Angels and Insects (1995)

Wow! Such a good movie.

Very well executed

best movie i've ever seen.

The acting in this movie is really good.

This is one of the most visually repulsive movies I have ever watched.I enjoyed reading the other reviews for this film….I got a good laugh from the person who described the women's dresses as being like a visual jackhammer. The dresses are supposed to reflect insects the field of study of the main character.The first thing I personally noticed aside from the bumble bee and other jack hammer dresses was that the lighting was too bright indoors. It looked like flood lights were everywhere when in fact a night scene in that era would have been candle lit. Thus my first disappointment=something looks cheap or wrong here…was this filmed with some unknown color film? Second there is the revolting albino poor white trash looking group of aristocrats living in an authoritarian like atmosphere (the Alabaster family...whitest whites alabaster get it?? ) with servants cringing towards walls etc… It could have easily turned into a horror movie.And finally last there is the predictable totally unbelievable modern feminist twist to the story—-the unbelievably talented in every sense of unbelievable "right on" strong woman who rescues the milquetoast male lead---something guaranteed to win it Oscar nominations. What can I say....ho hum...it would get a lot of claps on Oprah. It is something you can't seem to escape from any more

A Victorian period drama with quasi erotic bits! Poorly acted, bland and boring and for much of the time very predictable for me. The main characters are pretty lame and are acted much the same.Mark Rylance, as William Adamson, seems to have perfected an expression of blank emotion (or maybe it's just boredom).Patsy Kensit's character exists to simply have a different frock on in EVERY scene she's in or get her kit off.Douglas Henshall provides the 'evil' character & is actually quite good, he doesn't overdo it so it never reaches the pantomime stage, however Annette Badland has no trouble in reaching these dizzy heights as Lady Alabaster (PK's characters mother).Kristin Scott Thomas plays a subdued second female lead and, like Henshall, comes away with some credit One has to assume it's not the actors fault as the director, Philip Haas, surely got what he asked for.How on earth this got the Evening Standard award for Best British film in 1995 beggars belief (it MUST have been a BAD year).

I remember all the critics raving about this when it came out, but I avoided it because I have to be in a special mood to swallow costume dramas. (I usually just can't relate, and the men are more often than not a tiresome drag, popping out of heavy draperies to shout "Tally Ho, you young rascal" or some such swill. Stow it, Brother!) I was therefor surprised to find this movie so compelling. First of all, the acting is very naturalistic, especially that of the male lead. (I absolutely loved the pretty, babbling, OBESE mother, always groaning over tarts or berries in cream. What a weird yet perfectly plausible character for the time period!) The strange, brilliantly colored costumes are imaginative and sumptuously designed, with a psychology all their own.What's really interesting about the film is its subtle, controlled sense of menace. Specifically threatening things don't happen in the story until the final third, but you just know something's festering beneath the surface. Maybe it's because this bloated household is so isolated? I'll definitely watch this movie again. It's made with taste, style, and a creepy intelligence.

As one fellow IMDb user stated, there are very few reviews in the grey area for "Angels and Insects". However, I can honestly say that when I first saw the film in 1995 (I was about 12 at the time) I wasn't very impressed. From a very young age I have been interested in period films and thought provoking themes, however, upon first viewing I was incredibly bored by the whole project. Flash forward to 2003 and I found that I had a whole new appreciation for the film. As a matter of fact, it has become one of my favorites. I don't find the plot particularly shocking, however, the execution of the script is excellently paced. I like the fact that William Adamson realizes that beauty isn't necessarily exhibited on the outside. (However, I find Matty to be far more striking in appearance than Eugenia). He realizes that like his insects (ants in particular), the Alabaster family has a unique and questionable structure/nature. The soundtrack, costumes, and use of light and location are superb. It isn't by accident that the costumes mimic some of the insects mentioned in the film. (For example, Eugenia's bee dress and her Morpho Eugenia sapphire gown). The Alabaster estate is quiet a piece of eye candy, as are the shots of insects set to the beautiful string based soundtrack. Though this use of symbolism may not be very original, it is beautiful just the same. I do have to come to the defense of some of the actors, however. Some comments mention that the acting is somewhat wooden. I tend to disagree. (Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course). Okay, so Patsy Kensit may not be the next Vanessa Redgrave, however, I think she offers what the part calls for. Her "wooden" nature fits the character. I see Eugenia as having a definite mental imbalance, thus her often subdued acting seems appropriate. Kristin Scott Thomas is excellent as the clever and mysterious Matty. As for the rest of the cast, I believe that they all did a fine job portraying these somewhat difficult characters. I have yet to read the A.S. Byatt novella "Morpho Eugenia", however, that is going to be my next project. Naturally, I would be curious to see how the film and the novella compare. Either way, I still feel that "Angels and Insects" deserves my highest regards.