Angels in America (2003) User Reviews (271)

Maddening and fascinating

[GMJames · 8/10 · 21 November 2004]

There was a statement that was going through my head while watching "Angels in America": I know what art is when I see it. Just like art, this ambitious miniseries dares the viewer to have an opinion on the various subjects brought up by screenwriter/playwright Tony Kuchner.

I saw the miniseries one chapter at a time, which may or may not have been a good idea to get the full impact of the point. At least it did motivate me to read both of Kuchner's "Angels" plays.

I found it to be both a frustrating and challenging miniseries. There were the great performances by Al Pacino, Meryl Streep, Justin Kirk, and Jeffrey Wright and the good performances by Emma Thompson, Mary-Louise Parker, Patrick Wright and, in a small role, James Cromwell.

I find it rather humorous that some people thought Al Pacino was miscast as Roy Cohn. Though this is Kuchner's fictional view of Cohn and having seen the real Roy Cohn in television interviews, I though Pacino was not too far from the essence of who Cohn was: an ambitious but very bitter gay man in denial who helped his notable clients but was always out for himself. Cohn was rabid dog without a leash. This was Pacino's first television role and I though he did a great job. (Correction: Pacino's only television acting role prior to "Angels in America" and not including the edited version of "The Godfather Saga" was the short-lived but critically-acclaimed ABC drama "N.Y.P.D." (1967-69).

I did have a few problems with the mini-series. The role played by Ben Shenkman (Louis) was incredibly annoying. I heard that role is Tony Kuchner's alter ego. Louis redeems himself at the end but I found him to be a whiny, cowardly man who had difficulty counting his blessings. I loved it when after Louis' typically long diatribes, Belize (Jeffrey Wright) verbally put him down with a just a few words.

In both plays, many of the actors played multiple roles. It seems more of a gimmick on the small screen, though I think Streep and Wright fared best.

The always dependable Thomas Newman has fashioned a haunting musical score. It was minimalistic and very memorable. The theme has been on my mind ever since I first heard the theme when the miniseries won various awards at the Golden Globes. (Update: The miniseries received 21 Emmy nominations and won a record (for miniseries) 11 Emmys. For some mysterious reason, Newman's brilliant score was overlooked.)

I don't see this play adapted for the big screen without chopping a lot of things out. Congratulations to Mike Nichols and the cast and crew for taking a chance adapting "Angels in America" to television.

a must-see and one of my all-time favorites.

[psychopathicgroupie · 9/10 · 31 December 2004]

Angels in America is definitely one of my favorites. I was a loyal viewer when it was on HBO, and rushed out to buy the DVD when it was released. I think this miniseries was very tastefully done. I was delighted to see such diversity in the movie. It was very refreshing to see Jews, Mormons, Protestants, Homosexuals, Heterosexuals, Republicans, and Democrats together. I think this movie was very real in it's portrayal of AIDS, and it really raised awareness for me, because it showed AIDS as a real disease, not just something we hear about on the news. I was very excited to see minorities presented like average, real people. I didn't see the play, so i can't compare. but i was thoroughly pleased with Mike Nichols direction, i think the cast was incredible, and brought life to each character in the best way possible. i think Mary-Louise Parker especially brought with her character, Harper Pitt, something to the play that was very difficult to do. Harper, other than her marriage to Joe, was irrelevant to the story; Parker was able to take the character, though, and make Harper one of the most insightful and endearing characters in the show. I especially like Justin Kirk in this movie. He did not have a particularly challenging part, but he really grabbed my heart in a subtle way. I have heard much criticism directed toward Al Pacino. However, i think Pacino did very well as is character. I have little knowledge of the real Cohn, but Pacinio was able to give Cohn an evil personality, while still keeping the audience aware of how human Cohn really is. It was very interesting. I was also very pleased with the characters of Belize and Mother Pitt. I found Angels in America very inspiring, and after seeing it for the first time, I seemed to see the world in a whole new light. I know that sounds cheesy, but it is true. For someone very passionate about equal rights, like me, this movie seemed to relay exactly what I stand for. If you are an easily offended Conservative, this movie may not be for you, but I recommend this to anyone with an open mind.

The Best Picture of the Year

[rburton66 · 8/10 · 14 December 2003]

It was only a few months ago that I read the plays of "Angels in America". I was amazed that something so massive could be captured on the stage, but even more so to think that it could ever be caught on film.

Mike Nichols is one of my favorite directors and made one of my favorite films ever ("Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"). With one of the greatest casts ever assembled, he has done justice to what is one of the greatest pieces of drama ever written.

