Michael - Tan sólo un ángel

Angels are a bit of an American obsession, but are often rather boring. They are the messengers of God, and also the arc angels are great warriors (Lucifer being the toughest and best looking until he was kicked out of heaven).

So what happens if you don't believe in anything, let alone angels and you are sent to investigate an angel story, only to meet one with wings and less than angelic attitude.

Maybe that is what America needs, being a puritan is different from being good. Michael is a rude, obnoxious, womanizing messenger of heaven who will fulfill your wishes, and make you care enough about the world that you will be touched.

Funny, but not greatly so, touching but not overly sentimental, intelligent without being clever...it is just a good simple, small comedy. Watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Frank Quinlan and Huey Driscoll are reporters for a trashy tabloid paper who are on a bad run of bad stories. When their editor lays down an ultimatum to them, they bring him a potentially great story – a real life angel. They are accompanied by a supposed angel expert, Dorothy Winters who has really been sent to keep an eye on the reporters for editor Vartan Malt. When they arrive they find the 'angel' to appear to be genuine but to be a lot less, well, angelic than they expected him to be – smoking, drinking and womanising. Michael agrees to go back to Chicago and be in the papers but only if they can travel back by road and make stops along the way. As Michael gets his traveling companions in and out of trouble it begins to seem that he may actually have a bigger aim to achieve than just getting into the papers.

In the UK it is not the 'done thing' to cheer, clap or deride films or trailers in a very public way in the same manner as US audiences will do as the norm (my first time in a US cinema was a surprise when the audience applauded), but it is the reason I will always remember this film. When the trailer was shown in the UK, the audience I was with actually jeered and booed it (myself included) because it just looked so damn lame and stupid. So I skipped it in the cinema (as many did) but then caught it on TV a few years later. Although it is far from a perfect film and its mood and tone are poorly matched it is actually nowhere near as bad as it looked. The story is the usual earthbound angel stuff that Hollywood seems to quite like and it meanders along rather aimlessly, turning into a very vague road movie of sorts. The romance is obvious and uninspiring but generally the film is fun when it manages to have it's tongue in its cheek.

The problem is that it can't decide if it wants to be sappy and romantic or daffy fun. When it tries to be more of a traditional Hollywood romance it doesn't really work that well and indeed is rather laboured. However when it just gets silly and focuses on a really tongue in cheek Michael then it is much more enjoyable as long as you can buy into the sense of humour that it is selling. These two styles don't really come together and they give the film a rather fragmented feel that takes away from the fun (if silly) aspect that stood a good chance of really working if given a little bit more dominance in the film. Sadly the film falls back too much on sentimentality and it sours the mix because it is manufactured, processed, unengaging and quite forced.

For the same reason the performances are mixed. For the most part Travolta is quite funny and just appears to be taking the p*ss and enjoying himself – the way he doesn't seem to take it seriously helped me enjoy the film a lot more. He is silly of course but I found this to be enjoyable in light of the more ponderous 'worthy' roles he has played in the years since his Pulp Fiction comeback. Lumbered with the promise of romance, Hurt is not that good but is nicely cynical for the majority of the movie; MacDowell is painfully lame at times and her character is pretty poor, she is a big part of the reason why it is hard to really care about the romance in the story. Both Pastorelli and Hoskins seem to have fun and share a handful of good lines throughout the movie while little roles for other well known faces vary between the effective (Joey Lauren Adams) and the simply pointless (did Richard Schiff really need work this badly?).

Anyway, the film is not great but it is not awful either. It's mix of the sappy and the silly is pretty badly done and I was left wanting a more engaging romance and a lot more of Travolta's mockingly silly performance. All told it is maybe worth a watch once but it is far from being a good film and, if you don't like John Travolta's performance then there isn't a great deal else to watch it for.

It has been quite some time since I last saw this film. However, the amazingly low IMDB score has prompted me to jot down a few thoughts and memories I have regarding this under-appreciated masterpiece.

I find it appalling that this film would score so poorly in this arena. It is a wonderful, life affirming story with a positive message. Perhaps this is what we have come to. The comedy is not gross enough, the message too sentimental and the meaning too simple for modern "sophisticated" audiences. Well, I for one, absolutely loved every minute of it. It is easily Andie MacDowell's best performance. William Hurt is fantastic as the cynic who comes around in the end and the whole supporting cast does a wonderful job. Of course, John Travolta is superb. This is one of my favorite roles Travolta has played and it is simply resplendent. I would have to say this is in my top twenty of comedy-dramas ever. I just happen to love the way the film unapologetically illustrates how wonderful life is. How even the little things that we take for granted, like pie, are fantastic and how we should enjoy every minute like it was our last.

For a much more detailed and well written review see the fine work of jhclues who echoes my feelings about the movie so much that I feel it would be redundant of me to restate, probably poorly, all that they have already committed to page.

It is also interesting that so many people really hated it. I wonder if they weren't just put off by the "less than traditional" view of a religious subject.

1996's MICHAEL is warm and winning comedy-fantasy that features one of my favorite performances from the John Travolta library. Travolta gives one of his breeziest and most likable performances as Michael, an archangel whose quiet existence at the home of a lonely innkeeper named Pansy (Jean Stapleton) is disrupted when Pansy reports Michael's presence in her home to a "National Enquirer"-like newspaper and the editor (Bob Hoskins) sends reporters (William Hurt, Andie McDowell, Robert Pastorelli) to the motel to check it out. Hurt, McDowell, and Pastorelli are quite good as the jaded news staffers who have a hard time accepting they've met an angel but this is Travolta's show and he rules as the pot-bellied, sugar-eating, cookie-smelling, pie-loving, Aretha-loving, bull-chasing Michael, an angel who just isn't what you think you of when you think of angels. And you have to love the scene in the bar when he and the ladies dance to "Chain of Fools". I love this movie more and more every time I watch it and it's mainly because of the completely winning performance from John Travolta.

I really enjoyed this movie for what it is: A funny little film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Plot summaries are available everywhere so I won't go into details. Michael isn't about a complex plot anyway. It just builds on a great premise and takes the viewer on a wonderful road trip.

John Travolta's performance as a chain-smoking, lady-loving, bar-brawling, pie-eating angel is just perfect. And who doesn't love Sparky?

Watch this if you want to have a few laughs and a overall good time. Highly recommended.