Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)

Starring Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, Demi Moore, Bernie Mac, Justin Theroux, Robert Patrick.
Directed by McG.
Written by John August, Cormac Wibberley and Marianne Wibberley.
Produced by Drew Barrymore, Leonard Goldberg, and Nancy Juvonen.
Distributed by Columbia Pictures.
111 minutes.

jchensor's Rating: 8/10

Gratuitous Art

I liked this movie. I liked this movie quite a bit. But keep in mind one thing: liking a movie is not always equal to thinking a movie is good. If you came up to me and said, "You gave Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle a what? Name me one good reason it deserves such a high rating!", I could only shrug my shoulders and let out a small whimpering sound of defeat. I have my reasons for liking the film, but I would never try to impose these reasons onto anyone who despises the film in an attempt to convince them otherwise. There's just no point. But in an effort to justify my opinion, I will try to explain.

A topic that arises quite often during discussion of film-making is the concept of art. What is art? Art is usually something that conveys a vision, one that is usually very personal to the artist who creates it. It's deep, it's thought-provoking, it's meaningful. To me, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is the opposite of this type of art. No, not the opposite of art, period. That's a different thing. The opposite of art is something that is pointless, lacks vision, lacks direction, and is not unique. And that's not how you can describe Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. Yes, I know you cannot describe this film as thought-provoking or meaningful either. So it actually turns out the be the world's first example of shallow and meaningless art. But it's still art.

But how can art be shallow and meaningless? I have trouble coming to grips with it myself, but I definitely believe this film is art. Let's compare this to a very recent film many considered artistic: Hulk. Ang Lee has received great praise for his work on Hulk, as he definitely carried out his vision. The replication of comic panels, from the framing to the camera angles, was artistic. The images of vast landscapes and sweeping views was artistic. Even the deep back-story was artistic. Yup, Ang Lee had a vision, and he managed to put his stamp on the film in a way no other director could have.

Now, I would never want to use the word "artistic" to describe a man who calls himself McG, but how can what he did with Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle be different than what Ang Lee did with Hulk? After the first movie, McG, too, had a vision of what these films were to be like. He also put his stamp on this film in a way that no other person probably could have. Most people's attempts to make such a film would end up being an inconsistent mess. But this film is definitely a very consistent mess.

He made a movie where there was something visual to sink your teeth into. For the action scenes, every law of human physics would be defied -- nay, had to be defied. Even the slightest of things, such as the gratuitous scene of (well, okay, every scene in this film was gratuitous) Demi Moore leaping from the top of an observatory dome to the level below, had to be shot with overdone flair in slow motion. And some films would have felt it was good enough to have a dirt bike chase and that's it. No. For this film, it had to be a dirt bike race where the Angels do stunts off of every jump for no reason. And for the comedic scenes, anything silly wasn't good enough being only slightly silly. No, the scene of the Angels dancing with reckless abandon had to be performed to "U Can't Touch This." And when Lucy Liu was asked to imitate a ferret, she would really have to go all out imitating a ferret.

As a result, it was never ambiguous as to whether or not this movie should be taken seriously, or if this film had absolutely any grounding in reality whatsoever (a mistake that past films, like xXx, made). And in fact, I need to go back to the word I pointed out earlier: gratuitous. That's the best way to describe the art we see in this film. And because it's established right from the get-go, the spirit of the movie can be enjoyed for what it is: one big giant display of Gratuitous Art. Movie trailers often take the most gratuitous parts of a film and place them into a 2-minute long sequence to entice people to watch it. Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle needs no such thing because the movie actually is a 2-hour long movie trailer.

But doesn't this Gratuitous Art end up being demeaning to the three lead stars in it, who spend the majority of the film only partially clothed? Sure, you get the Angels dancing in tight, skimpy clothing slapping their behinds (with overdone sound effects, I might add). But they do it because they know that it's their power, one they will use to render men oblivious to everything that goes on around them. And plus, unlike a music video where one fully clothed male gets to frolic with 90 bikini-clad women, in this film the bikini-clad women are the ones driving the film. They have the power. After watching the Angels beat the living tar out of a large group of buff, dirty, and dangerous Irish thugs that have guns and chains and sharp weapons with only their bare hands and feet in gravity-defying style, you get the feeling these girls are the most powerful humans on the planet. So who says they can't look good while they're doing it? People have never faulted James Bond for looking good while saving the world. Why can't the girls have the same ability?

Well, at this point, I'm beginning to sound as if I am trying to convince you that the film is good, which I promised I wouldn't do. So I'll cease here and just say this: I enjoyed the film because I could appreciate its form of art. So if you go see Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, you will be seeing art in its most base and shallow of forms. But it's still art... and at least it's fun.

©James Chen, Jun. 27, 2003

Home | Feedback welcome