Meryl Streep, Al Pacino, Emma Thompson, Mary-Louise Parker, Jeffrey Wright, Justin Kirk, Ben Shenkman, and Patrick Wilson are the ensemble cast that tower along side ensembles like those of "Nashville" or "Short Cuts". Each and every one is brilliant, though Streep and Pacino both prove that with age they have become better than ever.

This is more than some made for TV movie. This is the movie of the year.

The second part of "Angels in America" shows tonight. I am confident that there is no reason to wait to post my comments because I'm certain it will be just as incredible.

The Emmys of 2003-2004 will have a theme: "Angels in America".

If you meet some requirements, you may find it the most moving thing you ever saw

[MartinPh · 25 September 2004]

It seems to me that to be able to experience the full depth of this production, you need to meet a few requirements. First, you need to know that this is a PLAY. Like in any play, texts are delivered that you will not easily hear in everyday life (nobody makes up 'Antebellum Insufficiently Developed Sexorgans' as an alternative interpretation of AIDS during a split second in mid-conversation). Shakespeare isn't realistic in that way, Oscar Wilde isn't, Ibsen isn't, and nor is Tony Kushner. All of them are however extremely realistic in that they highlight essential aspects of the human condition in ways no other medium can achieve. Second, you need an ability to look beyond the surface. Reading reviews of AinA I'm stunned at how simplistically literal some people take it (maybe that explains why you've got Bush for president over there?). This play isn't about gays, it isn't about AIDS, it isn't about Jews and it isn't about Mormons. Its theme is the necessity for people to change, the scariness of change, while most of us would prefer to just let things stay as they are. That's what Louis Ironson wants and makes him run away from his sick lover (consider that: the superficially leftist intellectual is in fact a thorough conservative, more so than the apparently conservative Joe Pitt). That's what the angels want: unchangeable status quo; all the human history making tempted their god to leave heaven, and they want him back. This is the crux of AinA's undeniable political agenda: it sets out to show how conservatism of necessity thwarts and corrupts human nature. Oh yes, that's a third requirement: you really shouldn't belong to that curious group of people who consider the bible a god-given record of factual happenings rather than a piece of ancient mythology: you are likely to be shocked. Kushner's fantasies on biblical themes are very original indeed, and fit into a long tradition of reinterpreting ancient mythology in contemporary contexts. The church could learn a thing or two from him.

Personally, I was very deeply moved by the experience of watching this (as I was by the play nearly ten years ago). I'm sure that, unlike some people seem to think, you don't need to be like the gay men portrayed in AinA to be able to stand it, let alone like it (a ridiculous notion anyway: as a gay man I constantly watch movies about heterosexuals, and am often touched by them). I'm a Dutchman, I know New York only from a few brief visits, and though I'm gay my lifestyle has very little in common with that of the men in AinA; none of that prevented me from being deeply engrossed in this story. Its themes, as said, are universal (if you doubt that this play is essentially about YOU, the closing scene ought to convince you otherwise; if that scene makes you cringe, as I saw somebody complain, you've not really been watching). Its texts are wonderfully written, unafraid of pathos, farce and intellectualism alike, and fiercely direct in their expression. The acting of the whole cast is formidable. Pacino may be redoing previous roles (Devil's Advocate sprang to mind), but boy, does this Roy Cohn have clout, and in the end, how peculiarly difficult it is to really hate him… Patrick Wilson is the perfect pretty boy with a dark secret, and knows how to bring his torment across. Marie-Louise Parker at times has you wondering if she's really been taking pills (and I mean that as a compliment). There simply can't be another Louis than Ben Shenkman (that role was seriously miscast in the Dutch theater production I saw in '95), and Justin Kirk plays his taxing role with utter conviction. Jeffrey Wright goes all out on his ex-drag-queen-with-an-attitude character, and yet succeeds to remain believable as a person. Streep and Thompson are no less great, but I really feel the laurels in the end belong with Parker, Shenkman, Kirk and Wilson. To top it all off, the imagery is beautiful and full of fantasy, without going overboard on bloodless digital effects (it is still a play, remember). The atmosphere is often subtly and hauntingly unreal. And Thomas Newman's score – well, like any truly good music, words cannot do it justice.

A Triumph In Every Way

[gftbiloxi · 10/10 · 29 March 2005]

Set in 1980s New York and subtitled "A Gay Fantasia on National Themes," the six-hour ANGELS IN America concerns a group of largely gay men who find themselves caught up in series of disasters that range from love to religion and from politics to philosophy--and most specifically caught between the rising tide of AIDS and a generally unsympathetic society.

