4/10
Klunker that could have been gem.
17 March 2003
Siskel & Ebert have often said that they wish filmmakers would remake bad movies that had potential rather than update classics. DATE WITH AN ANGEL is one of those films that could easily be made into something much better. The opening and concluding scenes hint at the charming fantasy it could have been. Unfortunately, to get from beginning to end you have to slog through everything in between. The basic storyline isn't bad, although it could use a little reworking. Michael E. Knight is OK as the would-be composer who wakes up after his bachelor party to find an injured angel in his pool. Emmanuelle Beart is appealing as the angel. If you don't pay attention you might not notice that Phoebe Cates has the more striking features. Phil Brock, Albert Macklin, and Peter Kowanko are sufficiently amusing as Knight's scheming buddies, and David Dukes is the stereotypical conniving businessman.

The main problem with this movie is that it is populated by cardboard characters. Once you learn their respective niches they follow true to form. Phoebe Cates' talents are particularly wasted. She starts out as a real person but soon devolves into an ultra-spoiled, gin-fueled, jealousy-crazed maniac. I will say this for her, she gives it her all. The overacting is so pervasive (especially by Cates & Dukes) that I can't blame the actors. I have to think that the director hoped intensity would make up for tissue-thin characterizations. It doesn't.

In short, the filmmakers should have toned down the gags and noise in order to give the actors some real acting to do. I can't recommend DATE WITH AN ANGEL unless you are either a real fan of one of the actors or a sucker for romantic fantasy/comedies. This isn't a terrible movie, but it is a pity to see talent wasted on a klunker that could have been a small gem.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed