Angel (2005 TV Movie) User Reviews (11)

Where the Parts are Greater than the Whole

[gradyharp · 5/10 · 11 November 2006]

ANGEL RODRIGUEZ is yet another story of a kid whose innate talents and intelligence are misguided until he comes Under the influence of a caring adult, able to share her own vulnerabilities allowing the two to grow into stronger people. At least it seems that is what this little short and rather flimsy film is trying to say. The script is so lean and the attempt to develop characters who are understandable in their own light in order for us to care about the plot line of 'redemption' just doesn't support the film. This is a case where the actors are so fine that they are able to fill in the gaping cracks in the script well enough to maintain our attention, our concern, for the duration of the film.

Jonan Everett, making his strong film debut, is that kind of understated actor whose presence rings true and this presence makes us care about a kid whose actions should repulse us at times. His 'Angel' is a bright young talented kid who longs for something more then the hand he has been dealt. His friends, especially the gender bending Jamie (Jon Norman Schneider) is another newcomer to watch. The camera loves him and it seems there is enough latent talent to make him a fine little character actor. Much the same can be said for his other computer geek friend Raymond (Wallace Little). But the strength of the production is secured whenever the talented Rachel Griffiths (Nicole - the social worker) enters the story. Though we are given little from the script to help us organize her motivations, Griffiths' power as an actress overcomes the hurdles.

Writer/director Jim McKay has done better work in the past: Everyday People, Our Song, Girls Town, and some TV show episodes. He gives us the feeling that he understands the underbelly of the big cities and probably with the next film he will have learned from ANGEL RODRIGUEZ a few pointers to help him correct the deficiencies here. Grady Harp

A movie that takes you on a ride to nowhere

[Killakai · 6/10 · 11 March 2007]

This had the potential to be something. Its the cliché about the white teacher/social worker who saves the troubled inner-city teen/s. There have been enough films made with this theme for it to be its own genre. Having said that, this film captures you. The acting is superb and you watch the film trying to figure out the back story behind angel.

Angels friend is a transsexual or transvestite or something, who seems like a love interest at one point, and then at another point you aren't sure if Angel just hangs out with him because he is also a social outcast.

Angel doesn't seem like a bad kid, but he does bad things. He steals from a social worker who lets him stay in her house, he almost strangles his step mother to death, and yet you still like the kid and root for him. he put a human face on a troubled inner-city kid, it is difficult not to like him.

Having this great setup and these developed characters, and a plot with so much potential, nothing happens. Its like getting in your car on a trip towards a destination and then veering off the road into nowhere, after you are 3/4ths of the way there.

There are millions of unanswered questions in this? Does the social worker find out Angel Stole from her and how does she react, does she still support him, does it change her? Does his step mom call the police after he nearly kills her? Is Angel gay, and afraid to confront his sexuality or is he just hanging out with the only kids who will befriend him, even if they are gay?

I had no problem with the movie ending with him finding a job if the above questions are answered, but it is just bad to have a movie have this many HUGE loose ends.

Finding a job means nothing if the police are gonna lock you up for almost killing your step mother?

I still intensely watched the whole thing, I wanted it to develop but it just didn't.

One other annoying thing about the movie is the shots lasted too long. There was more than one occasion where we watch a scene and NOTHING is happening for like 30 seconds. that is an eternity in film, the director could have used that time to tie up some of the movie's loose ends.

I still give it a 6 because its good enough to make me watch it to the end.

This movie went NOWHERE!

[tsboyscplus · 3/10 · 2 November 2006]

WOW!

This was a waste of film i mean i look at the previews an d thought this movie was going 2 great! Boy was i wrong , the only thing good this movie did was pay attention to details, every tiny , obscure detail until u just loss focus. It had a hardly any character development and had plot at all , just a lot of random scenes put together to make an 87 minute film . my Advice if is for anyone suffering from insomnia , THIS MOVIE WILL PUT YOU 2 SLEEP! Also The acting was a little off but with a plot like this easy to fall out of character

Movies need a script

[KM_391 · 1/10 · 2 June 2007]

I'm not one to trash other people's movies, but I make an exception when they waste an hour and a quarter of my time and return NOTHING. I'll try to be nice and say that the actors are all good, because they are, but there's no story here! Angel's father kicked him out. That's it - no need to see the movie because not much else happens. The only thing that holds your attention through any given scene is trying to figure out what the hell is going on. I spent 5 to 8 minutes at the start of each too-long scene just trying to figure out who the characters were and why they were talking to each other. Right around the time I get a clue, the scene is over and we're on to some other bit of pointless confusion. With dozens of great independent films being made (and ignored) every year, how does garbage like THIS get on HBO?

Wasted an hour and a half of my life that I will never get back!