In the midst of this, AIDS patient Prior Walter begins to have a series of visions, which may be fever dreams, medicine-induced hallucinations... or, most unnerving of all, real. His long dead ancestors rise to speak to him, the floor cracks open to reveal a burning book--and at the conclusion of the play's first half a beautiful woman with majestic wings crashes through his roof. She is the Angel of America. He is, she tells him, a prophet, and she has come to bring him a message for mankind.

Intertwined with Prior's other-earthly experiences are oddly parallel lives. Joe and Harper Pitt are a deeply dysfunctional couple doubting their faith in the Mormon Church, Joe a closeted homosexual, Harper a Valium-addicted and mildly psychotic woman given to visions as strange as those of Prior Walter's. And as further counterpoint historical figure Roy Cohn (1927-1986), among the most sinister figures of 20th Century America, finds himself taunted by the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg as he drifts toward his own AIDS-induced death. The characters swirl in and out of each other's lives and dreams, playing to stereotypes and yet defying them, arguing politics and philosophy and love and death--and it is fascinating stuff.

Although the play stunned 1990s audiences, most considered it utterly unfilmable due to both length and content. But this HBO-produced, Mike Nichols-directed version not only captures the power of the original, in some ways it improves upon it. Playwright Tony Kushner has adapted his work to the screen, rearranging certain problematic scenes and bits of dialogue to better effect, and certainly no one could argue with the cast, which is absolutely stunning in a series of multiple roles.

With a mad swirl of irony, intense drama, outrageous humor, and unexpected twists and turns, ANGELS IN America is almost sure to hold your attention--particularly if you recall the Ronald Reagan years well enough to recognize the truly bitter allegory the film offers on what many consider his largely absentee second term. Truly a must have, multi-layered, bearing repeated viewings, beautifully directed, performed, and filmed.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

The Truth As An Allegory

[marcosaguado · 10/10 · 2 January 2005]

A cocktail of jolts, emotional and cinematic, on television. Can you believe that? First time in my life I've been glued to the TV (I grew up in Spain) I was amazed, compelled, moved and ultimately so happy. Things that used to happen to me but in a movie theater. Extraordinary performances a masterful direction and some glorious writing made it one of the most rewarding film experiences I've ever had, and I was at home. I don't want to get repetitious about the matter but I'm sure it influenced the effect it had on me. I could cry loud without refrain, I could laugh as hard as I wanted. The allegorical truth of the Angels in America were allowing my truth, the truth of my feelings, to come out. It allowed me to "see" my own feelings. Meryl Streep disappears behind each character in such a riveting way that I completely forgot that it was her, the mother, the ghost, the rabbi. Cohn's death in the hands, mind and heart of Al Pacino is absolutely shattering. He clings onto his life without being able to admit it. I've never seen anything like it. Mary Louis Parker, Justin Kirk, Jeffry Wright and the rest of the cast are just sublime. I will wait a couple of months and then I'm going to see it again. What about you?

This presentation touched me deeply

[beacon1 · 10/10 · 31 January 2004]

I wish I could put into words how deeply touched I was by this movie/ miniseries. It has haunted me since I first saw it in December. I taped it when it was shown all together on HBO Signature and purchased the playscript book. And I have the soundtrack which is so beautiful.

I loved this work. It made me think, it made me laugh, it made me mourn. The concept of God abandoning Heaven just made me weep. The utter resolve Prior displays before the Council was so uplifting...and then Hannah's desire to have them all bathe in the Fountain of Bethesda and be healed. So touching.

Each character was such an intrigal part of the delicate equation. The awards/nominations were/are all richly deserved. (SAGs are on 2/22.)

Patrick Wilson positively floored me. I'd never heard of him before and was slack jawed by his range, his depth and his delivery. His vocal inflections, modulations, etc are incredible. And, his "look" was perfect. As a straight, active (practicing) LDS woman , I can tell you that he could have been dropped into any Church meeting and he would have blended right in. Kudos to the wardrobe/hair & make-up department. Of course, though Joe's particular struggle is not representative of every man in the Church, all individuals have burdens we must handle. I could really relate to that.

The rest of the cast were equally fantastic. You know, even if the character was being despicable...you appreciated the talents and efforts of the person portraying them.

I could gush forever about this. Bravo to Tony Kushner, Mike Nichols, and the incredible cast.

Just brilliant.

[danielshotmale · 10/10 · 13 April 2005]

Simply the best piece of American Cinema/Television I have ever seen!! Superb acting by the entire cast, fantastic and clever script, magnificently filmed, a pure joy from start to finish.

I am amazed how well such an excellent stage presentation has translated to film. This will become a classic. All of the awards that it has received are fully deserved.

