Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-16 07:30:53

Hello, Academy! Michael Fassbender knocks out. Again.

This review is from: Angel (DVD) Although Garai is a very fair actress , her character , Angel, is unbereable:selfish, spoiled, egocentric , mean to her relatives and totally desatached from the reality of life.Actually, she's kind of insane. People , around her , tend to be her puppets. Angel does not see them as individuals, but characters of her books.This is one of the problems with the first half hour of the movie: you can't like Angel. You can't be glad for her sucess , fame or recognition.She is detestable and presumptuos. And then she meets Esmè, played by Michael Fassbender.Everything changes.It's easy to see when an actor has charisma simply because the film starts from that point on. Even the hateful Angel begins to get a little bit more interesting from that point on and the plot, poorly written, also begins to make some sense from that point on.Step by step, the film stops graviting around Angel and starts graviting around Esmè. Well, not Esmè, but Michael Fassbender himself.When Esmè grows up, Angel is forced to grow up too. It's fascinating to observe Michael Fassbender's transformation from a trifling charmer to a revolted and emasculated man. His sensitive and sensual performance is the only (but powerful)reason this flick is worthwhile being seen.

2012-05-15 23:56:58

Memorable

Really outstanding movie. loved every moment. its a movie u've gotta watch. the acting was superb and story line unique.

lurpak 2012-05-09 13:54:29

Avoid at all costs

Spoiler from start, because its the crux of why this film is so dire.it starts off as a dickensian/bronte type story, which I was quite inthe mood for, and it begins much like "Miss Potter" (go and watchinstead of this) but instantly you will take a dislike to the maincharacter who seems to be a spoiled brat and very well played by RomolaGarai (lets make it clear the acting was good I can't fault the entirecast) who is a young undiscovered writer but prone to flights offantasy she envisions herself being a world famous writer howevernobody thinks she has it in her. her first book gets a publishingletter and her publisher (sam niel) points out the glaring mistakes inher writing because she is young an inexperianced eg. she wrote thatchampaign would be opened using a corkscrew. however he like herinnocent style and sure enough she became the JKRowling of her day.sure enough one by one and without fail all her dreams come true, andin a very childlike way, so you begin to think that the whole film isnot really happening, but is one of her flights of fantasy, especiallywith scenes of London as she coaches by being filmed like a 1950'smusical or austin powers parody. you expect the film to come back toreality, that would explain the childish, pathetic storyline...itliterally has EVERY Cliché EVER one by one, just like a nursery rhymeprincess...but no, this really is the film, how in the name of godsomeone commisioned this twaddle, how in the name of god SAM NEIL readthis script and agreed to put his name to it I will never know. I wouldbe disappointed if this was my 8 year olds school play. please pleasedo not watch this film.

Ton van der Velden 2012-05-08 22:25:34

An utterly melodramatic present-day "Gone with the wind"

I really love this movie and keep seeing it again and again, as itreminds me very much of (as Ozon intended) the 1930's-40's epicmelodramas and the role of Angel Deverell was intended to be likeVivien Leigh in "Gone with the wind". Even before I had read that Ithought about this all the time.It's very rare to find nowadays a moviewith modern-days technical perfection (brilliant colours and costumesand sound)but a 1940's style. Everything is over the top, unbelievablebut for me going to a movie means suspension of disbelief, do we need afilm to be like reality? I don't go to cinema to see reality, but to betaken to a different world, one of romance and it hardly gets moreromantic than this. Read the interviews at www.francois-ozon.com andyou will understand it all a lot better. This movie does not deservethe criticism it gets here as that's comparing apples with oranges.This movie is PERFECT as it is made almost flawlessly and in a (forcostume movie lovers) very lavish way, a great joy to watch and listento, not to mention a very energetic and passionate Romola Garai, who Iwill love to see also in "Atonement". A nice touch, in line with the1940's style, is that trips to London, Venice, Greece, Egypt are madethe way they did in those days, not on location but a filmedbackground. Nothing is very realistic in this movie, but it shows whatdreams are made of and I thank the director and actors highly for manyhours of fantastic entertainment. In it's genre it's just as good asLord of the Rings, which also did not have to be real to be wonderful,did it?

