Non siamo angeli

Some movies become forgotten over the years, and "We're No Angels" is one of them. It's not a great comedy, but it's not a bad one, either. It's far more serious and moralistic than I had ever imagined, and Robert De Niro and Sean Penn essentially run around posing funny faces for the camera throughout, whilst the Catholic religion is used as a structural backdrop. It's a very different sort of role for De Niro, whose comedy is usually a bit more sophisticated. Here he barely talks at all, and when he does, it's usually harsh barking or screaming or frustrated whispers. It's not De Niro's most memorable role but it's certainly an unusual one.

A lot of the movie focuses on mishaps and misconceptions, as all of the movies from this genre do. It bears resemblance to last year's "School of Rock," about a loser who was mistaken for a teacher. This time the loser is equal to a pair of two escaped convicts and the teacher position is likewise that of priests.

The story all begins with Ned (De Niro) and Jimmy (Penn) escaping from a northern jail circa 1930. After heading for the Canadian border, they find themselves pursued by a ruthless jail warden and a town of do-gooders. Luckily for the duo, right before they come to the Canadian border, they are mistaken for two long-lost Catholic priests, Fathers Brown (Penn) and O'Reilly (De Niro). After given an introduction to the area by a fellow priest (Hoyt Axton), they decide to hide out for a while using their new personas. No one would ever suspect a priest, right?

The problem is that Fathers Brown and O'Reilly are supposed to be two of the smartest priests alive, having written a controversial book about the true meaning of the chapter Revelations in the Bible. So you can imagine the fear that Jimmy experiences when he is asked to lead the church in a pray prior to a meal.

Meanwhile, the mandatory romance is inserted into the movie, using Demi Moore's single, rough, over-protective mother as the love angle for De Niro's character. Demi spits out an unconvincing northern accent, as De Niro stares at her a lot with critical eyes and tries to get her into bed. The romance is not necessary but it seems a lot more worthwhile than most of the romances in some of these films.

The movie is one of the most forgotten I have ever seen; I'd never really heard of it prior to purchasing the newly-issued DVD. But I figured De Niro and Penn couldn't be that bad, and I was right.

I think part of the reason so many people like to ignore it is that it doesn't poke fun at religion. It doesn't make the clergymen out to be strange idiots. Rather, it makes the two escaped convicts seem out-of-place in a heartwarming place. The spirituality affects Penn's character, Jimmy, and his final decision on the bridge that separates Canada from America is one that we have sensed was long coming since his fascination in the church grew.

De Niro and Penn have two of the best faces in Hollywood, and a movie like "We're No Angels" uses this to its advantage. Making up for the long gaps of laughter, the director, Neil Jordan, focuses more on his two lead actors and their reactions to situations. Most of the time throughout the film, De Niro shrugs his shoulders a lot and emits low, agreeable groans from his throat in response to questions, while Penn looks confused and bewildered. There's a great scene where an eager-to-please clergyman (John C. Reilly) asks "Father Brown" something about his book, and Penn sort of stares at him for a few moments with searching eyes, trying to find a way out of the situation.

For some reason, the mistaken identities setup has been a long-time fascination for Hollywood. Just look at "Some Like it Hot," "Tootsie," "Nuns on the Run," "Sister Act," "School of Rock," etc. I think it's because we can all relate to a lot of the situations that the characters go through, and a lot of the embarrassment they suffer. We like to watch them ease their way out of dangerous areas and lie through their teeth.

"We're No Angels" is one of the better examples of this formula executed quite well. It's not a terrific movie, but the actors are, and the script by David Mamet comes up with its own occasionally hilarious segments that make the movie uneven, but a lot more fun than you might expect. No, it's not great, but it's just funny -- and sweet -- enough to recommend.

3.5/5 stars.

• John Ulmer

We're No Angels (1989)

*** (out of 4)

Remake of the 1955 film has Robert DeNiro and Sean Penn playing escaped convicts who hide out as priests in a small town where they try to sneak across the border into Canada. Most of the reviews you read for this film will probably be negative but I've always enjoyed what the movie has to offer even though there's no way of denying that it could have and should have been a lot better than it turned out. I think the biggest problem with the film is the direction of Jordan who just wasn't right for the material. This is suppose to be a comedy yet you wouldn't know it because Jordan handles the material so dark that it's rather hard to get many laughs. We've get some rather strong tones on religion and even some strong violence, which just doesn't sit too well in a comedy. Even the entire atmosphere of the film is rather dark, which is a staple of Jordan but again, that wasn't really needed in this film. What does work are the performances by DeNiro and Penn who are excellent together. Playing dumb is never an easy thing but both men pull this off remarkably well, which is very important since most of the laughs come from them not understanding anything to do with religion yet they're suppose to be priests. The two men's facial expressions is what works the best because the look on their faces when they're put on the spot are just flawless as is their constant begging and pleading for various things throughout the movie. Demi Moore has a supporting role, which brings in more darkness that really isn't needed but Bruno Kirby and John C. Reilly turn in nice supporting performances with Reilly really standing out as another priest obsessed with Penn. The laughs throughout the film are certainly minor but to me the film still works well thanks to the terrific performances. You really don't expect to see DeNiro and Penn in a movie like this but they both pull it off very well and make it worth viewing.

Well, ask me why this movie has such a poor rating. Or maybe don't ask me, because I have no answer. The movie is just great. The acting is perfect for this script, DeNiro and Penn are so funny and also serious when is needed. Why such a poor rating ? Maybe because people are not so funny as they were once. For the people of our days a comedy is something like Scary Movie or a movie that makes you laugh every minute because of something stupid. But "We're No Angels" is funny, is romantic, is serious, is educative, is simply GREAT MOVIE. You have to watch it with an innocent eye, you must enjoy the movie. Don't look at it with a critical eye. That's not good for the entertainment. Just watch it to relax and to feel good. It deserves it. And you also deserve it.

I always look for the beginning choices of an actor,Demi Moore stays constant in her choice of roles(outsider),Sean Penn with his usual dichotomy of hard guy/softie and De Niro himself but with a twist of humour.I enjoyed the epoch and the guilt and penitance idea of choices we make in life.I just liked the film and I could see a few times Demi Moore trying to keep a straight face which made me laugh.

Saw this movie many years ago and really enjoyed it. My best friend has recently gotten on a Sean Penn kick, and I suggested he rent this. We watched it last night, and I again realized it's a very good story.

Two important comments.

First, it's not a comedy, as in a fall-on-the-floor, laugh-your-head-off, side-splitter. If you're looking for that, check out the Stooges, thank you.

Second, the story is about miracles. Both the lower case miracles that happen all the time to people, as well as the upper case MIRACLES that may change our lives. The Writer and Director focus much of the action on how we make miracles happen for one another without some divine intervention; pay close attention to the drawing of the name in the lottery.

And, if you don't spend time in liturgical circles as I do, you need to understand that the types and stereotypes in the ecclesial environment are real, in particular John C Reilly as the eager young Novice, and Wallace Shawn as the Translator/Master of Ceremonies. Last, kudos to Hoyt Axton, for his sincere, underplayed portrayal of the Abbot (Father Levesque); great men like that really do exist in some communities.