It has captured the essence of what being gay was in the 80's with all its fears, problems and excitements. But it is more than just a gay document, it speaks of life generally in the 80's, of everyones fears and hopes in such an affluent time. The depiction so real (even in the surreal sequences) so insightful of that period.

Totally remarkable.

Amazing film of amazing play

[clay-kirkland · 10/10 · 11 October 2004]

It saddens me to read some of the negative reviews of this film adaptation of Kushner's brilliant Pulitzer and Tony-winning play. I guess some people simply can't see past their bigotry. (I find it revealing that most of the negative reviews appear to be written by people who clearly have no idea that Roy Cohn was a real person, and I bet they never heard of the Rosenberg's either.)

I was lucky enough to see the Broadway production of Angels with the original cast, and it was without question the highlight of my 25 years of theatre-going. While I prefer the stage version over the film (I usually do), Nichol's film does an outstanding job of capturing the brilliance of Kushner's script.

Personally, I believe that Pacino gives the performance of his career, and Streep is amazing in her three roles. The other performances are quite solid as well.

This film not only won a record 11 Emmys, taking the award for Outstanding Miniseries and all four acting trophies, it also won those same awards at the Golden Globe presentations plus four SAG acting awards. In short, it won practically every award it possibly could.

I often have my Theatre 101 students read this play. I now look forward to being able to show scenes from the film version as well.

Obviously, I recommend this film highly.

An Absolute Privilege

[Jen_UK · 10/10 · 7 January 2004]

Being a citizen of the UK, I was (thanks to my own rabid impatience, and the extreme generosity of an American gentleman/IMDB user!) granted an advance screening of this television miracle.

Ignore ANY of the ignorant reviews on here. Close your mind off to them! This work is nothing short of miraculous. The complexity of it is mind blowing. The acting is earth shatteringly compelling. The direction is mesmerising. The intelligence, profundity and eloquence of this absolute masterpiece simply cannot be denied by anyone! It is on the level of Shakespeare! Astonishing ... I have never seen anything like it.

It's a mere ten minutes since I finished watching the second part, and I remain consumed by the images and words of what I have just seen and so it shall remain for days. Works like these are few and far between and I am not exaggerating when I say that viewing ANGELS was such an intense experience, I felt almost embarrassed by the privilege.

Overall, ANGELS is (thematically and in a plot sense) endlessly complex. As a 22 year old English girl, I wouldn't even pretend to grasp the subtlties of the entire piece, and admit to ignorance regarding much of its political/social context. But none of these factors prevented me engaging with a HUMAN drama that spoke directly to me even when I wasn't sure what it was saying! This is not a work to be seen only by gay audiences, only by religious people ... it is to be seen by EVERYONE. ANGELS is, to me, solid proof of my belief that art can explain, enrich, open up and change the world. And it brings people together. I know this may sound hopelessly utopian, but ANGELS really does cast such a spell on one!

I write this review out of intense gratitude and admiration for every single person involved in bringing this masterpiece to the screen. I feel that my life has been enriched by seeing and it and I shall now be passing on the tape to every person I know ... this is life changing stuff and I know I shall take the eloquence of ANGELS with me wherever I go in life. It really is that amazing! To watch this was a privilege, to have been involved with it must be unthinkably wonderful.

ANGELS beats any film ever to win a Best Picture Oscar into a corner. If this were released in cinemas the world would not know what had hit it! I will conclude by saying it again ... this is once-in-a-lifetime viewing. Just see it and make up your own mind. And if you find yourself hating it... you need to ask yourself why, because that says more about you than it does about this!

What can I add?

[rgcustomer · 7/10 · 7 September 2010]

With 250+ reviews already, I'm probably not adding much to the conversation, yet I need a place to say it, so here it is.

I've seen the stage version, and I've seen the film three times. And I really do not see what the fuss is about. I've tried, but I don't see it.

It's not a bad film, and earned its 7/10 from me. It has good music, good acting, and acceptable effects.

But I have a big problem with the writing. I found it to be overlong, without delivering a clear message, and too much directed like a filmed play, rather than a serious film.

The angels in particular were among the most idiotic things I've seen in a long time. In a way, I guess that's appropriate, but just didn't fit with the rest of the film. If you edit all that out, I think you could get a better film. Of course, the title would have to go...

I also found that the use of Roy Cohn and Ethel Rosenberg didn't fit. Why put a real man as a lead in a fictional film? It's not responsible. There was no Joe Pitt, and he never worked for a 2nd Circuit justice. It all unravels from there. If you're in fiction, it's best to stay there. If you're in docudrama, try to stick to the truth.

