Michael - Tan sólo un ángel

Wow, I think the overall average rating of this film on this site is incredibly low. There's really no reason to dislike this film. "Michael" is a simple, but fairly original, and easily enjoyable romantic comedy. The plot involves a group of reporters/experts going to examine the mysterious appearance of an angel (John Travolta) in the midwest. The angel proves to be less saintly and more worldly than we would expect, and that's what makes it entertaining. His interest in women and the Beatles takes a new spin on the angel thing. The romantic side of this film involves Michael the angel trying to get Andie MacDowell and William Hurt together. The two of them may not have the all-time greatest on-screen chemistry, but they certainly have enough to make it work well. Everyone who has rated this film so low (a 5.4??), come on! The film is not that bad. In fact, I found it quite funny and memorable. Sure, it's not the best thing you'll ever see, but it's still good. This is a film I feel has been remarkably underrated. It's fun, romantic, and recommended by me.

*** out of ****

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.

Warm hearted flic depicting arch-angel Michael as a brawling, overweight, cigarette smoking slob who loves to dance and cavort with the opposite sex. He does have a good side, however, as he strives to set things right in the lives of a couple of burnt out losers before being recalled to heaven. Funny, well played out film; very enjoyable although somewhat irreverent.

in this, yet again, Nora Ephron pleaser. How can you not sniggle, laugh, guffaw and even cheer for a love-handled, smoking, suger-eating, beer-drinking, bull-charging, bar-dancing Archangel who sloops cereal and pie with his whole left-hand wrapped around a spoon-handle while outfitted in Vinnie Barbarino's middle-aged body with wings? It's one of the most ludicrous, classic, side-splitting images available on the silver screen. And if you don't 'get' that image, here's a quarter --- go buy yourself a life.

I found the supporting cast, well -- well-cast. Hurt, MacDowell, Pastorelli, Hoskins, Stapleton et al played the characters they were given to a 'T." And despite Travolta stealing the show, those characters are quintessential to the storyline – you'll see. Though this is a simple feel-good story (nothing complicated to follow, just out of the ordinary) with laughs, sniffles and a touch of heart, you can't get out of this without some introspection into your own life. Maybe that's why the IMDb nay-sayers of this film have such a problem with it (you poor, sad people).

Please – do yourself a favor, ignore the 'lifeless' and treat yourself to something GOOD. Lord knows, we can't get enough of that

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.