Angelica

Truthfully, I found this one a little difficult. In all the fundamentals of its craft this is terrific; the production design, art direction, costume design, hair and makeup, lighting, cinematography, and effects are each absolutely marvelous, a feast for the eyes and furthermore realizing Victorian London with stark richness. The fabulously detailed visual presentation alone is superb and lends substantial value to the film - as is also the case with the acting. It's a swell cast assembled here, and they all give strong performances, not least Jena Malone who from a very young age has proven again and again the nuance, range, and skill she possesses. If nothing else is true about 'Angelica,' Malone is outstanding here, commanding the primary role as if she were born for it. I'm further wonderfully pleased with Janet McTeer's warm, steady acting as Anne Montague, breathing splendid life into a supporting role that's written with tremendous heart and wit.

All this is well and good. Such advantages, however, great as they might be, do not carry the picture in and of themselves. This is a little hard to swallow from the outset, what with the historical and period-appropriate but nevertheless extremely ugly prominence of antiquated values: classism, sexism, moralizing snobbery religious and otherwise, dashes of racism, animal cruelty (a content warning is necessary for the latter), all of which is in some manner geared toward pushing down women and reinforcing patriarchy and the notion that "it's a man's world." Abiding these as we can for the sake of the feature, more significant is that plot development feels all too loose and scattered for a preponderance of the runtime, going nowhere fast. Lovely as the visuals may be, so soporific is the advancement of the narrative that I actually did fall asleep at one point while watching (I at least had the foresight to pause). Only very slowly does the story solidify, communicating the paramount importance of those same noted themes after all - yet that solid state is less a singular dense ball than it is a hollow holiday ornament, the type that resembles a cage with a bell or some other doodad inside. At its most complete, the substance 'Angelica' has to offer still doesn't feel like it.

It's a little creepy at times, or infuriating or emotionally investing as we readily sympathize with protagonist Constance. Not least in the character of Anne, there is also light here. All the best strength the film has to offer, though, seems insufficient to elevate it to a higher level. My predominant sentiment is that I want to say I like this more than I do on account of Malone and McTeer, the intelligence and sincerity in the writing, and the hard work of all those behind the camera. But somehow there's a breakdown here between filmmaker Mitchell Lichtenstein's writing and direction, such that the latter struggles to give impactful, meaningful shape to the former. This is regrettable, since I know what he's capable of; 2007 horror romp 'Teeth' was genuinely brilliant as it in some measure explored similar territory from a different angle. Maybe the more restrained approach to 'Angelica' resulted in overcompensation? In any event, I still look forward to what Lichtenstein may do next, and it's not that this is bad - it just doesn't achieve the desired effect, I don't think.

This is most recommendable if you're an utmost fan of someone involved. I do also believe it's worth watching on its own merits. Any suggested viewing is necessarily paired, however, with the caveat that the whole is lesser than the sum of its parts, just not entirely coming together with all possible success. I ultimately like 'Angelica'; would that it had achieved in its storytelling what it did in its film-making.

I've just seen this on dvd, rented from my local library, so I didn't spend much on it. It's probably one of the worst films on dvd this year. Extraordinarily boring, completely without horror, if horror's your thing. It isn't mine, but I don't mind watching if the rest of the film around the horror is worthwhile. This isn't. I rented it because Janet McTeer's in it, but even so it's simply not worth watching. Great sets by Luciana Arrighi. Beautiful wallpaper, steals the show.

Victorian England - Newlyweds Malone and Stoppard have a daughter, Angelica, and soon afterwards supernatural events have a significant impact on the mother.

Despite a compelling performance from Malone and a an atmosphere capturing both Victorian society and the spookiness quite nicely, in the end this is actually rather tedious. McTeer's presence adds to the interest, but she seems to making a more typical ghost story, which this is not and whilst the ultimate pay off is interesting and not wholly unexpected, since they've been using to right tools of the trade in making this you do yearn for the film McTeer is making.

It is unfortunate that Angelica lacks the bite of Lichtenstein's previous film, Teeth - excuse the terrible pun. Despite exploring the similar theme of women empowerment through sexual control, the humor misses its mark, leaving the shell of irony in its place. The fitting Victorian background to this tale, well captured throughout, does not suffice to make the film worth recommending.

The story tells us of a mother's confession, Constance, who while lying on her deathbed admits to harbouring a dark secret from her daughter, Angelica. We go back to Angelica's conception as the fruit of a healthy, passionate marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Barton, which sadly leaves the to-be mother in a state that does not allow her to go through another childbirth. With contraception methods poorly at hand, that leaves abstinence as the sole means of ensuring Constance's good health. This results in a gaping void between the pair, where passion is replaced by restrained desire and mutual frustration. Moreover, as she faces her guilt of both being immoral in her pursuits and incapable of pleasing herself and her husband, a dark presence appears that plagues her nights, as she looks to protect her daughter.

Unfortunately, the obstacles in turning the source novel into a novel film offering fails on most counts. First and foremost, in finding the thin line between clever irreverence and irrelevance, guarding the experience of the film as either something frightening, or something comical. Perhaps Drag Me to Hell highlights what this looks like when done successfully - and even in such a case, opinions are divided. Secondly, Jenna Malone labours to offer a conflicted performance as a British 19th century wife, but her efforts are consistently undermined as she appears around characters ridiculous in features or in speech. Finally, it's hard to feel for the fate of Constance and Angelica, as they fail to be more than the sum of this movie's parts - mundane and full of painful restraint.

Lichtenstein is not able to find a balance in this story, mixing modern morality into his somber settings, thereby loosening the movie's grip of its characters. The rare moments of authentic playfulness or artfulness are drowned in an otherwise typical period piece, that looks fine - and that's about it.

Honestly, I have never before watched such drivel. You get a feel from the very start that it is going to be bad, but you cannot know how much. There isn't much background given to the characters, there is not much of a storyline to build on. The actors - especially Malone - offer very poor performance. I am guessing that is the director because Malone can deliver in other roles I have seen. There is no horror, just constant waiting for something worthwhile to happen; and I am sorry to say it doesn't. Having Malone play her daughter as an adult was a poor choice too. I will say, the Victorian setting was beautiful, but that's all I've got.