Themes in this film are gay men and: AIDS, 1980s USA, Republicans, Mormons, the closet.

While I have seen better films on gay men and AIDS (In the Gloaming, And the Band Played On) and closeted gay Republicans (Outrage) I haven't yet seen a film that covers as much ground as this one, or that covers the 80s as well. On the other hand, I know there are many significant ones I haven't seen, and I do expect I'll find one better than this.

Anyway, I do admire the attempt, and the result is worth watching, although not great.

An American Tragedy

[jotix100 · 10/10 · 9 December 2003]

Sometimes, as in the case of this mini-series, all the right elements come together to produce one of the best achievements in American television.

We can be thankful to Tony Kushner for the magnificent play in which this is based. We can give thanks to Mike Nichols for his vision on the possibilities of the material and for assembling and directing the best talent of this generation.

This is such a compelling drama that it would be very hard to get it from one's mind any time soon. The tragedy of AIDS is seen through the playwright eyes. Mr. Kushner presents us different stories that have the same thing in common, basically. He never passes judgment about what caused these people to be afflicted by the disease.

Kudos to an enormous talented cast as they get lost in their roles and in the story. Everything seems real, even though it is fiction.

An overlong and overwrought drama/fantasy, not for all tastes

[bandw · 6/10 · 11 June 2007]

I watched this series, read several dozen reviews and comments, then read the play. I then watched the series for a second time. So, I have given this a fair hearing and with each successive attempt to appreciate and understand it I have liked it less.

The five male leads are gay; the sexual orientation of the females is not specified. Al Pacino plays a dramatized version of Roy Cohn (a lawyer known for prosecuting alleged Communists during the McCarthy hearings in the 50s and figuring prominently in the conviction of, and death sentences for, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - for giving nuclear weapons secrets to the USSR). Pachino is in peak form in his portrayal of Cohn's slow and agonizing death due to AIDS. I suppose the point of such attention being paid to Cohn is to show us that dying of AIDS is one of the worst ways to go and to introduce conflicted feelings of sympathy for his horrible suffering while disliking the man (as he is presented here). It must have been a challenge for Pachino to play a man in such protracted misery. If it was not a challenge for him at least it is for the viewer - long before Cohn finally succumbed I had had enough.

One of the basic themes running throughout the series is that of the vagaries of human emotions and relationships. There are some truly affecting scenes. One scene between Louis (a secular Jew and homosexual of long standing) and Joe (a closeted Mormon just coming to terms with his sexuality) has to rank high among cinematic love scenes. The slow edging toward intimacy that has Louis and Joe using touch, taste, and smell is masterfully done.

Meryl Streep does a great Ethel Rosenberg and her appearance as an old Rabbi has to be seen to be believed (I'm not sure I believe it now). However, I thought Streep's portrayal of Hannah, Joe's mother, was a bit mannered. Her scene with the street person when she first arrives in New York is the weakest scene in the series.

For me the two acting standouts are Mary-Louise Parker (as Joe's wife Harper) and Jeffrey Wright (as the flamboyantly gay nurse Belize). I think Harper's soliloquy when she is on the plane in the final act was meant to be powerful and moving, coming as it does toward the end, but it struck me as new age mysticism about souls rising from the earth and turning into ozone molecules.

The personal relationships between the characters are complex and interesting and I wish things could have been left at that. But the screenplay is so freighted with political and religious commentary that often the characters seem to be giving speeches rather than talking with each other. At one point Louis rattles on for a over a couple of minutes about democracy and power in America in a screed that is unlike any part of a conversation I have ever witnessed. He does end his rant with a nice observation about AIDS showing the limits of tolerance, that underneath public displays of tolerance for AIDS victims lies a passionate hatred. Some of the political commentary can be pretty bald, like Louis referring to the "Reaganinte heartless macho asshole lawyers."

I had real trouble with the whole angel business. This makes me think that I have missed something major, given the title of the series, but the roles that the angels play I found to be quite obscure. I think that Emma Thompson's performance as the main angel was meant to be Shakespearian, but it just seemed overacted, pretentious, and ultimately incomprehensible.

Then there are the special effects used to realize hallucinations and dreams that I found to be a major distraction. A little bit of that is fine, but here we have excess. In Kushner's notes about the play he pleads for dramatic implementation of special effects and it appears that Mike Nicols has taken this advice. But for me the special effects were overwhelming and of little consequence. Mystical books popping out of the floor, fiery stairways to heaven, angels crashing through ceilings, ancient ancestors appearing out of nowhere and disappearing in flames, stone statues that move, and so on. Just too much for me. And on a couple of occasions you have characters who don't even know each other appearing in each other's hallucinations - what is the meaning of that? What I think is intended to be mysterious and magical was simply irritating to me.

Also in Kushner's notes to the play he says that "Perestroika" (the final three segments) is essentially a comedy. Boy, the comedic aspects of following Cohn's miserable death escaped me.

Some of the little messages dropped along the way are simplistic, like wanting to live in spite of suffering - after all we see almost daily confirmations of how strong the will to live is for most of us. Hannah's comments, "How can you steer your life by what you want? Hold to what you believe," and "At first it can be very hard to accept how disappointing life is Harper. But that is what it is and you have to accept it," don't set new levels for deep observation.

Given the opportunity I think I could edit this series into a movie that would impress me, but as it is there is too much that either left me cold or flew over my head.

So close, and yet, so far.

[zmwalter · 1/10 · 3 October 2007]

Okay then.

Was the play groundbreaking? Yes. Skilfully done? Let's say so. A labor of love better achieved than abandoned? I'll give it that. A watchable piece of cinema? Not hardly. And if you must try, for the love of all you consider holy, take it in small doses. Trying to watch the whole thing, even in only two sittings, is torture. Do yourself a favor, and do not more than an hour at a time.

Look, the cast is fantastic (who doesn't love Mary-Louise Parker?), and the performances are quite good. But this piece can't decide whether it's a serious work meant to break ground, or if it's a soapbox from which to shout "We're here, we're Queer, get used to it!" Exhibit A is the "conflict" between the two AIDS patients. Justin Kirk's Prior Walter fulfills the now-tiresome role of the AIDS-ridden saint, complete with hipster irony and "wit". Al Pacino's Cohn is, well, Pacino, but he seems to embody the self-hating homosexual without being an effective foil for Prior. As a result, the film (and the play on which it's based) comes off as preachy and smarmy. AIDS is bad, but having it doesn't make you a saint (hear that, "RENT"?).

Look, I came into this hoping to be blown away. Emma Thompson and Meryl Streep are, as expected, brilliant, and Parker's utterly human performance just builds my enormous crush on her. But come on. I don't want to be preached at. And that's unfortunately, that's what this series does best.

shocked

[amleb · 4 March 2005]

I am by far the youngest to submit a comment about "Angels in America" and I must say that all the negative comments are ridiculous. I have never been so moved by a film since I watched "David and Lisa." The acting was superb and the script was beyond beautiful. I can not for the LIFE of me understand why people would be offended by the film. With all the homosexuality aside, the direction, cinematography, and writing has been the best that I have seen to EVER come out of HBO let alone a Miniseries. Why can't any of you who hated the movie so much step back and appreciate it for what it really is, a great piece of art.

"Angels in America" was inspiring, touching, and beautiful and I wish they made it longer!

Understand the message.

[dennisjlee · 10/10 · 15 December 2003]

I am a gay white male with HIV, an ex-Mormon in Salt Lake City. I understand "Angels in America" and believe it deserves all the acclaim it has and will still receive. It was important when it was written and is just as important and applicable now. I have seen both shows on stage and on HBO. I actually liked the film better because it portrayed the "fantasia" aspect the playwright included in his complete title. Yes, there are those who did not care for it for one reason or another (or many). To those who did not like it or understand the message: you probably never will... There are those who see and appreciate it as a work of art and I am glad I had the opportunity to experience it.

Angels in America, a great example of directing

[tommyspin · 10/10 · 25 June 2005]

Angels in America is an incredible example on how to adapt a play for the screen. Nothing is left behind and director Mike Nichols makes sure to get the best from each department. His great knowledge of cinema helped him to take advantage of all the qualities of this beautiful play. The way the story is told, the way characters are portrayed, the stunning editing just make this mini series a must see, something you cannot miss out. Moreover it is better than an acting class watching Maryl Streep, Al Pacino, Emma Thompson, Mary Louise Parker give life to more than one character each, changing their voices, posture, actions in a way a few actors can do. They are so well directed they just follow their actions and reveal the fantastic side of the play, where the imaginary world mixes with hard reality. There is no objective explanation for the angels coming to the earth, the audience has to find a reason, in the heart. As actors, filmmakers, director of photography you'll simply find this movie a great example on how to work properly, and that assuming that tvmovies are always bad is simply a commonplace, it's just a matter of doing your job well.

Believe the Hype, it's Breathtaking!

[mcdcbear · 10/10 · 9 December 2003]

I saw a pre-screening of this and was trying to keep low expectations, due to all the surrounding hype. But it certainly lived up to all the acclaim, the expectations from such high-caliber actors, and the myriad of awards (Tony's, Pulitzer, etc.) that the play received.

