Nous ne sommes pas des anges

This movie is one of my great favorites. I admire the story, first; I admire wonderful text and phrases and use to quote them; but, what is the most important about this movie, it's really an example of GOOD, nice and gentle, Christian humor. All little miracles in this movie can be considered fun and miracles in the same time. I loved the atmosphere of the movie, and the characters, and again and again, this gentle humor, so you can laugh and think about belief things... This movie I wouldn't recommend to those who refuse all christianity-related jokes. They would barely understand it... otherwise, it's nice, it's warm, it's what I call "good movie".

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.

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" is a movie made for those faces, and one of the pleasures of watching the film is to see them looking sidelong at each other as they try to figure a way out of the complicated mess they're in. The movie has a lot of other good stuff to look at (including dramatic period locations in a small Canadian town) and to listen to (dialogue by David Mamet), but I can think of no other recent movie in which so much of the pleasure lies in watching the expressions on the faces of the actors - especially when they're reacting, not talking. Mamet and Neil Jordan, who directed the movie, wisely remember the most important thing about any mistaken- identity comedy: The fact that someone's identity is mistaken is not always funny even the first time and rarely thereafter. Movies that depend on mistaken identities for their laughs are among the slowest, dreariest slogs through cinema.

Too bad that the film came out to be both simplistic and ordinary despite of the talent involved especially when it features De Niro and Penn,two of the best actors in Hollywood; and Jordan,one of the finest director of the industry.There were a lot of boring moments.Also,it just turned out to be somewhat corny and provides minimal laughter in a lot of scenes.Overall,it was definitely a misfire from the cast and the director involved as it does not live up to its potential.

Overall rating: 6 out of 10.

We're No Angels,First-Viewing, owned VHS,(Neil Jordan)- Robert DeNiro, Sean Penn, Demi Moore, John C. Reily, Bruno Kirby, James Russo

An interesting comedy starring two very talented actors. This is the first comedy role I've seen DeNiro in prior to his 90s comedies (analyze this, meet the parents, etc…). DeNiro and Penn play escaped convicts who disguise themselves in a small town. Although DeNiro is great, and in certain scenes definitely shows his superiority as an actor, Penn overall gives the better performance. With a more complex character, yet simple (he is very simple-minded, but a complex character), his performance is very good. Although Demi Moore really didn't have a big role, she was convincing as a local woman in the small town. John C. Reily, once again gives a good performance, in a similar role to that of his in 'Casualties of War'. Overall a good film for laughs and well done by the director and screenwriter. Thought the acting was the highlight, and had some very funny scenes. 8/10