Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Robert J. Maxwell There aren't many good movies about necrophilia. For one thing, the subject is pretty disgusting. After even a few hours it's hard to make yourself believe that this was once a living human being. And to play a necrophiliac is, let's say, a challenge. Molly Parker pulled it off brilliantly in "Kissed" but here, John Diehl as the sinewy killer doesn't. He kills young whores on the Sunset Strip, takes the corpses home, and has his way with them. Actually, when you get right down to it, making love to a corpse sounds a little dull, but let's not talk about my marriage. Diehl sucks the innards out of a tiny hole in a raw egg while staring at his mother's photo. I don't think the laws of physics allow you to do that, but no matter. He finally scrunches the whole egg, shell and all, into his obscenely sucking mouth.The theme itself is a familiar one -- another serial killer. But there are a lot of colorful characters built into the plot around this monster. They all hang together on Sunset Boulevard and play hop scotch over the name plates in the sidewalk. They all seem to know one another.There's Susan Tyrrell as the punk landscape painter manqué. She has a voice whose croak is as distinctive as her Goth garb. She was my supporting player in the art house classic, "Windmills of the Gods." She and Cliff Gorman, the detective, are the two most skilled performers in the cast. Then there is Steven Porter as Yoyo Charlie, shy, dressed like Emmet Kelly, who "adores Donna Wilkes from afar." And, as impressive as any of the other goofy buskers, is Rory Calhoun, ex cowboy star, never much of an actor but still going strong and very likable. He gives the role everything he's got, which doesn't include nuance. Dick Shawn is the catty cross-dresser with a heart of gold.Donna Wilkes -- high school student and honorable daughter by day, hooker by night -- is neither here nor there as an actress. She doesn't drop the ball entirely, just juggles around uncertainly with it, but she's not up to the bizarre levels of her street buddies. And she's too old for her role, despite the pig tails, but then so is everyone else in her high school class. Peter Jason, as the first john we see her with, overacts to the point of embarrassment. It's not even funny.I can believe that the hustlers and whores know one another but it gives a false impression of what Los Angeles (and Southern California) is like in general. Think of the bustles, shouts, curses, and intrusions on the fetid streets of New York. Now take all that energy away. Los Angeles is not a village. It's an intricate system of freeways with some houses and malls sprinkled between.The direction is routine, appropriate to a television movie, filled with jumbo close ups for the small screen, as in a commercial for a brokerage firm. The photography and lighting are pretty good, though. They DO evoke the Strip in the 80s. Except, I suppose at the director's insistence, the men who stand in the police line up are illuminated by kick lights on the floor, turning them all into zombies. You wouldn't be able to identify your father. The story -- well, it winds up with Angel striding grimly along Hollywood Boulevard, stalking a fake Hare Krishna while holding a huge revolver in her hand.It's not a very good film. Serial killers have been subject to pattern exhaustion by now but I have nothing against them. "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" nettles the brain and "Se7evn," despite the stupid transposition of a letter and number, and in spite of all that dark rain, is truly spooky.

videorama-759-859391 Angel had potential to be a good movie. What we have instead is a remarkably tame movie, considering it's subject, it's only real violent scene, is a shower slaying. We really have no depth of characters, though larger than life (Shawn and Calhoun-both great) and likable. John Diehl, solid, is the nutter doing them, where it ends in a showdown between Angel, well acted by Wilkes, and our psycho sicko killer who makes love to nude corpses, and sucks the yolks out of raw eggs. This is like a substitute description for his lack of written character, who we detest, and Diehl plays well with the hand he's dealt, though Angel could of been much more. Still it is a fun watch, colourful so so drama, thanks to it's quirky street characters, plus adding some spice to it, is standout Cliff Gorman, as the caring cop, though he won't admit or show it. What's up with that? Angels suffers because of it's shallow depth of it's poorly written characters. It's not a badly made film. It would of been better to go into more of Angel's background, so we'd have a better understanding of her character, we wanted to know so much more about, and that goes for all the other characters. So we're left with another cheesy exploitation B grader, that spawned three more sequels. Susan Tyrell is great as Angel's uncouth/punk haired, aspiring painter-landlord.

gizmomogwai Watching this movie reminded me a lot of the 1960 British film Peeping Tom. Specifically, the negative reviews it was said to have received initially- "The sickest and filthiest film I remember seeing." Also about a serial killer- who before and during the opening credits kills a prostitute- Peeping Tom is actually a classic, a dark, naked look at a voyeuristic and violent society.Angel, coming out in 1984, reverses that formula, telling the story from the point of view of a prostitute, in this case a 15-year-old girl who by day goes to a private school, innocent and an honours student. Social circumstances led her into prostitution, and she's unhappy about it, making her a potentially sympathetic character. Sounds like an intriguing film with lots of potential- Taxi Driver (1976) is a great film in which Jodie Foster plays an even younger hooker.Alas, Angel is a better fit for the reviews Peeping Tom got. It has the look and feel of a cheap exploitation piece- featuring excruciating acting from people often looking much older than the part they're playing. (The nerd who asks Angel out, notably, looks suspiciously like a man in a wig and big glasses.) They awkwardly stumble over dialogue that ranges from good to mediocre to bad ("The law sucks!") The screenplay sports other holes- do they really not check suspects for weapons in police lineups? At one point, the cowboy character is shot and on his back, then he springs up to pump the bad guy full of lead, and walks away as if the injuries didn't really hurt him.Yes, a cowboy. That's another thing about this movie, the cheap costumes that come close to funny (the man in drag is just bad). What saves this from being a three-star movie in my books is some good nudity- full frontal, with the most comfortably naked girls in a high school shower since Carrie (1976).

The_Void I went into this really expecting to see something special. The plot description sounded like it would lend itself brilliantly to a classic of trash cinema...although unfortunately, the only kind of trash that this film is, is the kind that you'd want to throw out. The film features a few different characters and ideas; and this is basically where it falls down; as nothing is really explored properly meaning that what we are left with feels extremely underdone and disappointing. The plot focuses on a young girl named Molly Stewart, who also goes under the alias 'Angel'. Molly is a straight A student and at the top of her class; but once night falls she's Angel; an underage prostitute who goes around town turning tricks for sleazy male clientèle. However, she's not the only one prowling around town as it just so happens that there's also a serial killer going round hacking up the girls. After one of Angel's friends is killed inside her apartment; our heroine gets some unwanted police attention, and aside from keeping her out of the killer's way; a copper decides to help her with her personal life.The main plot revolves around Molly and her tragic life, as well as the idea of the police officer trying to get her off the game. This takes up a sizable chunk of the movie, which leaves the serial killer by the wayside and feeling rather pointless. There's a fair few distinctive characters in the film and while most of them serve a point; again there's not really enough time to give them a justifiable piece of the movie. Lead actress Donna Wilkes is really rather poor and does not convince in the lead role either and her performance feels extremely forced, which brings the whole thing down a bit further. To the film's credit, however, the way that so many things happen does mean that the film doesn't really have chance to get boring. It's clear that the plot wasn't meant to be taken completely seriously either; there are a few funny moments, with the fight between a transvestite and a Hare Krishna being one of the most memorable. The film is also not very sleazy, which is a shame considering the obvious potential. Overall, this film is not a complete dead loss; but it's not as good as it could have been and there are better films with similar plots (e.g. Crimes of Passion).