HBO has once again backed/produced a breakthrough piece of entertainment, on the same level (and maybe above) The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Wit, et. al. But it would be nice for the public to able to see this on the big screen, as it has such grandeur at times.

I won't go into too much detail of the plot as it's still being aired, but do yourself a favor and check it out. And contrary to some reviews, it is still relevant. Not because things are still the same now as they were in 1985 in regards to politics and AIDS and homophobia (although in some ways they are), but because humans still still struggle with relationships, pain, disease, death, religion and hope. It would be like saying "Schindler's List" isn't relevant today because the Holocaust is over and Hitler is dead.

Take the time to view this one of the several times HBO runs it. Give yourself time to watch it distraction-free and enjoy!

Brilliant writing complemented with equally brilliant acting

[dbracco86 · 10/10 · 21 September 2004]

A previous review outlines a list of reasons that if you agree with, you should NOT see this movie...scroll down and find those because I agree.

If you don't fall into those categories, however, treat yourself to this six hour master-class in film-making. This deserved every award it received, and more. It's a shame only one actor from each category can win. All of them, Meryl Streep, Al Pacino, Mary Louise Parker, Emma Thompson, Jeffrey Wright (personal favorite), Patrick Wilson, Ben Shankmen, and Justin Kirk all brought out the depths and layers to their characters. Many played more than one role, and each having their distinctive personality and delivering it flawlessly.

The dialogue is uncanny. Jeffrey Wright's delivery of this, if possible, even stands out among the superb cast. He emotes with his entire body the heart-piercing lines of truth, and if one keeps and opens mind, it can't help itself but manifest in your mind.

There are those that dislike the films for the reasons they have, but I believe that has less to do with the film itself and more on its message; that being said this film isn't for everyone. It's brutal honesty in words and images is far from censored, and that should be taken into account.

But for those with an open mind (and two open evenings to view the film's two three-hour parts), should allow themselves the privilege of viewing this masterpiece.

A piece of television greatness

[dsg29 · 10/10 · 17 March 2005]

It's a challenge to recapture the greatness and immediacy that made the theatrical production of Angels In America so incredible. This HBO presentation managed to do that and more. The script was nearly identical, the directing and performances were as good or better, and now HBO could bring in wonderful special effects where they were appropriate (the appearances of the Angel, Prior Walter's hallucinations and Harper's trip to Antarctica). This production of Angels earned its seven Emmy Awards, and could have had more. It's obvious that everyone who was part of this undertaking dedicated themselves to it wholeheartedly. There wasn't a single bad performance, and some scenes, most notably Louis' recitation of the Kaddish prayer with Ethel Rosenberg's assistance at Roy's bedside, made me laugh and cry simultaneously. Being Jewish and knowing the prayer and the culture around it certainly helped, but I'm confident the power of the scene worked no matter what faith or background the viewer came from.

Angels tackles profound and difficult issues such as AIDS, death, fear, persecution, bigotry and homophobia with a sensitive, unflinching seriousness (and more than a bit of humor) that people are often afraid to nowadays. Angels is every bit as relevant now as it was when it first premiered on stage. Tony Kushner's script is timeless, and I think one of the finest examples of writing, not just playwriting or screen writing, to have come along in the past 30 or 40 years. I think this version of Angels in America stands with Ken Burns' Civil War series as one of the highest quality and most important pieces of television programming ever created, by anyone, ever.

Don't just watch it once; buy the DVD and keep it, then watch it again. It's that good.

Absolutely riveting

[rtanys · 10/10 · 14 September 2004]

This one has it all! That may not be saying much for a story that takes over six hours to tell, but I have to admit, I could not tear myself away from it. It has suspense, tragedy, comedy, angst, inspiration, desperation, everything. I will be ordering it first thing in the morning. Exceptional performances by the entire cast, but you expect that from such high caliber talent like Pacino and Streep. I should say that I was very impressed by Justin Kirk's performance, since he got snubbed by some award nominating committee, which I thought was an insult since his performance had depth and dimension on a par with the rest of the cast. I was simply blown away by this story and if you haven't seen it, do so! Set aside enough time to get through the whole thing or you'll be climbing the walls waiting to see what happens next.

Intrinsically exciting, angry, funny, marvelous...

