Angel (2007) User Reviews

La vie rêvée des anges

[moimoichan6 · 7/10 · 28 March 2007]

It starts quite strangely for a movie about the life of a romantic novel writer in the early XX century Britain, with a wannabe Danny Elfman's music, an ugly pink opening, and an actress obviously too old for the part she plays. But, as the movie goes on, if the strangeness still remains, all this elements begin to make sense and create and original, and I think, never experimented on screen, world. ANGEL is indeed a really good surprise if you manage to accept and enter the inner world that the movie describes, and the kitsch atmosphere of Ozon's style (witch was for me unbearable in his previous movies, like "8 Femmes", but that absolutely fits the subject of this movie). When I learned that Ozon directed a movie in English about a young artist, I was waiting for a sort of kitsch version of ESTER KAHN (the wonderful movie another French director – Arnaud Despechin – made about a young lady in Britain in the early XX century), but I couldn't be more wrong : ANGEL is a sort of feminine (or Gay) version of Tim Burton's ED WOOD, describing how a strong imagination – no matter how bad it is – can completely recreates the world, and how you can fully lives in a fantasy universe, when you believe hard enough in your talent and your art .

The movie tells us the life of Angel (Ramola Garai, who has everything to become the new Ludivine Sagner for François Ozon), from her childhood, where she dreams, upstairs the family's grocery, of the fastidious and glamorous life of a famous writer, to her success in the house of her dreams : Paradise house, where she has everything she ever dreamed of when she was young. The originality of this movie is that everything is seen with Angel's eyes. And her eyes only see what her imagination tells them to see, for she doesn't live in reality, but always fills it with dreams, so that she can live as if she were one of her romantic heroine. Whatever awful and sad the word might be, it never touches Angel, for she always transforms it with her imagination the way she wants. And imagination, she has plenty... Of course, her world is a childish, puerile and kitsch world of a bad Barbara Cartland 's novel and the movie completely recreates it on screen, with all the artifices it supposes : from the colors – that explains the pink – to the situations : when she proposes Esme, the man she chooses to love, the rain suddenly stops when he says yes, and a rainbow appears : empirical reality doesn't exist here, for Angel is unable to see it. But, and here's the all interest of the movie, the spectator, on the other hand, is absolutely able to watch it.

This tension between the strong believing that Angel puts in her world, and the ridiculous that the spectator sometimes sees in it, is mostly tangible thought other character's eyes (like Charlotte Ramplin is the more judgmental, she's the first to condemn Angel's books, but mostly for personal reasons : she can't stand the pretentious and rude young lady with whom her husband is falling in love, or Esme, the untalented painter, who is also one of this ambiguous character, for he accepts his wife universe, but is unable to really find his place in this fictive world). And the movie constantly plays with this two degrees, witch brings humanity, cruelties and sadness to the shinny but unreal world it describes. That's also why this movie is so surprising : we never know exactly where we are : is this a dream, when will it stops, will reality goes after it in the end ? This constant instability regenerates the spectator interest for this movie, and keep it far from the classical costumed movie about the rise and fall of an English women writer it could have been.

That's also why this movie reminds me of Tim Burton's ED WOOD, for, beyond their differences, they both deal with the same thematic of the triumph of an artistic imagination over the world, and the fall that fallows this triumph, and they also share a melancholic tone, as well as real understanding and compassion for untalented but passionate artists.

Everyone told me my dreams were lies.

[lastliberal-853-253708 · 7/10 · 9 May 2011]

Angel Deverell (Romola Garai) imagines herself to be a writer. Night after night she writes of her imaginative world. At school, she is ridiculed for her fantasies, and her mother (Jacqueline Tong) has no idea of her talent. A London publisher Theo (Sam Neill), publishes her first book despite her arrogance and his reservations. The novel is a bestseller. She writes another and another and another, and so on.

At the height of her fame, she meets the painter Esmé (Michael Fassbender), and is immediately stuck, even if he is even more arrogant that she is. And, sad to say, more untalented.

This is the key to this film. It is a satire of those stories of the period. There are only two serious people in the film. The rest are caricatures of popular characters and settings.

British writer Elizabeth Taylor's novel, based upon Marie Corelli, a long-forgotten English novelist of the 19th Century, was translated to the screen by François Ozon (Swimming Pool, 8 Women), who also directed. He certainly captured the ego Corelli was reputed to have.