rosiehallett 2012-05-07 12:04:32

Ozon seems to have missed the point

What a disappointment. It's hard to know what attracted Ozon toElizabeth Taylor's fantastic source novel as his adaptation ismisjudged on a number of levels. Although he slavishly sticks toTaylor's plot, Ozon has real problems with - or chooses to ignore - thevery things that are at the heart of the novel. Taylor's ironic, oftencruel wit is missing. Characters are softened in the way one wouldexpect of Hollywood, but not of French cinema. He doesn't seem able tomaster Taylor's irony at all - the audience at last night's London FilmFestival screening were very confused about where and when they shouldlaugh. It was impossible to know what the director felt about thecharacters. Almost entirely missing was Taylor's exceptional portraitof class - one of the major themes of the novel. The film felt like aclassic Europudding - rootless in an implausible world. There was verylittle sense of being in Edwardian Britain.The film is overwrought and out of control. If I hadn't already readthe novel, I would have been completely puzzled by what I was watchingand how I was supposed to respond or feel.

scarlettraces 2012-05-06 16:55:30

yes, it's a melodrama. but look!

first, go read some rags-to-riches 'women's fiction' sagas of the typepopular in the 60s and 70s (it's better if you've read them inchildhood, when it's possible to take them with the utter seriousnesswith which they take themselves, but not everyone has that advantage).then go watch some sirk & minnelli & some of howard keel's fine 50smusicals. then go read some reviews for the source novel to see whatelizabeth taylor was actually on about (clue: it's an affectionate takeon populist romances, with a fair leavening of satire). *then* watchthe film.one of the great joys of 'Angel' is watching the way ozon conveys allthis by the dynamics between the characters and their respective actingstyles. and also by the costumes. oh, the fabulous costumes. is that apheasant on angel's head at the end there? on second thoughts, it'sprobably a peacock.

Joseph Belanger 2012-05-05 22:02:10

Fallen Angel

A group of girls march in succession toward their daily lesson, boththeir step and their outfits similar in fashion, until one girl breaksfrom the mold and finds herself at the gates of paradise, forced togaze from afar. The girl is Angel, the title character from Frenchdirector, Francois Ozon's first venture into English-language film.Don't let the name fool you though; there is nothing remotely angelicabout her. She is spoiled, loud and delusional – everything you want ina heroine you're supposed to root for and just the kind of person youwant to see get everything they desire. Right?Angel is a writer, not a very good writer but people love her. Sherefuses to live in the real world in favor of the perfect illusion shebelieves she has crafted for herself. It all raises many questionsabout success and talent, sanity and vanity, but no matter how wickedlyshe is played by Romola Garai, the woman is too wretched to inspiresympathy in the viewer and Ozon does nothing to help.Ozon's past efforts range in form from ridiculous and satirical tocontemplative and tragic. His transition into the realm of period dramais daring considering the smaller size of his previous works but hejuggles the elements well. In fact, he balances back and forth betweenthe elaborate costumes, grandiose sets and exaggerated performances sowell that it all feels rather plain. Considering how allergic Angel wasto the mundane, I don't think she would have been very pleased withthis. And trust me, you wouldn't like her mad.

2012-05-05 12:47:13

Campy?

This review is from: Angel (DVD) I have waited a long time for this to come out on Dvd and now that I have it can't wait to give it away. Is this suppose to be mellow dramatic camp. It's a horrid little pill. One star for great cast. I'm sorry Fassbender even though you were good (the reason I wanted this was for you) a great cast does not a movie make. Giving my copy away to local library!

4EVVA 2012-05-05 16:45:34

Everything about it had me cringing in my seat..

I had absolutely no expectations whatsoever about this movie, but Iknew it was going to be a bumpy ride just as soon as I saw the nameElizabeth Taylor on screen AND what a bumpy ride it was.. how was I toknow?? Never once did I feel anything for the main character who hasironically been given the name 'Angel'. The actress playing the selfishlittle brat didn't captivate my attention at all. The only thinginteresting about her were maybe her piercing blue eyes. But theyweren't enough to get me through this more-than-2-hour-long over thetop movie. Everything about it had me cringing in my seat: the godawful music, the fake decors, the crazy outfits. I know it's typicalfor director Ozon to (shock and) awe his audience with his 'kitschy'style, but when the entire audience starts to laugh as the maincharacter is laying on her death bed screaming her own name just beforeshe goes, that's not a very good sign.

moncusurlacomode 2012-05-05 05:07:00

A true masterpiece!

