Angel Eyes

If you're a hard core movie fan, you learn to appreciate good "Bad Movies." There are movies that go so far off the tracks in terms of one or several essential features of film art -- casting, script, sets, pacing, editing, lighting, coherence -- that there is no way that you could, being honest, recommend them without qualifications to an unsuspecting viewer.

Movies that go off the tracks in these essentials and offer no redeeming features are just plain Bad Movies. You you make fun of them, and then you forget about them.

But some Bad Movies offer, amidst the badness, unique moments of grace and truth. You allow yourself to be sucked in, and you studiously ignore or forgive all the screw-ups that went into making them "Bad Movies." "Angel Eyes" is a *Good* Bad Movie.

Why Bad? Genre incoherence is the biggest problem here. "Angel Eyes" was marketed as a supernatural thriller that offered spooky, scary insights into fate, love, danger, and perhaps life after death. Ads, and the first portion of the movie, hinted at a weird alternate identity for one character. Was he a ghost? An angel? A devil? Would "Angel Eyes" be another "Sixth Sense" or "Wings of Desire"? That's all just smokescreen. I'm not revealing any spoilers by saying that no one in the movie is a ghost, an angel, or a devil; that conceit from the ads is jettisoned pretty quickly.

There is a subtext of fate, destiny, love and death, but that isn't worked really hard, either. That whole subtext could have been skipped and you'd still have pretty much the same movie.

The movie you get is a movie about traumatized people finding love and rebirth. And that is one great theme.

Another problem with the movie is its misunderstanding of how quickly people can recover from trauma. But, hey.

I say "but, hey," because this movie has a lot going for it, and it's worth seeing for what it has going for it.

Jim Caviezel is an underrated actor. He's not wooden; he's subtle. It's tragic that we've gotten to an era where audience's eyes can't appreciate a quiet actor in the Gary Cooper mode.

Caviezel is a worthy inheritor of the Gary Cooper mantle. He's stunningly handsome, has a big, gorgeous body -- he's a former basketball player, and it shows -- and he possesses Cooper's quiet masculine tenderness and humility.

All these qualities have allowed him to strike the perfect note of a very male spirituality in a number of films, from "Frequency" to "Thin Red Line" to "Pay It Forward" to "The Passion" to "Angel Eyes." In his early scenes, when the movie doesn't want you to know quite what he's about, he is perfect as a perhaps ghost-angel-devil-weirdo homeless bum-savior.

He's equally good, later, as an entirely corporeal lover.

He plays a wounded man, and Caviezel has the gifts to convey his character's inner pain. You believe that he cares as much as he does about what wounded him; you believe that his wounds could have done to him what the movie wants you to believe they did to him.

Jennifer Lopez is equally good. Face it -- Jennifer Lopez is a fine actress. Yes, she appears on tabloid covers. Yes, she made "Gigli." Yes, she poses in naughty clothes a lot. Yes, she is a Puerto Rican from the Bronx.

And you know what? She's a fine actress. Don't let her non-silver-spoon pedigree keep you from appreciating what she can do on screen.

Lopez is as good as a cop here as she was in the more celebrated film, "Out of Sight." She's winning, charismatic, natural, and lovely to look at. Even in a white t-shirt and navy blue cop uniform slacks, she is beautiful.

Like Caviezel, Lopez plays a wounded character ready to be reborn by love. She's equally as good as he, but she conveys her different wounds in a different way. One wounded person retreats; another lashes out in violence. It's interesting to see which party picks which method.

Sonia Braga is in this movie. Any movie with Sonia Braga in it can't be all bad.

Victor Argo, in a very small part as a very flawed man, is JUST PERFECT. 100% believable and heart-wrenching. I'll never forget his moments locked in silent misery, a misery he causes and a misery he feels.

Finally, there is a not-to-be-missed scene between an abused family member and the abuser. A character speaks into a video camera at a family reunion and ... the scene just took my breath away. At that point I wanted to cry and surrender my full respect to the movie, in spite of everything it had done wrong so far.