The life she lived or the life she dreamed? That is the question of this film. There is no doubt that for a few brief moments, Angel was never in touch with reality. It makes for great satire.

Good, but don't get excited

[synevy · 6/10 · 26 December 2011]

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 Elizabeth Taylor. It's kind of a biography of a young writer (Angel) with a not wealthy background that manages to finally publish her rich -in imagination- novels. What do you think, passionate love wouldn't knock on her door when she starts being famous? This is where Fassbender's role (Esme) comes in. Another artist, an underestimated painter who doesn't feel confident enough about his work and who also keeps some skeletons in his closet that will -later in the film- (much later) finally be revealed. Fassbender is a great performer but he doesn't get to shine here. Sam Neil plays the part of the overwhelmed publisher and Lucy Russell does a great supporting work as Esme's sister.

As i'm still new in screen writing and film structure, i found myself a bit worried about the way this movie was unfolded. Everything seemed so magical and dreamy and the drama was almost out of the plot for much longer than i expected. It had to make a turn! And it did and it was sudden, maybe a bit frustrating at some point, but you'll have your turning point eventually.

Since i've realized that there where practically two acts in this film i recalled the atmosphere, the costumes, the music and the colors that went along with the change. In the beginning everything was so bright and 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 out of date and weird for a 2007 production. I laughed and quickly forgot about them.

In a nutshell, it was a decent film -with a small cast- describing the intense, disturbed and not very long life of a young female writer in the early 20s, but nothing more to get excited about.

Angel

[film_riot · 7/10 · 28 November 2007]

Watching "Angel" by French filmmaker François Ozon was a quite interesting experience. As often, when a film turns out to be different than I had thought, at first I didn't really like what I saw. I went into the cinema knowing practically nothing about what I had to expect and found myself in a movie with over the top acting, corny dialogue and a dislikeable main character. It was after some time in the movie that I realized, Ozon used the style of old Hollywood melodramas to enforce the pompous and passionate character of Angel's writing and to at the same time add ironic breaks to an otherwise fairy tale story. But still, Ozon shows a lot of love for Angel on screen and does not use the irony to demonstrate his superiority. Now, quite a while after watching "Angel", the film still sticks in my mind and crosses my thoughts now and then, which is a proof to me that I really saw an impressive work, that mixes an antique style with narrative intransigence unseen in melodramas of the old days.

Fallen Angel

[moutonbear25 · 6/10 · 5 June 2008]

A group of girls march in succession toward their daily lesson, both their step and their outfits similar in fashion, until one girl breaks from the mold and finds herself at the gates of paradise, forced to gaze from afar. The girl is Angel, the title character from French director, Francois Ozon's first venture into English-language film. Don't let the name fool you though; there is nothing remotely angelic about her. She is spoiled, loud and delusional – everything you want in a heroine you're supposed to root for and just the kind of person you want to see get everything they desire. Right?

Angel is a writer, not a very good writer but people love her. She refuses to live in the real world in favor of the perfect illusion she believes she has crafted for herself. It all raises many questions about success and talent, sanity and vanity, but no matter how wickedly she is played by Romola Garai, the woman is too wretched to inspire sympathy in the viewer and Ozon does nothing to help.

Ozon's past efforts range in form from ridiculous and satirical to contemplative and tragic. His transition into the realm of period drama is daring considering the smaller size of his previous works but he juggles the elements well. In fact, he balances back and forth between the elaborate costumes, grandiose sets and exaggerated performances so well that it all feels rather plain. Considering how allergic Angel was to the mundane, I don't think she would have been very pleased with this. And trust me, you wouldn't like her mad.

This is a satire right?

[LisaAire · 3/10 · 6 March 2013]

If I had approached this movie as a satire, perhaps it would have been more bearable. Or maybe not. It somewhat feels like a play on 40's-50's movie comedy, but set in the early 1900's. The script (and the acting for that matter) is so flawed, there is no need to even bother going over its flaws. Fassbender clearly lives in the 21st century and Romola is straight out of an overacted tragicomedy play from the 1800's, except she is behaving like a bratty teenager we see on Sweet 16. I hope she was doing it on purpose, otherwise there are no excuses for her annoyance. There is a fine line between funny and annoying. I had to force myself to finish watching this movie just because I am such a huge Fassbender fan. Him, along with Charlotte and Sam, what a waste of talent.

