Angels in America (2003– )
1/10
So close, and yet, so far.
3 October 2007
Okay then.

Was the play groundbreaking? Yes. Skilfully done? Let's say so. A labor of love better achieved than abandoned? I'll give it that. A watchable piece of cinema? Not hardly. And if you must try, for the love of all you consider holy, take it in small doses. Trying to watch the whole thing, even in only two sittings, is torture. Do yourself a favor, and do not more than an hour at a time.

Look, the cast is fantastic (who doesn't love Mary-Louise Parker?), and the performances are quite good. But this piece can't decide whether it's a serious work meant to break ground, or if it's a soapbox from which to shout "We're here, we're Queer, get used to it!" Exhibit A is the "conflict" between the two AIDS patients. Justin Kirk's Prior Walter fulfills the now-tiresome role of the AIDS-ridden saint, complete with hipster irony and "wit". Al Pacino's Cohn is, well, Pacino, but he seems to embody the self-hating homosexual without being an effective foil for Prior. As a result, the film (and the play on which it's based) comes off as preachy and smarmy. AIDS is bad, but having it doesn't make you a saint (hear that, "RENT"?).

Look, I came into this hoping to be blown away. Emma Thompson and Meryl Streep are, as expected, brilliant, and Parker's utterly human performance just builds my enormous crush on her. But come on. I don't want to be preached at. And that's unfortunately, that's what this series does best.
20 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed