|
|
|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
Angel (1934) |
Product Guide |
|
|
Home: You are here: VHS : Angel (1934) |
|
Angel (1934)  Rating: Rating:  - Not One of Lubitsch's Best! It would seem that this movie had a sure recipe for a great movie: some talented actors including Marlene Dietrich with her incredible screen presence, a pinch of the famous Lubitsch touch... Unfortunately, the result is surprisingly bland and uninspiring. It's as if the actors and the director were involved in the project that did not interest them at all. There is not a spark of humor, wit, or enjoyment. Simply boring. This is the first Lubitsch's movie that I truly did not enjoy. Rating:  - SUPERB MARLENE !!!I found this movie very underrated. I discovered Marlene thanks to this movie (and BORZAGE's "Desire"), and only after that, I saw the STERNBERG movies. For me, Marlene gave her finest performance thanks to LUBITSCH (and Billy WILDER's "A foreign affair"). I found her very touching and sensitive in "Angel". Of course, the story seems ordinary, but under Lubitsch's fine direction, it is not boring at all. And remember, BUNUEL's classic "Belle de jour" (with Catherine DENEUVE) is a remake of LUBITSCH's "Angel" !!! 3 1/3 stars ! Rating:  - STYLISH FARCEI do not agree either with Maltin, nor with the other reviewer. OK it is no masterpiece, but this movie has the typical Lubitsch touch, and it's not boring at all. Lavish sets and costumes, Marshall in the typical boring-husband role, Marlene stunning, a delight from start to finish. Then try "Blonde Venus" and "Desire" (both with Marlene). Rating: - Visually stunning, not much else.Dietrich decides to take a secret vacation from her husband (Herbert Marshal) in London, and goes to visit an old friend in Paris. While there, she has a brief fling with a stranger (Melvyn Douglas). Feeling that her relationship with Douglas is getting too serious, she rushes back to her husband in London. A few weeks later, an old friend comes to visit her husband, and who do you think it is? Thats right, Douglas. Awkward moments and boring dialog follow. This is definately a film for die-hard Dietrich fans only. As much as I hate to say it, this is definately not one of her best films. (thats my polite way of saying it is one of her worst) She is as beautiful as ever, covered in some of the most gorgeous gowns she has ever worn, including one that cost Paramount Studios $5000, which back then, was a staggering amount of money, let alone for a dress. Variety magazine wrote "Miss Dietrich is glamour in double dress. This time she is wearing eye lashes long enough to hang your hat on...". |
Portions © Amazon.com, Inc.