Ozon's first film in the English language – showy but hollow

[harry_tk_yung · 14 September 2007]

Seen in the Toronto International Film Festival, with personal appearance of director Francois Ozon and lead Romola Garai. And the Festival is indeed a case in point for globalization, with among other things two film in French directed respectively by a Taiwanese and a Canadian, and French director Ozon directing his first film in English (English, that is, not a funny language called "American"). But I digress.

Whether you like Francois Ozon's films, you can't deny that he has a way of grabbing your attention, with films such as haunting "Sous le sable", playful "8 femmes" and surreal "Swimming Pool". Bad news, Ozon admirers, as "Angel" comes considerable short compared with any of these remarkable (if not all superb) films.

For his first venture in English language filming, Ozon teams up with Elizabeth Taylor (not that one). "Team up" is perhaps not a totally accuracy description because this is the late Elizabeth Taylor, a little-known writer who died more than 30 years ago and whose novels are out-of-print. To Ozon, however, "The real live of Angel Deverell" "was like 'Gone with the wind'".

Watching "Angel" in the Elgin Theatre in downtown Toronto (where I had watched "Cats" four time), I couldn't help but wonder if Ozon was just looking for ANY story that he could use to parody "Gone with the wind". The stories are actually quite different, but Ozon uses every opportunity to parody. My memory of GWTW is rather vague but there are a couple of scenes in "Angel" when Scarlett O'Hara pops right out of the picture. Judging from the chuckles and laughter of mirth from my fellow audience (many at places when they are expected to sob or sigh) I suspect that there are a lot more that I have missed (as well as parodies of other Hollywood classics too).

But what is the point, other than showcasing some glamorous set pieces and gorgeous costumes reminiscent of Hollywood in the 40s and 50s? Not much. The story of a totally unattractive girl (character-wise) rising to stardom through a series of romance novels she pens is uninteresting. Her mindless possessiveness of a man (a painter) purported to have talents but no breaks is cliché. Typically Ozon, the element of homosexuality in hinted, if not elaborated, here between her and the man's sister who is devoted to her. Maybe, as some suggest, the whole thing is to show how this girl lives in the dream world from which she awakes, ironically, only at the call of death. But with none of the characters worth feeling for, the whole thing falls apart.

I maintain that perhaps Ozon is trying too hard to impress the English speaking audience, and it backfires. Romola Garai, so well received in "I capture the castle" (2003) has tried hard to bring life to a title role that is somewhat hollow, a thankless job. Ozon's favourite Charlotte Rampling (mesmerizing in "Sous le sable") is nothing more than a cameo, playing the publisher's wife. Oh yes, Sam Neill who plays the publisher is getting to look and "feel" more and more like James Mason.

Angel or Deverell

[writers_reign · 6/10 · 17 December 2013]

Not easy to classify, Francois Ozon's Angel just about keeps you watching. At one level it's a 'Rise and Fall of ... saga, on the other it's a bodice-ripper once removed, and on yet a third it's a chocolate box full of soft centres with just one acid drop lurking in the second layer. The protagonist as played by Romola Garai is a one-off, a total eccentric who goes her own way not caring a whit or a jot who she upsets, who laughs at her, who loathes her. Her goal is to be a writer and though we never hear a quotation from one of her novels it is clear that her role model is Barbara Cartland. Against the run of play she lands a publisher whilst still in her teens and never looks back - at least not till she reaches thirty-five at which point she is burnt out. I have still to see what all the fuss is about in the case of Francois Ozon and this entry fails to make it clearer.

Misguided embarrassment

[malcjameswebster · 3/10 · 13 January 2008]

I'm a great admirer of Francois Ozon's French movies (Swimming Pool, Under the Sand, 8 Women) but this, his first foray into English language drama, is a stinker. Adapted from a book by Elizabeth Taylor about an Edwardian novelist whose life fails to live up to her romantic fantasies it is as ridiculous, clichéd and overwritten as any of the heroine's creations; hard to know if this is the fault of the source material or Ozon's adaptation (though he has been assisted by acclaimed playwright and translator Martin Crimp). You watch it in disbelief, unsure if you're meant to laugh or not, faintly hoping that this is a deliberate attempt at post-modern ironic detachment (but wondering what would be the point) and gradually realising that Ozon thinks he is Douglas Sirk and has completely embarrassed himself.

