Angel Eyes

Mandoki's 'Angel Eyes' is one movie that I had walked out on, twice. But for some reason, I stayed through the whole film during the third viewing, and I'm glad I did. Now, the problem with 'Angel Eyes' is the incoherence during the entire first hour. The story unfolds into something different each time while not staying within the frame of the main story. It's confusing. It's misleading. That works for some movies but not for 'Angel Eyes'. The reason why I had walked out earlier was because at some point the movie really drags but once the characters confront their own pain, the conflicts are presented and somewhat resolved. I appreciate Mandoki's attempt in telling the story of two lonely characters: One who is traumatized by a past event that changed his life and the other who has been neglected (almost disowned) by her family because she did the right thing. In spite of the mess in the beginning, he gets most of it right towards the end. The confrontation scene between Sharon and her family at the 'vow-renewal party' and the scene where Catch visits his wife and child's grave are very well executed. I liked the chemistry between Caviezel and Lopez. James Caviezel delivers a quietly subtle performance. It seems as though the part was made for him. Jennifer Lopez is a mixture. While she was terrible in some scenes, there were some shining moments of excellent acting, especially in the beginning and the latter half. She also carries off the copper role very well, just like she did in 'Out of Sight'. So, I guess it wasn't such a bad watch as I had thought earlier. Just needed some patience.

I have to say I can't believe some of the reviews I've read of this film here. I thought this film was extremely well acted, had an original story line, and a quirky but interesting script. I'm impressed by Jennifer Lopez's acting, James Caviezel's interpretation was fantastic and there was great chemistry between them on the set. I was intrigued right throughout. It was well-paced, and just had a good feel about it, something which I find is missing in 95% of films being made these days. 9 out of 10.

I stumbled on this film--because there was nothing obvious that made it look like a film worth your time. It's a film with a lot of misplaced evaluations. For instance, Jennifer Lopez was nominated for a "Razzie" award but the film shows a very fine effort from the lady. Again some comments on the photography infer the late cinematographer Piotr Sobocinsky has done a shoddy job because obvious Toronto landmarks appear in a film set in Chicago. This again is a fault of the Director and editor, not the cameraman who was one of the finest in his business (Kieslowski's "Dekalog" and "Three Colors--Red"). An intense viewing of the film affords the viewer to appreciate the opening shots, the alley shots, and the corridor shots that evoke feelings. It is quite different from the typical Hollywood camera-work.

There are flaws in the film. The film jumps to situations without a build up--Catch appears on a life saving situation, seemingly out of nowhere; two beers appear on Catch's table in the restaurant, without him ordering the second; no mention is made of why Catch chose this name; etc.

Yet despite those faults the film sails through as fine entertainment because of fine believable performances from Caviezel, Lopez, Sonia Braga, and Shirley Knight. The casting of these four was perfect (thank you Lopez for insisting on Caviezel!). The film is great entertainment because the film refrains from sex and promotes fine values--including family values, reconciliation, dealing with bereavement and doing good to make a better world. How many films are brave enough to deal with such subjects today without depicting sex and violence?

The film touches on subplots that could have been fleshed out--Catch's lonely neighbor who invites him share a pizza, Catch's friend who recognizes him at the restaurant but Director Mandoki clearly steers clear to present the two psychologically wounded persons and their healing by coming together through a sheer accident. The film may be very Christian in character but it presents a very secular, humane scenario that will uplift any viewer. Though unevenly woven, the film has several sequences that show Mandoki has fine capabilities. One only wishes he took greater care of details.

Flaws apart, the film is above average cinema that the publicity has shrouded by misplaced evaluations.

Do you remember the previews for Angel Eyes? Many of us don't. What few of us remember is a 30 second preview that ran only a handful of times that showed Jennifer Lopez as a female cop. That was it. Na drama, no emotion, the previews told the audience a story about a female police officer, nothing else. This is probably the biggest reason why nobody went to see this movie when it went to the cinema. Only when it hit the video stores, did people start wo watch. A beautiful film, Angel Eyes is a romance. Dealing with redemption, it deals with many degrees of love and hope. In fact, many people detail Jennifer Lopez as "Angel Eyes." This is not true. Take a deeper look and you will see that James Caviezel is the true Angel Eyes.

So let me set the scene here, I was in a motel, in the middle of nowhere, and was flicking through the channels of the limited cable that the motel offered... I spotted Jim Caveizel (or however on earth you spell his name) and put down the remote as he is an actor that I admire and respect. Of course JLo then came into the scene and my instinct was to pick up the remote and flick the channel but I didn't and I am glad that I made that decision. Not being a fan of JLo I have never seen Angel Eyes and had no reason to seek it out either on video or on the TV but hell when you are in a motel with limited cable options you don't have alot of choice right? Nevertheless, I was thoroughly delighted that I left the remote where it was and watched this movie because in the end I loved it. I loved it more for the subtle points than the big "hollywood this is a romance you better weep points." "Hang up and I'll call your machine" in this day and age how relevant is that? how many people (if they would be honest) would much rather talk to a machine than the person because it is impersonal and they can save face? The teeny tiny aspect of him playing the notes of the trumpet on her back as they were dancing... okay so I am married to a musician so that resonates with me but it spoke volumes, no matter how much he had tried to block it out, his soul was still there, and in his soul was his music. I thought both leads played their roles with skill and conviction. I was never quite sure (until the end of course) if Catch was a good guy or a bad guy, and I liked the fact that it kept me guessing. As I said I am not a JLo fan, in fact I could be described as quite the opposite but in this movie she played her part beautifully, with conviction and totally believably. Jim Caveizel as always was understated, calm and played his role with a sympathy that is rare to see. Loved this movie, and cannot wait to see it again. I will agree with everyone however about the advertising hype that surrounded it, they ended up portraying it as a psychological thriller, if they had stayed true to the story and advertized it for what it was, a beautiful romance, I think it would not have died as it did. Shame on the publicity people for burying such a fine film.