--- title: "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/charlies-angels-full-throttle/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/charlies-angels-full-throttle" critics_score: 44 critics_reviews: 10 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003): what the critics said Critics' score 44 from 10 reviews: 2 positive, 3 mixed, 5 negative. The reviews lean negative on Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, though praise clusters around the leads’ chemistry and the action’s energy. Supporters enjoy the playful sisterhood of Diaz, Barrymore and Liu, while even some detractors find individual performances watchable. The more favourable accounts treat its pop-video visuals and energetic stunts as sufficient entertainment, with little expectation of substance beneath them. The spread is wide: Variety considers it a crowd-pleasing improvement on the original, praising action that other reviews find frantic or difficult to follow. Reservations centre on thin material, repetitive comedy and spectacle that cannot disguise the lack of invention; The AV Club particularly objects to the juvenile humour and editing. There is also disagreement over the supporting turns: Slant Magazine finds some compensation in Crispin Glover’s return, while complaints elsewhere about irritating or embarrassing cameos suggest that the film’s playfulness is far from universally enjoyed. ## Variety — Amy Dawes Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 22 June 2003. Dawes calls the sequel a joyous, crowd-pleasing improvement on the original. She especially praises its fresh, cohesive action and the playful sisterhood at its heart. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2003/film/reviews/charlie-s-angels-full-throttle-1200540951/) ## Time Out — AHa Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). The review is positive about the film’s exuberant entertainment. It singles out the dynamic ensemble of Diaz, Barrymore and Liu as its main strength. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/charlies-angels-full-throttle) ## Screen Daily — John Hazelton Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 27 June 2003. The page identifies this as a review, but its text is behind a paywall. The critic’s verdict and any specific praise or complaint are not visible. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/charlies-angels-full-throttle/4014006.article) ## The New York Times — A. O. Scott Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 27 June 2003. The page is inaccessible, so the critic’s verdict cannot be verified. The headline points to strained family ties, but the review’s specific praise or complaint is unavailable. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/movies/film-review-the-strained-family-ties-of-three-athletic-angels.html) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Rating 1/4. 25 June 2003. Gonzalez finds the sequel soulless and overblown, a poor imitation of the original’s formula. He singles out Crispin Glover’s return as the Thin Man as the film’s one mitigating factor. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/charlies-angels-full-throttle/) ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps Fi1m's normalised score 25/100 (inferred from the text). 30 June 2003. Phipps finds the film shallow, repetitive, and more interested in seeming fun than being funny. He particularly criticizes its juvenile butt-pun sequence and frantic, hard-to-follow editing. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/charlies-angels-full-throttle-1798198647) ## Radio Times — Sloan Freer Rating 1/5. Freer judges the sequel even more vapid than its predecessor. She criticizes its flashy effects, irritating cameos and tedious skits for failing to disguise the poor material. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-ki6mji/charlies-angels-full-throttle/) ## Empire — William Thomas Fi1m's normalised score 15/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. Thomas gives the sequel a strongly negative verdict, calling its direction and execution awful. He praises Liu and Diaz as watchable, while criticizing the inconsistent tone and sexism. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/charlie-angels-full-throttle-review/) ## The Guardian — Philip French Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 6 July 2003. French condemns the film as an example of Hollywood’s lack of imagination and finds its frantic style deeply irritating. He singles out John Cleese’s cameo as especially embarrassing. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_review/0,,992290,00.html) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 3 July 2003. The critic finds the film a mindless but well-pitched romp, with more fizz than flavour. They praise its pop-video-influenced visuals and energetic stunts. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/charlies-angels-full-throttle-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/charlies-angels-full-throttle.md