This is probably the best film I have seen this year. Everything isperfectly done in this movie. First, you will notice that thephotography is perfect and beautiful, and I seriously advise you towatch this movie on theater if you want to take advantage of all itsqualities from the image to the soundtrack. Secondly, the actors areperfect and they all play with a lot of subtlety their part. Absolutelyno one is ever a caricature of his character, and no one ever tries tobe nicer than his character is supposed to be. Everybody will noticethat every character is important, and that with a minimum of time andsequences, you will guess who each one of them is, and what he thinks,and so on. This film is really intelligent, and will make you think alot, not only about ambition, success, talent, selfishness (of someartists), but also what is reality in everyone's mind (beside fictionor dream), and how to deal with it, the part of "schizophrenia" and soon... Their would be of course a lot more to say about this film, butthe best thing to do is simply to go and make your own opinion... Enjoyit, it's a difficult (in some ways) movie, but it's a really beautifulone : a true masterpiece!

2012-05-04 20:11:28

gorgeous contemporary kitsch for intelligent people

The fact that Ozon could conceive, pitch, sell, make and distribute a film such as this should be a shot in the arm to anyone suffering from fearing the demise of quality films for adults. The above reviews enumerate the joys of this film, but no writing can give a sense of the "filmic" genius employed by Ozon and his creative/technical team. The sheer beauty of this film is staggering, from enhanced coloration of details to the ravishing lighting of the actors, putting it into its own category among relatively-recent films. Beauty is what the title character wished to create, and Ozon has superbly translated her quest, with all its disturbing artificialities, into a voluptuous vision that makes this a contemporary fix for those missing Visconti. But what makes ANGEL so particularly marvelous is Ozon's unwillingness to douse his critical mind in all this cinematic liquidity: we know from the start that this is not Merchant Ivory (PTL), but far more akin to Todd Haynes. A pitch-perfect cast is never condescended to by the director; the line is never crossed over into nasty-minded "clever" post-modern smirking at the material, the bane of so many otherwise well-intended films aiming at the same ideas. In fact, the earnestness with which the characters (especially Romola Garai, fearless in the title role) embrace the material is refreshingly free of self-consciousness, startling (and slightly discomfitting) from the start. Ozon should be saluted for having the energy and guts to push through his projects; while he (and a handful of others out there) manages to do this, film is not yet dead.

2012-05-04 02:57:24

Angel

This review is from: Angel (DVD) The film is predictable but well acted and the cinematography is superb. But it is the music that is really good. The musical score is worth watching the movie. I strongly recommend the score for those who like movie music.

