if he's given a role to be funny in (if that makes sense). Seems like the directors wanted him to be funny in a "hey, it's Bill Murray" way. And it just didn't connect right. Bernie Mac was much better for the role in my opinion.
The second one also involved their personal lives more, so we get to know the characters a lot better. The first one seemed like it was focused a lot on the crime and fight scenes and was a bit too intense.
But over everything, the series was much better than the movies!

reply

[–] moviestar26 14 years ago

This movie was more high on the style elements. However I would still had prefered Bill Murray to Bernie Mac.

reply

[–] Desertman84 14 years ago

The first movie was a lot better compared to this movie. But overall, the Charlie's Angels TV series was a lot better as compared to both movies.

reply

[–] moviestar26 14 years ago

This was more high in terms of style and action rather than on the plot.

reply

[–] marcopchen 14 years ago

I just watched both movies again this week and found the second movie not as good as the first one. This is actually strange, because I loved the second one more than the first one as a kid. Besides the obvious poor CGI action sequences and awful fight scenes, the scenes in Full Throttle don't go together. For example, the movie had that scene with the Thin Man's origins but didn't go deeper. In fact, the Thin Man was hardly in the movie, so that scene was unnecessary. Stuff like that pissed me off. The dialogue was extremely cheesy as well. Also, the story isn't good at all. The thing with Dylan getting tracked down by her ex was painful. The first movie had a lot of good scenes without being over the top. There were many scenes that solidified the trio's friendship as well as good action sequences.

http://marcopchen.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rena_Mahone 10 years ago

I kind of agree. It was rougher than the first, I enjoyed it even more.

🐺 Boycott movies that involve real animal violence (& their directors) 🐾

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 9 years ago

CHARLIE'S ANGELS: 7/10
CHARLIE'S ANGELS 2: 4/10

reply

[–] Seth_Rogue_One 9 years ago

I rated them exactly the same as you

Check out Fresh Nugs, wheezin' the juice...

reply