The actors look all at sea, particularly Romola Garai who can't give any charm to the unlikeable heroine, and Ozon adopts a stiff and old-fashioned style of film-making - complete with syrupy music and terrible back projections - which make the film look as it it was made in 1936 rather than 2006; I'd like to think this was a deliberate if unfortunate miscalculation but the consequence is that the finished product looks stilted and amateurish. Only Charlotte Rampling - Ozon's muse - almost saves the day, but her air of sardonic detachment probably says more about her feelings towards the film than about her character.

overwrought melodrama

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 25 December 2015]

Angel Deverell (Romola Garai) is certain of her writing despite her humble station. Her widowed mother has a grocery store and sees her as an useless dreamer. Publisher Theo Gilbright (Sam Neill) accepts Angel's book Lady Irania and is surprised to find the author to be actually a woman. His wife Hermione (Charlotte Rampling) doesn't really like the brash self-obsessed ingénue. Lady Irania becomes a great success and Angel buys the local mansion Paradise. She hires admirer Nora (Lucy Russell) as her secretary and marries Nora's womanizer indebted artist brother Esmé (Michael Fassbender). When war breaks out, she is angry that Esmé joins up to fight ruining her perfect life.

Romola Garai is great at playing the annoyingly self-obsessed over-dramatic character. That's a double-edge sword. She's not particularly likable but she is fascinating. She's basically a bratty flamboyant teenager in a costume drama. The movie does kind of work in the same way her overwrought melodramatic novels work. That's a sort of poetry.

Ozon seems to have missed the point

[rosiehallett · 3/10 · 1 November 2007]

What a disappointment. It's hard to know what attracted Ozon to Elizabeth Taylor's fantastic source novel as his adaptation is misjudged on a number of levels. Although he slavishly sticks to Taylor's plot, Ozon has real problems with - or chooses to ignore - the very things that are at the heart of the novel. Taylor's ironic, often cruel wit is missing. Characters are softened in the way one would expect of Hollywood, but not of French cinema. He doesn't seem able to master Taylor's irony at all - the audience at last night's London Film Festival screening were very confused about where and when they should laugh. It was impossible to know what the director felt about the characters. Almost entirely missing was Taylor's exceptional portrait of class - one of the major themes of the novel. The film felt like a classic Europudding - rootless in an implausible world. There was very little sense of being in Edwardian Britain.

The film is overwrought and out of control. If I hadn't already read the novel, I would have been completely puzzled by what I was watching and how I was supposed to respond or feel.

A Nutshell Review: Angel

[DICK STEEL · 8/10 · 10 May 2008]

Based on the novel by Elizabeth Taylor, this Francois Ozon directed movie was the closing film of the Berlin Film Festival last year, and while it played out like a biography of a fictional character, you can't help but to imagine how close it seemed to the flamboyance of the other Liz Taylor being infused into the titular character.

Movies based on biographies, such as Miss Potter with Rene Zellweger and La Vie En Rose with Marion Cotillard, seem to follow a formula of rags to riches, and basically living the dream that no one had imagined was possible. Naturally, being blessed with a talent and a gift helps too, and with Angel Deverell (Romola Garai), hers was a steely resolve of wanting to break out of her poverty cycle through her writing, an aspiring novelist with limited life experience, relying solely on her vivid imagination to paint literary marvels with her firm grasp of language, constructing sentences like a wordsmith many times her age.

What made her character compelling to watch and follow, is her living in a fantasy world she constructs for herself, which suits her perfectly as it provides for and fuels her imagination with romantic stories to enchant and endear herself to her readers. It shields her from her insecurities, but in doing so, she slowly isolates herself into her view of Paradise, and becomes a chronic liar, which I felt she's constantly aware of, but is ashamed to admit any stain in the perfect world.

Delivered in two distinct acts, things start to change when she meets the Howe-Nevisons. Nora (Lucy Russell), probably her #1 fan who simply worships the ground she treads on, and offers to be her personal assistant, and her brother Esme (Michael Fassbender from 300 who said they'll fight in the shade!), with whom Angel falls head over heels for. And this stifling relationship takes a toil on all parties involved, with shades of possible lesbianism played down in the film (though I'm unsure what became of it in the novel). While Angel had her break from Theo (Sam Neill) the publisher who believed in her, Esme the aspiring painter has none, besides Angel who would probably say Yes to anything he says. And his portrait of her probably was the highlight for me in the movie. If a portrait painter needs to, and can peer directly into your innermost soul and bring whatever qualities he sees in you onto the canvas, then Esme would have succeeded with his god-ugly picture of Angel, reinforces meaning of being beautiful on the outside. but ugly on the inside.