p-stepien 2012-05-02 14:36:49

Enigmatically funny

A girl has a right to dream. At the beginning of the XX century notmuch else is guaranteed to a young and frail schoolchild. The wild anduncouth Angel (played by Romola Garai) however has a different outlook,as her dreams are not fantasies, but a prediction of the future.Immensely talented as a writer, despite shallow contempt to readingbooks, Angel is all-in-all a literary hack with an undeniable way withwords and romance. At an early age she is discovered by a publisherThéo (Sam Neill), who becomes so fascinated with her writings, that heagrees to release her first book to critical and commercial acclaim.Angel uses the newly found fame and wealth to purchase her dream houseParadise, marry the man of her desires and become a larger than life asif straight from her novels...Francois Ozon tackles the whole movie with an unmistakable signaturedelving into the epoque with wit and charm encapsulated by thecharacter of Angel. Multilayered and hard to crack she is presented asan alternative type of rebel without a cause, absolutely engulfed byher own brilliance, that she is unable to break out of her shell totake a gulp of reality. Once she molds her dream-life she seems tobelieve that this is the end of the story, her life has reachedperfection and no further chapters need be written. However the barriershe builds around herself becomes a prison from where she struggles tosee that her perfect life is more a projection of her expectations intoreality than reality itself.All in all an interesting concept and to a point well contrived. Atsome stages the movie uses an absolutely pathetic excuse forbackgrounds, i.e. while riding in a carriage across London we shevarying landmarks of the city rudely apparent to be fake, to highlightthe audacity of Angel's dream-life, as if taken from a romance novel.Nonetheless the movie falters in creating a mood to coincide with thepremise of the story. Throughout the movie Angel is a hystericallyoverplayed and pretentious character, which draws multiple laughs inthe most awkward situations, i.e. whilst reading her husband's eulogyor when drawing her last breath before death. This odes of course givethe movie a certain whiff of freshness, as Angel's eccentrics reallyget you interested in her character (however unlikeable she may be).Nonetheless this was taken to such an extreme that at times I wasunsure whether "Angel" is essentially a pastiche of costume dramas,with a by the numbers script full with often hilarious scenes, as ifmaking fun of the whole genre and its dramatics.All in all an enjoyable movie, but the awkwardness of the permeatingfunniness of Angel and her undergoing together with the lack of clarityas to the intentions of the director make the eventual reaction to it ameandering mess of drama, comedy and rushed narrative.

robert-temple-1 2012-05-02 03:49:38

Romola Lets 'Er Rip, Bodice and All

Hungary's gift to world cinema via Hong Kong (her birthplace), theamazing Romola Garai, here really pulls off the impossible, aided bythe deft and sure-footed Francois Ozon as director. Here she gives aperformance so impressive that she actually saves a bodice-ripper of aromantic novel by Elizabeth Taylor but becoming a travesty, and turnsit instead into a classic. This is one of those daring film projectswhich one would have thought had no chance of success at all. It isdone with tongue just enough in cheek not to take itself too seriously,but because of the intensity of Garai's central performance as theover-the-top character Angel Deverell, and the earnestness of her greatbig eyes as she does it, the impossible happens, and the film works!Really, the result is astonishing! The sombre, toned-down performanceof good old Sam Neill also helps, because he is so under-the-top thathe quite compensates for Angel Deverell's wild and extravagant excessesas a character. A bemused Charlotte Rampling oozes suitable resentmentas Neill's wife, and her narrowed eyes are used to as good effect asever as she studies Deverell in the way that one would watch a snakeglide across the terrace. (Or is it Rampling who is the snake glidingacross the terrace? One is never sure with her, especially when she ispeering from under those lids and being dangerously subdued, as ifcoiling to strike.) Francois Ozon is best known for SWIMMING POOL(2003), in which Rampling did one of her many excellings (she has beenwinning the gold star for a long time now). Ozon seems to haveparanormal relations with outstanding examples of the feminine psyche,and without the combination here of Garai and Ozon, this film wouldhave been one of the greatest flops of our time. Garai must have had tohave this most caressing of directors looking approvingly at her everytime she did one of her wild scenes, so that she could be sure from thefeedback that she had not disgraced herself by over-acting. I justdon't know how they pulled it off. The way Garai opens her eyes withthat innocent stare, wider, wider, Ozon could be considered a kind ofdentist: 'Open wide! Now wider! No, wider! Wider!' And it works. Thefilm is consciously a parody of the traditional English romantic novel(you know those dreamy things which women read furtively, in the waythat men look at porn magazines, both concealing these vices from eachother, since all women secretly believe in true love just as all menthink mostly with their organs, and each is ashamed to admit the truthto the other sex). In England these novels are called 'Mills & Boonnovels', after the publisher which published so many of them; no man Iknow of has ever read one. Well, this story is set in Victorian Englandand is about a precocious 18 year-old girl (Garai, who although 25 atthe time looks genuinely 18) who lives above a grocery store andrefuses to accept reality in its present form, so to counteract hergrim life she writes an early 'Mills & Boon' type novel. It is acceptedfor publication by Sam Neill and she goes on cranking out these cornybooks in endless profusion and becomes immensely popular and very rich.She buys the country house she admired from afar when younger, which is(you here have to remember that the cheek is suddenly full of lots oftongue) 'Paradise'. Here the director was very clever and used a realhouse called Tyntesfield near Bristol in the west of England, and theresult is simply breathtaking. The art direction of this film isabsolutely spectacular. How much fun they all had doing this! Thecharacter played by Garai is an insufferably egotisticalself-delusionist on the grand scale, and normally one encounters thiskind of role only with much older actresses, as for instance GloriaSwanson in SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950), as a classic example of the type.It is quite a switch to see a young girl play a character who is evenmore delusional, insane, and self-obsessed than Tony Blair, and everybit as ruthless. Such parts just don't come along for young actresses,whose opportunities to be demented are generally restricted to the moreconventional sex sirens, nymphets, or other characters relying entirelyon their sexuality. Here sex doesn't come into it, it is all romanticmania carried to the highest possible levels of intensity and, frankly,insanity. This actually makes a refreshing change, since women do haveother qualities than desirability, though those of us who find allwomen intoxicating often have to slap ourselves to stop being sodistracted by all those alluring qualities they have and remember thateven more interesting than their irresistability is their MYSTERY.Women are a parallel universe, without whom there would be no Universeat all. We men who admire them can only stare in wonder,uncomprehending, at the miracle of femininity. We have such a goodexample of it here, so provocatively put before us in the context of afrothy romantic confection which gently makes fun of itself as it goesalong, that the film might be called more of a witty homage thananything serious. And with that Gallic lightness of touch which theFrench so often bring to things like this, even when made in English asANGEL is, the result is a film which could not be more of a delight.Sour-natured people, or those with no sense of humour, should look awaynow, to avoid being affronted by scenes of dangerous levity.

