Falling Angels

Basically, the movie is about a family (parents and three daughters) in the 1960's as they deal with issues from the past and the present. There is also a secret that is eventually revealed, and sort of explains why things are the way they are.

The casting was good, everyone played their character well (mostly), except I sort of agree with the other reviewer when they said that you really don't 'dislike' the father, even though his acts can sometimes be inappropriate.

There are some scenes I liked with some of the individual characters, and the cinematography is nice. I especially liked the opening and the closing scenes.

Overall, I didn't like some of the story. But if you like any of the actors or are just somewhat interested, it is probably worth seeing.

an absolute dream-like beauty to this film. It possesses the best of say a Wim Wenders masterpiece, coupled with the narrative of a whacked-out indie great. Every moment is fully realized........never forcing the viewer to "feel" anything. heartbreaking and hilarious, with art direction that is a knock-out! The direction and the acting were gorgeous (especially the stunning Katharine Isabelle!). Both the narrative and pictorial silences in this film say so much more than most films do in the entirety. So much is left to the viewers politics and prejudices, it almost feels interactive (granted I grew up during this period, so that probably has a lot to do with it). If you're a child of the 60's / 70's (or a dysfunctional home.......and who isn't.........) this is a must see.

It seems fair to say that the title "Falling Angels" is plural so as to include not only the baby brother who somehow fell over Niagara Falls and whose picture is later given wings and enshrined behind wood paneling in the Field family's basement. It also describes the mother, Miranda Richardson, whose spirit has been gradually destroyed by her volatile, controlling, husband, until she is reduced to a morbidly depressed alcoholic with no life beyond the couch and television. Each of her three high-school age daughters are falling as well, away from the insular family where no outsiders are allowed to observe the sad dynamics, no help is asked for or accepted. Each family member is alone in coping with their emotions and longings. Still there is always the sense that this is a family with strong ties and feelings for each other.

The three sisters gravitate (fall) into outside relationships, whose merits and wisdom are not judged by the movie, but simply shown. The girls' future lives are being formed, and will always have been influenced by the events of the past -including forced confinement in a bomb shelter by their father as an exercise in preparedness. Even that act of well-intentioned cruelty is not judged too harshly by the film. It's a misguided deed done for the sake of the family. There is no angst or acting out or weepy reconciliation drama in this family. Instead there is some anger, some sadness, and some unspoken love.

The acting is first rate by all. Miranda Richardson is excellent as the fragile porcelain-like mother, drained of spirit, quietly detaching from life. The portrayal of the late 1960's is the most realistic I have ever seen. It's achieved not by the musical score, or the pop-culture icons of the period. Instead it is the 'feel' of the house and furnishings, the neighborhood, the clothing. And also, it shows how life then was somehow different than today – quieter, more private – at least for some of us and the families we grew up in during that time.

This is billed as a comedy, but it is not. It is a story of a highly dysfunctional family.

The house is decorated in the most ugly 1960s style you could conceive. The furnishings came from a thrift store.

The father is a bully, though he stops just short of beating his family. He threatens them with guns. He is a bit like the Great Santini, pushing his family around as if he were a drill Sargent. He later becomes an alcoholic.

Mom is an alcoholic, barely conscious.

The three daughters are fat, and not very bright. One smokes non-stop. One gets pregnant by a gross older man. They are selfish and unkind to each other.

Only one character is in the least sympathetic, the fattest daughter, a lesbian, with a flair for carpentry.

There are a couple of awkward sex scenes which are funny in their dreadfulness.

The movie opens with mom in a casket. The film winds back in time to explore how that came to be.

It is a bitter film, not a funny one.

Yet another would be shocking but predictable expose of repressed lives in the 1950's (oops, 1960's. Maybe the revolution arrived a bit late here in Canada). The father is meant to represent all things wicked and patriarchal, but he comes across as too likable and well meaning to really pull this off--I just couldn't buy that he would keep his young family locked up in a bomb shelter for two weeks and force them to drink dishwater or start knocking down the furniture because he'd been told that he misspelled a word in a Scrabble game (although if I'd had to live with that passive-aggressive little bunch maybe I'd start tossing around stuff too). And I think there should be a moratorium on the "ironic" use of 1950's ads in modern films--I suspect that people who actually lived in that era were just as skeptical of their ads as we are of our own.

That said, there were some elements of the film that worked. The open concept houses with shag rugs were dead on. The very strained relationship between the most difficult of the three daughters, Lou, and her father was convincing--in many families there does seem one kid who brings out the worst qualities of a parent and acts as a kind of scapegoat for the other siblings. And even though it seemed a bit gratuitous, I enjoyed the the very sick and twisted Ron and Reg subplot--pure Barbara Gowdry.

Overall, it was worth a look, but I was glad I waited until it came out on DVD.