The special effects were quite badly done, and perhaps deliberately too, as it's made up of very obviously superimposed shots of backgrounds that no longer exist because of modernization. Other than that, the rest of the production values are high, and the costumes too which Angel decked herself in, are quite a sight to behold, especially when there's a call for a change in colours to reflect the mood of the story as it wore on.

But what made this movie very palatable, is how Romola Garai carried the role through the story. You can just about believe the very naiveness and devil may care attitude that her Angel brings, however always seemingly able to hide and bury her true feelings deep within herself, and being a master manipulator also helped loads. Like how Charlotte Rampling's character of the publisher's wife reflected, you just can't help but to pity Angel, despite her pomp, flamboyance and hypocrisy.

So if you're interesting in a movie that provides avenue for an intriguing study of a person putting on a very fake mask, then Angel, despite its title, will be the movie for you to examine human traits which are anything but angelic.

Michael FASSBENDER in a Movie based upon a Novel by Elizabeth TAYLOR

[ZeddaZogenau · 6/10 · 20 March 2024]

Elizabeth Taylor (1932-2011) was a successful actress who won an Oscar twice. But stop! There was also a writer of the same name who is really good, but spent her whole life in the shadow of her namesake, who started her career as a child star in "National Velvet" (1944) shortly before the novel debut of the 20-year-old woman. What a story!

Fortunately, in 2007 France's directing genius Francois Ozon filmed "Angel", one of the best novels by Elizabeth Taylor (1912-1975) from the British Reading, which is loosely based on the life of the early best-selling author Marie Corelli (1855-1924 ) oriented. This "Angel" from the novel and film is an ambitious writer (played by Romola Garai) who can really get on the nerves of those around her with her exuberant imagination and strong desire for kitsch. A story like this is definitely not for everyone. Ozon delivers a colorful homage to the works of Douglas Sirk / Detlef Sierck and unabashedly pays homage to his role models "Gigi" (1958) and "Gone with the Wind" (1939). Other roles in this star-studded film shine: Sam Neill (Jurassic Park), Charlotte Rampling (The Night Porter), Lucy Russell (in "Toni Erdmann" (2016) the English friend who runs away in time at the nude party) and of course the 1977 im Beautiful Heidelberg-born and now two-time ACADEMY AWARD nominee Michael Fassbender in one of his earliest roles.

During her lifetime, the great writer Elizabeth Taylor was unfairly overlooked for the reasons mentioned above. Fortunately, in German-speaking countries, Dörlemann Verlag from Zurich is now ensuring that, in addition to "Angel", other of her novels such as "Blick auf den Hafen", "Versteckspiel" and "Mrs Palfrey im Claremont" find enthusiastic readers. If that's too strenuous for you, you can try watching Francois Ozon's film!

Either extreme irony or idiotic

[ferdinand1932 · 1/10 · 1 November 2014]

The source book was a satire on a truly dreadful author of the late 19th century, a sort of Barbara Cartland, but only more schlocky. If the intent was to have fun on this idea it was missed and badly; if it was taken at face value, it is a sign of incipient idiocy.

It plays the whole thing very straight and it seems as if no one saw that this is utter complete trash. Douglas Sirk used to take rubbish - real mediocre uneducated garbage - and make a thing with it as Fassbinder extolled him for doing. It looks as if Ozon has done a Fassbinder and taken real nonsense, which has become a joke cliché of romantic fiction and not seen that it had always been a joke; a wry in-joke on the reader, and on the original writer.

Why anyone ever signed up to do this is curious - apart form the money. Why it was financed is even more puzzling. No doubt people will watch this in 10 and 50 years and see something else altogether but none of it will do anything for the creative team behind this.

The classic, "Cold Comfort Farm" was a parody of the romantic rural fiction popular in the early 20th century and this work is a roman a clef of the same type of demotic garbage that is consumed in bulk.

Under no circumstances go anywhere near this and wipe all playback technologies that may have accessed it.

