Des anges et des insectes

A U.S.-British co-production for PBS, from A.S. Byatt's story "Morpho Eugenia" (a better title!), this head-scratcher of a human drama involves a Victorian England bug-specialist who comes to stay with a wealthy family and falls in love with his benefactor's lovely but unstable daughter. A carefully plotted picture, which might mean slow or sluggish--yet the film is never boring. Moments of eccentricity, romance and surrealism are blended together with skill, and the actresses in particular (Kristen Scott Thomas and the wonderfully brave Patsy Kensit) are first-rate. It's a difficult film, but one worth staying with. **1/2 from ****

This was thoroughly engaging and thoughtful film, with a rich and fascinating plot and characters.

The opening scene of the natives of South America dancing is a well edited opening, and the word 'Angels" appears over it. Indeed, all the Angels in this film are not in England (where the rest of the film takes place). William Adamson (Mark Rylance), a biologist who collects rare insects (especially the butterfly), survives a shipwreck and comes under the protection of an upper class English family. That's where he falls in love with Eugenia (Patsy Kensit). But every family has it's secrets.

Someone described this as "Merchant-Ivory meets Tennessee Williams", which is a perfect way to describe this film.

Several have complained about the actors, saying that there is not a single stand-out performance. I disagree, as both Rylance and Kristin Scott Thomas (in a performance worthy of an oscar nomination) acquit themselves well. The script is also very well written, and the costumes deserved the Oscar nomination.

One of the ten best of 1996.

As one fellow IMDb user stated, there are very few reviews in the grey area for "Angels and Insects". However, I can honestly say that when I first saw the film in 1995 (I was about 12 at the time) I wasn't very impressed. From a very young age I have been interested in period films and thought provoking themes, however, upon first viewing I was incredibly bored by the whole project.

Flash forward to 2003 and I found that I had a whole new appreciation for the film. As a matter of fact, it has become one of my favorites. I don't find the plot particularly shocking, however, the execution of the script is excellently paced. I like the fact that William Adamson realizes that beauty isn't necessarily exhibited on the outside. (However, I find Matty to be far more striking in appearance than Eugenia). He realizes that like his insects (ants in particular), the Alabaster family has a unique and questionable structure/nature.

The soundtrack, costumes, and use of light and location are superb. It isn't by accident that the costumes mimic some of the insects mentioned in the film. (For example, Eugenia's bee dress and her Morpho Eugenia sapphire gown). The Alabaster estate is quiet a piece of eye candy, as are the shots of insects set to the beautiful string based soundtrack. Though this use of symbolism may not be very original, it is beautiful just the same.

I do have to come to the defense of some of the actors, however. Some comments mention that the acting is somewhat wooden. I tend to disagree. (Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course). Okay, so Patsy Kensit may not be the next Vanessa Redgrave, however, I think she offers what the part calls for. Her "wooden" nature fits the character. I see Eugenia as having a definite mental imbalance, thus her often subdued acting seems appropriate. Kristin Scott Thomas is excellent as the clever and mysterious Matty. As for the rest of the cast, I believe that they all did a fine job portraying these somewhat difficult characters.

I have yet to read the A.S. Byatt novella "Morpho Eugenia", however, that is going to be my next project. Naturally, I would be curious to see how the film and the novella compare. Either way, I still feel that "Angels and Insects" deserves my highest regards.

"Angels and Insects" is a slow starter with several strikes against it from the outset. First, the title is a turn-off (from the Byatt book of the same name). Secondly it's a period piece (circa mid 19th century England). Thirdly it factors in Darwinism, Amazon natives, ants and insects, and other esoteric subjects which don't make films appealing to the masses. Finally it has none of the usual Hollywood tinsel and trappings. Those, however, who can get past all that will find a masterpiece of filming, acting, directing, writing, costuming, orchestration, etc. A slowly captivating and somewhat melancholy story of the goings-on within an English manor, "A&I" delivers powerful drama, sterling performances, and masterful execution by the auteur. A great watch for those who love cinema for cinema's sake.

i decided to tape this movie without watching it and save it for a rainy day, and did it ever pay off! this is a great movie. now i admire antonia susan's writing, but trying to slog through morpho eugenia (book from which this movie was made) was like a peculiar form of torture-- insect description til i thought i would vomit. never thought i would say this, but the movie is so much better! it has all you could want:great acting{no matter what some people say about patsy kensit, if they hadn't wanted some one with her particular talent she would not have been cast. so there.i bite my thumb at thee.} great costumes, setting, and surprise twist ending--! see this movie.

final words:watch it for the sheer guilty pleasure