[moonspinner55 · 7/10 · 18 October 2005]

Mike Nichols directs Tony Kushner's nearly 6-hour adaptation of his award-winning play like a man possessed: this miniseries for HBO is unlike anything ever attempted for cable-TV. It is a fiery, hellbent, go-for-broke piece of work that is so visceral, so charged with adrenaline, that one may be apt to overlook the flaws in the play's conception (also the fact the characters aren't particularly likable). The film isn't pointed, and it isn't gripping in a focused way; Kushner's aim is to be explosive, to be dynamic and outrageous, and indeed there are some pretty amazing sequences here after an awkward start. While following a 1985/Reagan-era group of New Yorkers through passion, betrayal, sickness, delusion, rage, acceptance and death, we learn many complicated things about the human spirit--and beyond. "Angels" is masterfully done from a cinematic standpoint; however, I was hard-pressed to find anyone here I genuinely cared about (funniest is Meryl Streep's fabulous incarnation of a dislocated Mormon mother from Salt Lake City, who counteracts impertinence with persnickety impatience). Nichols delivers a great-looking work, but will it change lives? Will it rewrite perceptions? Probably not. Emotionally, it is stunted--and, though quite literate, somehow callow. 21 Emmy nominations with 11 wins. *** from ****

A true piece of art.

[xanadu2300 · 10/10 · 13 December 2003]

With technology becoming more available to the masses, it seems that the motion picture industry has become saturated. In days of old, more care went into each piece of film that was used and the canvas was clean. The first films were adaptations of classic novels and short stories, followed closely by adaptations of hit plays. So much care went into the making of these movies that the greatest majority of them are now looked upon as art in the truest sense of the word. After the medium took firm hold, filmmakers started making original films that were not adapted from any other medium. There was so much room for growth. Because the tools of the filmmaker are becoming easier to obtain, and new technologies becoming cheaper and easier to produce, it seems now that everyone with an idea (good or bad) can make a movie. One doesn't often see a true piece of art in this medium today. Even though there are a plethora of awards shows that would lead one to believe otherwise, each with its own unending list of "Best Of" categories.

This movie is one of those rare gems that can sometimes show up in the industry. Every part of it is nothing short of genius. The acting is unparalleled. The cinematography is beautiful. The music is moving and emotional. And the story (based on the critically acclaimed play) is touching and enough to bring even the most hardened curmudgeon to laughter and tears.

The cast of this movie deserves every award that is undoubtedly coming to them in the following year. Especially Meryl Streep, who just keeps amazing me with each performance. She only seems to get better. Her portrayal of an elderly Jewish Rabbi had my senses reeling. She was incredible! If you haven't seen this movie, you are missing a piece of film history. HBO deserves recognition for having the courage to bring this to the screen (even if it is the small screen). This could have easily been bastardized by any other company, and condensed into a version that would have changed the pace of the work and ruined the emotional integrity of the piece. Instead, it was allowed to be adapted beautifully and with care given to the change in medium.

It is truly a wonderful piece of art.

three stories in one

[roedyg · 6/10 · 6 September 2006]

This is a miniseries that takes 6 hours. It is too grueling and depressing to watch all of a piece. There are three interwoven stories:

1. the disgusting, greedy, empty life philosophy of Roy Cohn, a real life Washington lawyer and corrupter of government.

2. a young Mormon couple where the husband is a closeted gay and what havoc his secrecy and lies create for everyone.

3. a gay couple about 30 where one partner contracts AIDS and his lover abandons him unable to deal with it.

AIDS dementia and drugs causes some of the characters to hallucinate ghosts and angels in spectacular special effects. These fiery angels don't behave like the gooey "Touched By An Angel" type.

Most of the characters are all incredibly immature and selfish and don't ever seem to learn from their mistakes. They are whiny and self-pitying. Belize, the camp male nurse, and Hannah Pitt, the Mormon mother, gradually shepherd their flock to sanity.

Meryl Streep plays many different roles including one role you would never guess in 1000 years until you see the credits.

As a gay man who has lived with AIDS since 1985, and lost most of my friends to it, much of the dialog did not ring true. I am surprised that Mike Nichols did not ensure it was more authentic. Treat it is a theatrical piece of the imagination rather than a realistic portrayal of what is is like to sicken and die of HIV or how gays relate to each other.

Was I watching a different show?

[anne40 · 2/10 · 8 February 2021]

This was recently reshown on Sky and given the reviews and the cast I was looking forward to a good binge watch. I've sat through some rubbish in my time but this was absolute garbage, I persevered thinking it must surely improve but it went from bad to worse. There is not one likable character (Belize is the best, most believable) and what could have been a decent storyline is just lost amidst chaos, confusion and nonsense. Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep, Al Pacino - what on Earth were you thinking. Give it a miss, it's 6 hours you'll never get back