Angels in America (2003)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

So much average

Simply A Masterpiece

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

There is much multiplicity in Angels in America, all of which may be difficult to decipher in the worthiness and wordiness of Tony Kushner's Pulitzer winning script. There are political, theological and cultural allusions that are expressed in lengthy dialogs, sermons, monologues etc that you may find hard to allocate to the purpose of the play. What is simpler to understand is the questions about morality, musings about death, isolation and betrayal, problems of identity crisis and the universal feelings of love, compassion, empathy, responsibility, unity and impermanence. You constantly witness characters questioning their beliefs, breaking down, losing their sanity, finding a revelation and then living with hope that they find their true place and purpose in the ever-evolving life. Prior Walter is an openly gay man who's the first in the film to be inflicted by the disease. His Jewish gay partner Louis, who already has a track record of abnegating responsibility, slowly distances himself from his lover despite loving him dearly. Prior accuses Louis of not believing truly in what he preaches, and finds support in his best friend and ex-lover Belize and the hospital nurse. He also begins to experience startlingly realistic hallucinations where he encounters unknown people, ghosts and angels, who proclaim that he is a Prophet who can cure the world's miseries if he wishes. Another man Joe, a Conservative Mormon lawyer begins discovering his second skin when he realizes that his coldness towards his wife stems from his repressed homosexuality, which he had always ignored as it went against his religious beliefs. His wife Harper, as a result of emotional isolation and fears, lives in comfort and friendship of imaginary friends who, akin Prior's hallucinatory encounters, give answers to the questions that remain vague or unanswered in reality. Joe's mother,aptly referred to as 'Mother Pitt' is an ordinary Mormon wife who, although is upset by her son's revelation, finds that her womanhood innately shows the qualities of empathy and compassion to be more flexible towards changes around her. Joe's mentor is Roy Cohn, the famous Conservative Jewish lawyer who strongly shows anti-communist and racist attitudes and ignores moral and ethical issues in doing what he believes is right for US. The contemptible, churlish, unconscionable brute is another victim of AIDS, which he contracted through sexual relations with men; yet Roy does not believe he is a homosexual, terming the tag only for those 'whom nobody knows and who know nobody'. His confrontation with his past sins materializes in the form of the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg, a Jewish woman whom Roy had convicted using undue power for espionage.Distance, death, desertion and isolation are recurring themes in Angels in America. The opening monologue of the rabbi itself is an example of distance: we see Louis and Prior sitting together a few rows behind the other members of their family as the rabbi is sermonizing at Louis' grandmother's funeral about the brave woman's voyage to America. The two gay men are separated from the rest for their homosexuality while the Rabbi expresses his conservative view on religion. There is a haunting image about death some scenes later when Louis broaches the subject of desertion to the rabbi: after the conversation, we see an extremely long shot/view of the almost unending graveyard, with numberless black gravestones. Mike Nichols, the TV movie's director makes his camera float into and away from the subjects, and poetically captures the magic realism of the story. The colors in the film also capture the character's emotion or essence, and sometimes you may see the whole image going startlingly red or brilliantly blue or find a major color dominating the background, like a dull yellow background around Mother Pitt when she arrives home and gets a call about her daughter--law or shades of green on Mother Pitt and Prior during their conversation at the hospital. There is, in short, a lot we get to see, and I haven't come to burning ghosts of Prior's ancestors and his shared dream with Harper yet! Despite the complexities and the multitudinous implications in the play, you are always connected to the humanness of the characters and excellent. Highly engaging performances.Angels in America runs for six hours, but I have no problem seeing it again. There are things I know I've missed, meanings still not fully understood, questions still running in my mind, characters whose brilliance I haven't fully relished. It's really a play written which seems to have be written when the playwright himself was exploring USA, and all his ideas explode into Angels in America. It's well worth your time.Read the unabridged 'Angels In America' sized review at http://sashankkini.wordpress.com/

One thing to remember if you're thinking about watching this -- and it is one of the gay classics -- is that it has uneven patches. But when you're just about fed up with a patch that is senseless, tedious, or irritating, suddenly it gets good again. And of course in totality, the whole thing gels and feels complete and meaningful and uplifting.One great thing about the film is that it encompasses a wide variety of characters. It's not confined to a tiny group of gay friends, one or more of whom might get sick. In this regard, it succeeds much better than even "Rent" does.So do take a look at it if you're interested in gay-related cinema or AIDS-related themes. Just realize that, however, it probably won't be quite what you expected. But, in that, it might actually turn out to be better than you expected!

With 250+ reviews already, I'm probably not adding much to the conversation, yet I need a place to say it, so here it is.I've seen the stage version, and I've seen the film three times. And I really do not see what the fuss is about. I've tried, but I don't see it.It's not a bad film, and earned its 7/10 from me. It has good music, good acting, and acceptable effects.But I have a big problem with the writing. I found it to be overlong, without delivering a clear message, and too much directed like a filmed play, rather than a serious film.The angels in particular were among the most idiotic things I've seen in a long time. In a way, I guess that's appropriate, but just didn't fit with the rest of the film. If you edit all that out, I think you could get a better film. Of course, the title would have to go...I also found that the use of Roy Cohn and Ethel Rosenberg didn't fit. Why put a real man as a lead in a fictional film? It's not responsible. There was no Joe Pitt, and he never worked for a 2nd Circuit justice. It all unravels from there. If you're in fiction, it's best to stay there. If you're in docudrama, try to stick to the truth.Themes in this film are gay men and: AIDS, 1980s USA, Republicans, Mormons, the closet.While I have seen better films on gay men and AIDS (In the Gloaming, And the Band Played On) and closeted gay Republicans (Outrage) I haven't yet seen a film that covers as much ground as this one, or that covers the 80s as well. On the other hand, I know there are many significant ones I haven't seen, and I do expect I'll find one better than this.Anyway, I do admire the attempt, and the result is worth watching, although not great.

Yes, in these days of immature observations, stereotypes, a populace suffering from severe A.D.D., you, too, can write a hit Broadway show and/or TV series! All you need to do is have your own inflated sense of self pompously attack a major religion that had, quite simply, helped create Western Civilization for 2,000 years, lecture while talking down to your audience, and give us pretentiously conceived characters hooting and hollering, spitting and cursing their way through life, and you've done it.And remember, you ain't nothing, if you're not a victim! It's bad enough that the film and it's author exploits and tragic disease to his own, barely discernible end, (propaganda) and that it is done with such unabashed childishness, but must I be insult me as well, with such inane and unrealistic plots and dialogue, most of which would be rejected by a Junior High School theater class?? Stay away from this self-righteous, hypocritical mess, but if you do decide to watch it, ask yourself: why do I care about any of these people?