BEFORE: Time to test my theory on John Travolta - that he tends to play the only character in a movie with a proper moral compass. Since he plays an angel in this film, I'd say that the chances are good.
THE PLOT: Tabloid reporters checking out a report of the Archangel Michael living with an old woman find that it's true.
AFTER: Which is the greater sin - being a bad movie, or being a pointless one? Because I've seen plenty of movies that are "bad" in some way, yet managed to entertain or have a message. So I'd say that being pointless is the greater offense.
Three reporters (technically two reporters and one wannabe) travel from Chicago to Iowa, where they find an authentic angel. They seem to sort of skip over questions like "Is this angel real?" and "Are we being scammed?" and go straight to "Can he fly?" and "What's his wing-span?"
They drive him back to Chicago (because putting him on a plane would end the movie too quickly...) and he wants to see the sights along the way, like the world's biggest frying pan and the world's largest whatever...but the angel has another plan in mind.
Yes, once again Travolta is the "man with the plan", but the problem is that it's never really revealed to the audience. We can presume that his real agenda is to bring two heartbroken people together, but is this really the kind of thing that needs divine help? Shouldn't these affairs of the heart occur naturally, as part of the human condition? Doesn't God have more important things to do?
Angels just sort of seem like a religious compromise, between believing that God set the universe in motion and then let it develop, and believing that God takes an active role in the day-to-day affairs of humanity. You know, like stopping wars and making sure that your favorite sports team wins. (Problem is, some people are praying for the war to continue, and for the other team to beat yours...) So we have angels - God doesn't take an active role in humanity's affairs, but his staffers do. What a copout.
The only way I'll accept this film would be to imagine that the two people that Michael the angel brings together produce a child who is actually the Second Coming of Jesus, who will rise up against the AntiChrist at the End of Days, following the Rapture. Now THERE'S your movie... What's the matter, Nora Ephron? Too controversial a subject? Or do you just not know how to follow through on an idea?
You may notice that I don't dwell too much on religious issues - for the record I was raised Catholic, but now mostly identify as agnostic. I'd like to believe that there's some order to the universe, some controlling force, but I don't see any direct evidence that wasn't thought up by ancient humans as a replacement for the modern science they didn't have. Anyway, I'm certainly not arrogant enough to say that I am able to understand how the universe works (and I probably side more with science than religion - in the same way I favor astronomy over astrology). In essence, I believe that the smartest man admits that he knows nothing on the topic - how can one know the unknowable, anyway? I treat religious people the same way I treat sharks - I stay out of their ocean, and they stay out of my living room. It seems to work. But when zealots ring my doorbell, or start preaching on the subway train, well, now we've got a problem. You want to debate me, bring it on - I guarantee, you'll be sorry. (And it's always fun when I go back home for Christmas...)
Also starring William Hurt (last seen in "The Incredible Hulk"), Andie MacDowell (last seen in "The Muse"), Bob Hoskins (last seen in "Mrs. Henderson Presents"), Robert Pastorelli, Jean Stapleton, with cameos from Joey Lauren Adams, Teri Garr (last seen in "The Sting II"), Wallace Langham and Richard Schiff (last seen in "Last Chance Harvey")
RATING: 3 out of 10 slices of pie
No comments:
Post a Comment