.
.
Has anybody seen Ozon's Angel, which these are all from? I haven't yet, and I'd like to know how worth my time it is. I mean, besides the obvious reasons seen here that it is most definitely worth my time. I don't remember hearing squat about it until Michael Fassbender became the lord of my manor these couple of years after this movie came out, so maybe it sucks? Besides Michael obviously, who is incapable of sucking. (Until he meets me, at least.)
.
Posts
6 comments:
Considering that it stars Fassbender, Romola Garai, Sam Neill, and Charlotte Rampling, Angel is a HUGE disappointment. But you can watch it instantly on Netflix, so it's not a huge investment...
Hmm, if u take the flick seriously then ur in trouble but if u see it as a sendup of the whole "historical romance" genre then ur in heaven. I liked it and not just ´cause Fassys divine behind.
Fassy was good (but then when isn't he). The movie was a big disappointment to me. Watching the interview extras, the director wanted the actress playing Angle to play it broad and even unlikeable, and that was my problem - her character annoyed the hell out of me. Didn't blame Fassy for taking a mistress at all!
I liked it cuz I'm a Romy Garai fanboy (and I saw it before I knew who Fassy was so THAT was my 'moment I fell for').
I concur with suggesting to watch it on Netflix streaming. It isn't really good, but it probably won't make you want to heave either. And Fassy is gorgeous in it, so there is that.
I watched it for Fassbender. It's an okay movie, as long as you don't take it seriously...which I don't think you're supposed to because it does seem like an over the top satire of period films with annoying and plucky heroines and Cinderella stories that are also supposed to work as empowering stories for women. Angel is supposed to be annoying as a character, so I guess it works, but it's a bit hard to watch because just about everyone in the movie is unlikeable.
Bonus: Charlotte Rampling's bitchface is awesome.
Post a Comment