Evangelia Synodinou 2012-05-01 02:33:45

Good, but don't get excited

I've added Angel in my watch list about a month ago, after studying-quite a few- of Romola Garai's and Michael Fassbender's performances.Some of the films i've watched with Garai were: Inside I'm Dancing(2004), Mary Bryant (2005), Atonement (2007) and The Other Man (2008).She was brilliant in all of them. So she was in this film.This is a fiction story based on a novel/screenplay by ElizabethTaylor. It's kind of a biography of a young writer (Angel) with a notwealthy background that manages to finally publish her rich -inimagination- novels. What do you think, passionate love wouldn't knockon her door when she starts being famous? This is where Fassbender'srole (Esme) comes in. Another artist, an underestimated painter whodoesn't feel confident enough about his work and who also keeps someskeletons in his closet that will -later in the film- (much later)finally be revealed. Fassbender is a great performer but he doesn't getto shine here. Sam Neil plays the part of the overwhelmed publisher andLucy Russell does a great supporting work as Esme's sister.As i'm still new in screen writing and film structure, i found myself abit worried about the way this movie was unfolded. Everything seemed somagical and dreamy and the drama was almost out of the plot for muchlonger than i expected. It had to make a turn! And it did and it wassudden, maybe a bit frustrating at some point, but you'll have yourturning point eventually.Since i've realized that there where practically two acts in this filmi recalled the atmosphere, the costumes, the music and the colors thatwent along with the change. In the beginning everything was so brightand cheerful, then all turned pale and gloomy to show the depression,which you can clearly notice even in the clothes of the protagonist.There where only a few outdoor special effects that looked really outof date and weird for a 2007 production. I laughed and quickly forgotabout them.In a nutshell, it was a decent film -with a small cast- describing theintense, disturbed and not very long life of a young female writer inthe early 20s, but nothing more to get excited about.

chris123 2012-04-30 12:49:48

Unsympathetic characters ruin an otherwise well-made movie

I know this is a movie based on a romance novel, so I wasn't reallyexpecting much. I imported it because I'm a huge fan of MichaelFassbender and figured there's at least eye candy. That said, I don'tthink I've ever seen a female lead character as unsympathetic as Angel.It's not Romola Garai's fault. In fact, I have no doubt she played thepart perfectly. The problem is that the part is written to be soselfish, stubborn, contrive and all-in-all annoying that I can'timagine anyone putting up with her at all. Sure, it's a movie; butthere is suspension of disbelief, and there's just plain unbelievable,like the character interactions in this movie. The production values are great. I really liked the vivid colors, thecontrasts and the whimsical travel sequences. But whenever the moviestays on Angel for any prolong period of time, I find myself wanting tosmack her silly and wondering if I can stand watching more of her. Ifonly they'd re-tuned the script to make her a little less abrasive.That's probably against the director's intention for the movie, but Ithink it would definitely have made it more enjoyable.

2012-04-27 18:17:17

FRANCOIS OZON, OPUS 10

**** 2007. Written and directed by François Ozon. England in the first years of the XXth century. The daughter of a grocer becomes a trendy writer whose books are read by mostly women. She falls in love with a no good painter who'll be unfaithful to her. Filmed like a photo-story or like an intrigue of one of Angel Deverell's books, ANGEL is an excellent surprise that proves once again if needed, after 5X2 or 8 Women, that François OZON is currently the most interesting French director. Highly recommended.

Derek Bullen 2012-04-27 04:33:39

I can't remember a worse film

This movie is rubbish. The only good aspect was that my wife won ourtickets, so we didn't have to part with good money to see it.Nothing worked for me. The characterisations were poor. Sam Neill (asalways) played Sam Neill and even Charlotte Rampling (for whom I havegreat admiration) couldn't save the film. I can only compare it toTitanic - not the movie but the ship.Who was Angelica? I know she had something to do with Paradise (whichwas shown in reverse over the gate of the house right at the beginning,but the right way around for the rest of the movie), but, as acharacter, she wasn't introduced. Was this edited out, or was I in acoma at the time and missed it? What went wrong with the backgroundshots? Alfred Hitchcock did a better job of them in the 60s. How can itbe that, with all the modern technology, it was so obvious and poor? Iquite simply did not believe any of it. One man after the movie came upto my wife and myself with a bemused smile on his face and asked, "Whatwas that all about?" He said he was expecting Angel to wake up and findit all a dream. My comment in reply, "Mas more like a nightmare" Theonly thing I found even remotely interesting was the way Esme used thewheelchair Angel gave him to hang himself from. This gives some idea asto how boring I found the rest! I suffered the movie expecting my wifeto say that she found it moving (i.e. I thought it had to be a "chickflick" that only women can enjoy). Meanwhile, Barbara sat through itthinking that I must have found something "arty" about it. If we hadonly known, we could have walked out and not had to endure the torture.I could not, in all consciousness, recommend this movie - even to aperson I hate.None of it worked; none of it inspired; none of it entertained. It waseven too horrible to be amusing.

2012-04-26 07:43:02

A fun watch

This review is from: Angel (DVD) I ordered this movie because I love Romola Garai and I am glad she was nominated for a globe for her role in "Emma". I like this movie but some scenes are almost laughable, they are so fake, especially the carriage scene when she arrives in London. Romola carries the movie despite maybe the production costs. For all the fans of period films!

2012-04-25 17:24:14

Insanity of Genius

This film was recommended to me by a friend, and I found it quite interesting. As an author myself, having had times of building my own make-believe worlds to shut out the pain of reality, I totally understood the driving force behind Angel's need to rewrite her life in order to survive it. Creativity sometimes borders on a type of madness, but it's difficult to understand unless you've been pushed to the edge.It's obvious Angel had deep emotional problems. Her way of coping with these emotions was fantasy. She fell in love with the idea of love with a man she fantasized about, but it was the reality of the painful truth that was her undoing in the end. Though the beginning is filled with what I call "fluff" of Angel's rise in popularity as a writer, the starkness of her dark life in the end was a great contrast. She loved her husband like the characters in her books loved their heros - blindly and with a tad of selfish obsessive possessiveness. Ironically, the home she dreamed about her entire life, Paradise, became the very thing that stole her happiness from her. Not exactly the Paradise she had dreamed of as a child. Even when your dreams are often achieved, rather than a silver lining, it turns out to be a black cloud. The the costumes and indoor settings are stunning, but there is poor cinematography in scenes that distract somewhat from the story cheapening the film.All in all, I enjoy it. I'm more of the drama tragic type anyway.