El cuarto angel

It was not a case of 'The Fourth Angel' being doomed from the start. It had a lot of interest points. Although it was hardly a new idea, the story sounded interesting and did really like the sound of the moral issues. The trailer did make me want to see it, and even more so when seeing that John Irvin (who directed a personal favourite the television adaptation of 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy') was director, had one of my favourites Jeremy Irons in the atypical lead role and had an interesting cast. Also do like action/revenge thrillers when done well.

'The Fourth Angel' could have been much better though. It is far from a bad film, it does have its good moments and good points and it does admirably with a difficult subject and moral issues which considering the timing as well is worthy of some credit. When it first started, to me it was actually a good film. Have however seen much better films that cover similar ground and at the end of the day 'The Fourth Angel' was rather uneven and somewhat strange as well.

As said, 'The Fourth Angel' did start off very well. There was tension and suspense in the opening and the outcome and aftermath of it are quite poignant. There are some interesting and thoughtfully put across, without being too ham-fisted, moral issues as well and some of the diaogue is thoughtful in the early parts of the film. It looks relatively slick and stylish with great use of locations, and as well as the opening there are some good individual scenes like between Irons and Forrest Whittaker.

Cast against type, being more closely associated with upper-class gentlemen with a dark or conflicted side (and one of the best at that), villains and complex real life characters often played with understated intensity, Irons surprisingly excels in the lead role. He is very moving in the early stages and when the character hardens he brings more intensity while not being hammy and never looking out of his depth. Whittaker doesn't have the best written of characters, a pretty stock role, but somehow Whittaker makes the most of the character and gives him much more thought and tension than one expects. He has some great chemistry with Irons. Jason Priestly, also against type, does smarmy quite well and Charlotte Rampling and Lois Maxwell make for interesting casting.

However, once it gets into more action thriller territory 'The Fourth Angel' becomes more routine and sometimes confused. The latter stages of the film stretch credibility to breaking point badly and it all becomes very far-fetched. Jack's grief is completely understandable, as is his want for justice, but can find that when characters go vigilante in films generally that their actions become on the extreme side and that's the case here. That's just my thoughts though. The music is a bit too intrusive and doesn't sound like it belongs in an action/revenge thriller from the early 2000s, more like from 10-15 years earlier.

Felt that the tension dissipates once the film gets increasingly implausible, and the very underdeveloped and non-threatening villains (the characters generally are sketchy, with the sole exception of Jack) and the standard and at times thrill-free action decreases it further. Apart from the climactic moments with Irons and Whittaker, the momentum dips, the direction loses subtlety and the dialogue loses its thoughtfulness and becomes unfocused. Actually felt like two different films.

Overall, watchable but strange and inconsistent. 5/10

"The Fourth Angel" tells of one man's quest for retribution beyond all reason as he, the protag (Irons), takes on a bunch of hijackers while trying to avoid inquiries from government agents. Typically British in its austerity of production, this flick makes for a good middle-tier drama by creating a series of believable moral and practical dilemmas to which the well portrayed protagonist must react. A satisfying though not sterling blend of action, intrigue, and human drama, "The Fourth Angel" is not a no-brainer and, considering the complexity of the intrigue over the run time, is very well managed throughout. Not for Hollywood blockbuster freaks, this little import now on cable is well worth a look for those into foreign intrigue and movies that make you think but not too much. (B)

I found this movie a waste of my time, and a waste of Forrest Whitaker's acting talents. Although there is a lot of good action and suspense, the plot is too fragmented and confusing to be believable.

I wonder how many script writers tried their hand at this film. The lead-character embarks on a killing-spree. WHY? was the question I asked myself continually during the movie. It went unanswered. His grief is understandable, but the resulting extreme measures are not. This could have been a very good movie, but somehow it failed to be.

It's strange that an earnest thespian like Jeremy Irons may have agreed to play this part .There's really nothing new under the sun.The umpteenth tale of revenge -which,as everybody knows, is a dish best eaten cold-No more gangsters and make way for the terrorists .But even if the baddies change,it's the same old song.I would save only one scene: when Irons is about to kill one more guy ,he runs into his little daughter,and begins to think over ,which he apparently didn't do much before:did he only have a thought for his motherless boy?

A weird cast does not serve the movie:Jason Priestley 's pretty face is a very bad choice;Forest Whitaker cannot do anything with a hackneyed part.Charlotte Rampling a brilliant actress who could have matched Irons every step of the way is completely wasted.Consolation prize for James Bond's fans:Lois Maxwell(Miss Moneypenny) appears as the grandma.

Reporter Jack Elgin (Jeremy Irons) is taking his family on a plane trip, but terrorists take over and kill his wife and daughter. The Serbian terrorists mysteriously disappear with a $50 Million ransom. Nobody seems to know anything or want to help. Jack uses all his contacts to track down the terrorists and take revenge. CIA official Davidson (Jason Priestley) seems to be giving him some help. FBI Special Agent Jules Bernard (Forest Whitaker) investigates after some of the terrorists turn up dead.

The story is unrealistic and convoluted. It's very odd to see a behind the desk reporter turn into Jason Bourne. The story just doesn't pass mustard. And I wonder how many times can people simply walk away from a big shootout.