Don't let bad reviews prevent you from seeing this movie. Nothing's perfect. There's enough heart and beauty here for the discerning viewer to appreciate.

I found this movie really engaging, even though it's imperfect directorially. Much of my admiration, though, may be because I fell madly in love with Jim Caviezel and his quiet, handsome, troubled but gently noble character (so bear that in mind!)...

Jennifer Lopez did very well - a sparky performance as always. Her police officer role appears to come very naturally to her, and the pairing is interesting with the initially mysterious Caviezel character.

Overall this movie may not win awards, but the lead characters are well drawn and their developing relationship is engaging, unpredictable and endearingly life-like. It's a nice romantic movie which draws you in.

Do you remember the previews for Angel Eyes? Many of us don't. What few of us remember is a 30 second preview that ran only a handful of times that showed Jennifer Lopez as a female cop. That was it. Na drama, no emotion, the previews told the audience a story about a female police officer, nothing else. This is probably the biggest reason why nobody went to see this movie when it went to the cinema. Only when it hit the video stores, did people start wo watch. A beautiful film, Angel Eyes is a romance. Dealing with redemption, it deals with many degrees of love and hope. In fact, many people detail Jennifer Lopez as "Angel Eyes." This is not true. Take a deeper look and you will see that James Caviezel is the true Angel Eyes.

So let me set the scene here, I was in a motel, in the middle of nowhere, and was flicking through the channels of the limited cable that the motel offered... I spotted Jim Caveizel (or however on earth you spell his name) and put down the remote as he is an actor that I admire and respect. Of course JLo then came into the scene and my instinct was to pick up the remote and flick the channel but I didn't and I am glad that I made that decision. Not being a fan of JLo I have never seen Angel Eyes and had no reason to seek it out either on video or on the TV but hell when you are in a motel with limited cable options you don't have alot of choice right? Nevertheless, I was thoroughly delighted that I left the remote where it was and watched this movie because in the end I loved it. I loved it more for the subtle points than the big "hollywood this is a romance you better weep points." "Hang up and I'll call your machine" in this day and age how relevant is that? how many people (if they would be honest) would much rather talk to a machine than the person because it is impersonal and they can save face? The teeny tiny aspect of him playing the notes of the trumpet on her back as they were dancing... okay so I am married to a musician so that resonates with me but it spoke volumes, no matter how much he had tried to block it out, his soul was still there, and in his soul was his music. I thought both leads played their roles with skill and conviction. I was never quite sure (until the end of course) if Catch was a good guy or a bad guy, and I liked the fact that it kept me guessing. As I said I am not a JLo fan, in fact I could be described as quite the opposite but in this movie she played her part beautifully, with conviction and totally believably. Jim Caveizel as always was understated, calm and played his role with a sympathy that is rare to see. Loved this movie, and cannot wait to see it again. I will agree with everyone however about the advertising hype that surrounded it, they ended up portraying it as a psychological thriller, if they had stayed true to the story and advertized it for what it was, a beautiful romance, I think it would not have died as it did. Shame on the publicity people for burying such a fine film.

First, note to all brain dead film makers: If you're going to open your film with a location shot that includes Toronto's CN Tower, don't set the story in Chicago.

I'm sick of seeing obviously Canadian cities substituting for New York, Boston, Chicago, etc, etc. If you're going to film in Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal then, you airheads, set the story in those cities. Or . . . don't choose filming locations and shots that scream you're not even in the U.S., never mind the city you purport to be the story's location.

That aside, I really enjoyed this film, mainly because Jennifer Lopez and Jim Caviezel are so likable together here. This is one of Lopez's better performances as well. She's as good as she was in "Out of Sight."

The film is a gentle love story about two people haunted by having unwittingly destroyed their families. They have a brief, chance encounter during one family's tragedy, and then as strangers are drawn together a year later; neither having a conscious recollection of the other. The relationship that develops after their second meeting gives both the strength to acknowledge and come to terms with their losses as well as find healing in each other.