Angel-A

I think the first thing that must be discussed about Angel-A is the casting. I'd never heard of either of these actors before watching the movie but they were so perfect for the roles. Having a short hairy Jamel Debbouze as the insecure liar who keeps getting himself into trouble works great, but even better is when he is contrasted with the tall and beautifully statuesque Rie Rasmussen. They are such an odd and unlikely pair that it works for this story. I love their interactions, and the contrast between the two of them. Perhaps even more remarkable is how they show the change in each of them as they spend more time together and start to rub off on one another. The emotional impact of the climax at the end of this film hit me like a ton of bricks, and a lot of that is because Rasmussen and Debbouze play out all that emotion so powerfully. There was also another intense moment earlier in the movie that made me tear up, because of what was happening and how well the actors performed the scene.

There are definitely some fuzzy plot points in this movie, and I was at times a bit confused at how Angela was influencing the people they came in contact with, to do things that are totally out of character. It feels like there would be a lot of people still ready to seek retribution on André, but there are several unexplained magical things going on, so I guess we're just supposed to let that go and assume everything will be fine. I wasn't interested in nitpicking the film too much after I was done watching because it made me feel so good. There is a surprising amount of heart in this story, and I love some of the messages that it teaches. It focuses a great deal on the value of truth, and the power of self-confidence. I'm not sure the ending was perfect, even if it felt good, it didn't play quite right. The conclusion threatened to undermine some of the messaging up to that point. However, when I watch this again, I might appreciate the finale more and see how it ties into the overall themes. And that's the most important point, no matter what flaws I might have seen in the movie, I didn't say "IF I watch this again, " I said "WHEN" because Angel-A is a solid movie that I expect to watch multiple times in the future.

First, to all you grumpy smurfs who are slamming Besson for "ripping off [...]", chill out! Don't you recognize a pastiche when you see one? If you bear that in mind, you'll thoroughly enjoy this carefree ride through angel territory, whether it's Frank Capra's funny cliché of meeting a suicidal angel by diving off a bridge, Wim Wender's suggestion that angels must always be filmed in black & white, or possibly even a touch of Christopher Walken's good-angel-bad-angel gimmick from The Prophecy, it's all in there plus more. Most of all, I think Besson tips his hat to the classic Der Himmel über Berlin (1987) by showing not Berlin but the glory of Paris in one of the most flattering presentations of that city I've ever seen. It's funny, we're trained to imagine a colourful Paris in the spring, but I never realized how breathtaking it can be in monochrome.

The plot of ANGEL-A is simple & charming. It has a few twists to keep you guessing. Most of all what captivated me (well, besides Rie's long LEGS!) was the chemistry between Rie and Jamel, two people you'd never expect to see on a date; yet together they light up the screen like they're MFEO. Their dialogues are brisk & cheeky, almost like Audrey Hepburn & Cary Grant in the old days. And at the same time, there's a lot of intensity behind every word, and you may find yourself rewinding or watching the film twice to catch everything that was said, especially if you're reading subtitles.

And Rie is freaking HAWT.

Let me say that again. Rie is freaking HAWT. Sexy but not slutty ...and with a mean hook kick. Just the way you'd expect your angels to be.

The film does hit a few bumps, particularly when it touches on the spiritual themes like where angels come from, what's their function, and the biggie: who's running the show? I was surprised to see Besson shy away from these topics--maybe because he got in some hot water for his iconoclastic ideas in his earlier film The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc (a film which I really enjoyed, despite the critics' hissing). But just as well, I think it was his intent to keep this film on the lighter side this time.

And I think that's the point. Don't expect Leon the Professional or La Femme Nikita, and certainly don't expect an atheistic Dustin Hoffman dressed up like a monk. This is Besson's time to go easy & have fun. Again, don't get caught up in whom he's "ripping off". Don't get bogged down in the spiritual/religious significance of it all. Don't even try too hard to understand the ending (though there's much room for interpretation). Just relax and enjoy the show; you won't be disappointed.

It is very unlike other films, Luk Besson is related with, very few action, lots of dialogs. Not one of the kind you'll enjoy in breaks between portions of popcorn. This movie really touched me with it's honesty. It made me understand little bit more about myself, about the way i treat other people. Not everyone will like it. If you are looking for Taxi-style action - here you won't find anything alike. It's all b&w, and very bright at the same time, 40s style footage. It is about nature of human being, about those weak and strong, about good and evil. It teaches how to love yourself, but without being egoistic. Ant maybe the best thing is, it doesn't only rise a question, but it tries to answer it within the same hour and a half - unlike many movies of this kind (hollywood influence ;)

This film made me shed a tear or two (but then I am an emotional soul!). The comedic aspects, such as the total physical difference between the leads and the strength of the Angela were well placed. The reason for Angela coming into the life of Andre and her true identity could have been very tactlessly handled and cheesy in a Disney kind of way, but Besson made it seem as natural as catching a bus. Subtitles normally irritate me, but I didn't seem to notice them in this film. Paris in black and white is also very evocative and the filming was great in my opinion. I would recommend this film to anyone who fancies a fairly short film that makes you think about whether you appreciate your inner beauty and qualities.

Angel-a can be described as a romantic comedy, as a movie about angels and as one about therapy. As a romantic comedy it is a good and charming film, which stands far away from the omnipresent and boring Hollywood romantic comedies. As a movie about angels it is not convincing, and the best it can be said in its favour is that the movie is an heterodox rendering of angels, half divine and half too-human.

But the best use that can be given to this film is to adopt it as a manual of cognitive or rational-emotive therapy. A well respected field within psychology, cognitive therapy looks for transforming distorted thinking, which it is said, affects the mood, the behaviour and the life of people. That is simply what Angel-a does with Andre, giving him reasons to love himself, and teaching him techniques to change the way he thinks or speaks of himself. If we go to cinema some times to enjoy ourselves and some times to bring something to our lives, this movie allows us to do both. Art and cinema have also ethical consequences -in the sense of Foucault- giving us clues about how to live our lives better. In this sense the best description of Angel-a is given above by Elizabeth Arthur when she says that this is "a film about learning to love yourself".

Only one question remains: Why a director like Besson, who has been making movies about violence, decides to read about cognitive therapy and bring angels to earth and make a film like this?