Hell's Angel

[Geofbob · 3/10 · 23 April 2007]

For me, this film is truly awful. It tells the story of an English woman who writes simplistic, kitschy, romantic novels - think Barbara Cartland, but set in the 1900s. Its prolific, eponymous heroine, the daughter of a provincial grocer, has her first book published while still at school; and goes on to achieve fame and fortune, before meeting her inevitable nemesis.

Had the film contained irony, humour, imaginative visuals, original character insights or surprising plot twists, it could have been watchable, perhaps even admirable. But Francois Ozon, the writer/director, has used little or none of these; and instead has employed the sort of fairy-story, linear plot line, cardboard characters, melodramatic action and over-decorated interiors as one imagines appear in Angel's books. (Fortunately, we are given little by way of examples of her writing.) Incidentally, though on a technical level the film is mostly competent, there is a laughably bad piece of back-projection - or whatever equivalent is used these days - near the beginning, when Angel is in a carriage riding through London.

Even with these defects, the film might still have worked if Ozon had made his main character in the slightest degree likable or intriguing; had she been, say, a naive dreamer, who relates guilelessly to those around her and to her adulatory readership. We could then have understood and forgiven her ignorance of the absurdity of her writing. But it is hard for us to sympathise with Angel when she starts off as a hateful, materialistic, selfish brat; remains so throughout her period of success and lionisation; and hardly changes even when fate turns against her.

It would be easy to blame some of the film's flaws on over-acting by its principal, Romola Garai, but I suspect she plays her part exactly as Ozon wanted. The male lead is Michael Fassbender as Esmé, a stereotypical, garret-dwelling, Bohemian artist, who is the one object of Angel's adoration (besides herself). Also on stage are Lucy Russell as Nora, Esmé's sister, who genuinely admires and loves Angel; Sam Neill as Angel's publisher, who incredibly agrees to print her first schoolgirl effort despite her refusal to alter even one word of it; and Charlotte Rampling as his wife who is understandably baffled by his abandonment of his critical faculty.

Unless you're really stuck for something to do, I recommend giving Angel a miss. Instead, for those who haven't seen it, the recent Miss Potter is a far more credible and engaging portrait of a turn of the century female writer.

Everything about it had me cringing in my seat..

[4EVVA · 1/10 · 8 August 2007]

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

The Emperor's New Clothes

[karmabuona · 5/10 · 5 July 2008]

My advice would be don't waste your time with this film.

Large chunks were clearly meant to be ironic but much was also meant to be more darkly realistic. The result was a wildly veering mish-mash of genres which the director failed to navigate successfully.

Overall, the film felt like a mix between a 1940s melodrama and a 1970s made-for-TV two-part series, with a loathsome central character.

Two people in our group of 20 loved the film, so it must have something going for it. The rest of us were desperate for it to be over from about 20 minutes in. At one point, the main character gets sick, and from behind me and beside me I heard simultaneous mutters of "please die" and "thank god". That was exactly how I felt.

I am sure the film was making all kinds of comments about art, literature, characterization etc etc but it all went sailing over my head. Driving home, I said as much to my flatmate, and he paraphrased Bill Hicks to me: "The film was bad. Don't get suckered into believing it actually saying something complex and clever. It was bad. Leave it at that and walk away".

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

[vanderveldenton · 10/10 · 22 August 2007]

I really love this movie and keep seeing it again and again, as it reminds me very much of (as Ozon intended) the 1930's-40's epic melodramas and the role of Angel Deverell was intended to be like Vivien Leigh in "Gone with the wind". Even before I had read that I thought about this all the time.It's very rare to find nowadays a movie with modern-days technical perfection (brilliant colours and costumes and sound)but a 1940's style. Everything is over the top, unbelievable but for me going to a movie means suspension of disbelief, do we need a film to be like reality? I don't go to cinema to see reality, but to be taken to a different world, one of romance and it hardly gets more romantic than this. Read the interviews at www.francois-ozon.com and you will understand it all a lot better. This movie does not deserve the criticism it gets here as that's comparing apples with oranges. This movie is PERFECT as it is made almost flawlessly and in a (for costume movie lovers) very lavish way, a great joy to watch and listen to, not to mention a very energetic and passionate Romola Garai, who I will love to see also in "Atonement". A nice touch, in line with the 1940's style, is that trips to London, Venice, Greece, Egypt are made the way they did in those days, not on location but a filmed background. Nothing is very realistic in this movie, but it shows what dreams are made of and I thank the director and actors highly for many hours of fantastic entertainment. In it's genre it's just as good as Lord of the Rings, which also did not have to be real to be wonderful, did it?

I can't remember a worse film

[djgbullen · 1/10 · 28 November 2007]

This movie is rubbish. The only good aspect was that my wife won our tickets, so we didn't have to part with good money to see it.

Nothing worked for me. The characterisations were poor. Sam Neill (as always) played Sam Neill and even Charlotte Rampling (for whom I have great admiration) couldn't save the film. I can only compare it to Titanic - not the movie but the ship.

Who was Angelica? I know she had something to do with Paradise (which was 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 a character, she wasn't introduced. Was this edited out, or was I in a coma at the time and missed it? What went wrong with the background shots? Alfred Hitchcock did a better job of them in the 60s. How can it be that, with all the modern technology, it was so obvious and poor? I quite simply did not believe any of it. One man after the movie came up to my wife and myself with a bemused smile on his face and asked, "What was that all about?" He said he was expecting Angel to wake up and find it all a dream. My comment in reply, "Mas more like a nightmare" The only thing I found even remotely interesting was the way Esme used the wheelchair Angel gave him to hang himself from. This gives some idea as to how boring I found the rest! I suffered the movie expecting my wife to say that she found it moving (i.e. I thought it had to be a "chick flick" that only women can enjoy). Meanwhile, Barbara sat through it thinking that I must have found something "arty" about it. If we had only known, we could have walked out and not had to endure the torture.

I could not, in all consciousness, recommend this movie - even to a person I hate.

None of it worked; none of it inspired; none of it entertained. It was even too horrible to be amusing.

Avoid at all costs

[lurpak · 1/10 · 31 October 2007]

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 in the mood for, and it begins much like "Miss Potter" (go and watch instead of this) but instantly you will take a dislike to the main character who seems to be a spoiled brat and very well played by Romola Garai (lets make it clear the acting was good I can't fault the entire cast) who is a young undiscovered writer but prone to flights of fantasy she envisions herself being a world famous writer however nobody thinks she has it in her. her first book gets a publishing letter and her publisher (sam niel) points out the glaring mistakes in her writing because she is young an inexperianced eg. she wrote that champaign would be opened using a corkscrew. however he like her innocent style and sure enough she became the JKRowling of her day. sure enough one by one and without fail all her dreams come true, and in a very childlike way, so you begin to think that the whole film is not really happening, but is one of her flights of fantasy, especially with scenes of London as she coaches by being filmed like a 1950's musical or austin powers parody. you expect the film to come back to reality, that would explain the childish, pathetic storyline...it literally has EVERY Cliché EVER one by one, just like a nursery rhyme princess...but no, this really is the film, how in the name of god someone commisioned this twaddle, how in the name of god SAM NEIL read this script and agreed to put his name to it I will never know. I would be disappointed if this was my 8 year olds school play. please please do not watch this film.

Unrelenting drivel

[inglis-5 · 1/10 · 13 March 2007]

Well, easily the worst film I've seen this year, but then I suppose it's only March. Not at all sure what they were trying to do with this - given that it's the story of a Barbara Cartland style writer of romantic novels, perhaps they felt compelled to address it in the same overly melodramatic style. Frankly for about two hours I was fairly convinced that it must have been a dream sequence. I can't fault the performances, but the script was just so pedestrian they didn't have anywhere to go. The main character is imaginative to the extent that it actually becomes difficult to determine what she really believes, when she is consciously imagining and when she is simply deluded. It's never really resolved what the male lead's true feelings for her are, and the other characters are merely one-dimensional support.

Eminently missable.

Enigmatically funny

[p-stepien · 5/10 · 28 September 2011]

A girl has a right to dream. At the beginning of the XX century not much else is guaranteed to a young and frail schoolchild. The wild and uncouth 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 reading books, Angel is all-in-all a literary hack with an undeniable way with words and romance. At an early age she is discovered by a publisher Théo (Sam Neill), who becomes so fascinated with her writings, that he agrees to release her first book to critical and commercial acclaim. Angel uses the newly found fame and wealth to purchase her dream house Paradise, marry the man of her desires and become a larger than life as if straight from her novels...

Francois Ozon tackles the whole movie with an unmistakable signature delving into the epoque with wit and charm encapsulated by the character of Angel. Multilayered and hard to crack she is presented as an alternative type of rebel without a cause, absolutely engulfed by her own brilliance, that she is unable to break out of her shell to take a gulp of reality. Once she molds her dream-life she seems to believe that this is the end of the story, her life has reached perfection and no further chapters need be written. However the barrier she builds around herself becomes a prison from where she struggles to see that her perfect life is more a projection of her expectations into reality than reality itself.

All in all an interesting concept and to a point well contrived. At some stages the movie uses an absolutely pathetic excuse for backgrounds, i.e. while riding in a carriage across London we she varying landmarks of the city rudely apparent to be fake, to highlight the audacity of Angel's dream-life, as if taken from a romance novel. Nonetheless the movie falters in creating a mood to coincide with the premise of the story. Throughout the movie Angel is a hysterically overplayed and pretentious character, which draws multiple laughs in the most awkward situations, i.e. whilst reading her husband's eulogy or when drawing her last breath before death. This odes of course give the movie a certain whiff of freshness, as Angel's eccentrics really get you interested in her character (however unlikeable she may be). Nonetheless this was taken to such an extreme that at times I was unsure whether "Angel" is essentially a pastiche of costume dramas, with a by the numbers script full with often hilarious scenes, as if making fun of the whole genre and its dramatics.

All in all an enjoyable movie, but the awkwardness of the permeating funniness of Angel and her undergoing together with the lack of clarity as to the intentions of the director make the eventual reaction to it a meandering mess of drama, comedy and rushed narrative.

the melodrama dilemma

[princehal · 8/10 · 21 January 2008]

Hmmmm... if the reviews and comments I've seen are any indication, melodrama is as divisive as ever. I found Ozon's approach admirable: intelligent and objective but not satirically distanced, like Fassbinder without the cruelty. It seems clear to me that he is showing us not a realistic depiction of Angel's life but a version colored by her imagination. The intention is not to mock her but to allow us to share her experience, and to make up our own minds about the value of her fantasies. The closest to an authorial statement comes from the character least sympathetic to Angel: Charlotte Rampling as the publisher's wife comments that in spite of Angel's lack of talent or self-knowledge, she has to admire her drive to succeed. Of course we're not compelled to agree, but it strikes me as a fair assessment.

The reactions to this movie remind me of the uncomprehending dismissal of Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette, another story of a shallow, self-involved woman that insists on looking through her eyes. This kind of scrupulous generosity is in line with a tradition going back to Flaubert's Madame Bovary, and both directors have the stylistic confidence to carry it off. It may just be that they don't have the critics they deserve.

Baaaaad film -- where's the twist?

[ecureuille1 · 1/10 · 26 March 2007]

I went to see "Angel" only because I'm a fan of Francois Ozon's films, which are often weird, quirky, with plot twists.

But alas, I had to sit through 2 hours of pure, corny melodrama, so corny that you wonder whether it isn't a joke! But then, it continues, and you realize that the bad acting, the bad sets, and stereotypical, predictable storyline are serious!! No twists, no making fun, just straight drivel.

Why an intelligent film-maker like Ozon would make such a bad, bland, boring film is beyond me.

Romola Garai's acting style is horribly overdone. She was a lot better in Scoop. In Angel, she repeatedly gazes out into the proverbial distance, flings herself on beds when upset, and generally acts so insolent you want to slap her (not for her character's being insolent, but for bad acting).

Fassbender's acting is only slightly better, but he is obviously constrained by the painfully predictable melodramatic storyline.

Sam Neill and Charlotte Rampling shine by their understated, correctly-dosed performances. But then you wonder why their talent is being wasted in such a film !

Their performance and the costumes worn by Angel are really the only interesting things in the film....

Unsympathetic characters ruin an otherwise well-made movie

[chris123 · 3/10 · 6 December 2007]

I know this is a movie based on a romance novel, so I wasn't really expecting much. I imported it because I'm a huge fan of Michael Fassbender and figured there's at least eye candy. That said, I don't think 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 the part perfectly. The problem is that the part is written to be so selfish, stubborn, contrive and all-in-all annoying that I can't imagine anyone putting up with her at all. Sure, it's a movie; but there 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, the contrasts and the whimsical travel sequences. But whenever the movie stays on Angel for any prolong period of time, I find myself wanting to smack her silly and wondering if I can stand watching more of her. If only 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 I think it would definitely have made it more enjoyable.