[jdwj2006 · 1/10 · 27 August 2007]

I only write this review to help all who are confused by what to do with your life. You can do anything you want to... except make trash like this and call it a film. Yes it was recorded on film, but that does not give you the right to claim it is a film project. Sorry if you actors who played in it ever read this, but, it was worse than horrible. This so called "movie" took a story that should have taken 3 minutes to tell, and stretched it out into 1hr and a half off scenes that were way too long. As a matter of fact, it made me wonder if half way through the first scene of this piece of ****, if the editor got sick of watching it and quit his job. There is a rule about no spoilers in these comments.... something would have had to happen in the "movie" for me to spoil. In fact... the only thing that was spoiled was the food in my stomach. It literally made me sick watching this. I am not exaggerating!!! When it finally ended, I thought I was going to have to take a knife and stab myself in the stomach to make the pain stop. I was filled with disgust and hated the human race for allowing this to even be seen by human eyes. It was pure torture. The only reason to watch it is to see how bad it really is. There were only two good things about this movie.... 1) it shows real film makers what not to do ever... and 2) it ended. I read a comment earlier about this movie being great because it was realistic and did not make up some crazy fantastical ending. First of all, no one has a life that is this boring and pointless. If you do... watch this movie so you can slice your wrist open with butter knife. You will wish you have not had to watch the "movie" to do it. Sorry people. This movie had absolutely no artistic merit. Do not mistake this for a "movie". It is a time machine that will fast forward you to the point in your life where you will want to die for making the mistake of watching it. Even after you have read all of this... if you have not seen it.... the curiosity will get the better of some of you... and you will watch it to see how bad it really is. To those of you who watch it after this.... you might want to prepare yourself ahead of time. Get a puke bucket, and the sharpest butter knife in the kitchen. Thanx for letting me rant and rave. Don't watch it. It will save your life. Now thats a review. Whew!!!

My problem with this movie is Angel Rodriguez

[lintriago-1 · 7/10 · 8 April 2007]

I wanted to love this movie. I really did. I was engaged until the very end but, like so many others, was disappointed. So many questions unanswered. My problem with this film is that I did not find the character of Angel likable. I did until he stuck a bag over his father's girlfriend's head. No matter what sort of dysfunctional life this kid has, attempted murder isn't justifiable. Subsequently, he goes to Nicole's apartment and steals from her. This woman who has put herself out on a limb, risked her job and opened her home to help this kid. Then later on he throws his gay friend up against the wall for flirting with him. He's a troubled youth and we're supposed to feel for Angel in spite of the people he hurts. Well, I felt more for Nicole, than Angel and for me that was the problem with this film.

what a piece

[greysun-47537 · 3/10 · 11 July 2017]

I wanted to like this movie. The acting was not bad, the story was okay but scattered and in the end didn't go anywhere. This was a day in the life of a kid who has it rough but it was missing the standard story arc that makes most movies satisfying. This was just depressing and inconclusive. I wish I could have my time back.

Runaway

[jotix100 · 8/10 · 3 November 2006]

Jim McKay, a director we have admired from his previous work, is back with a new film about a problem teen ager in Brooklyn. This interesting account about an inner city young man trying to cope with what life has given him, was shown recently on HBO. It is surprising it didn't get a commercial run. After all, Mr. McKay clearly understands the people he presents us in this surprisingly gritty film, and deserves better.

Mr. McKay, whose excellent movie, "Our Song", was a joy to watch, follows with "Angel Rodriguez", a more introspective work, which might be perceived as not in the same category as his previous work, but those who think so, might be the losers by dismissing this new picture. The new movie is more ambitious in many ways.

We are given a situation about a sensitive teen ager who is taken into the home of the kindly Nicole, a social worker that has been helping Angel. In spite of being a computer expert, Angel doesn't take advantage of this change in his life. He has been evicted out of his house by his father. Instead of renouncing to his bad ways, Angel goes back to doing the same thing. His friend Raymond, a boy that is into computer games, and the young transvestite, Jamie, figure prominently in the story.

Nicole, who has her own problems, confesses to Angel she is expecting a baby. Angel feels as though she will be abandoning him, but she reassures him she'll work until almost the end, although she is beginning to feels the effect of her pregnancy. Nicole also is having her own problems with her family. Having the young boy at home poses a challenge for her.

This production was blessed by the presence of Rachel Griffiths, one of the best actresses working today. Her Nicole shows vulnerability and questions herself as she is preparing to bring her own baby to the world. Jonan Everett makes a good impression as Angel, the confused youth at a crossroads in his life.

Jim McKay has to be congratulated for his courage in showing every day people dealing with every day problems in a film that will not disappoint.

For fans of Cassavetes and the Dardenne bros.

[crookedraincrookedrain · 10/10 · 16 November 2006]

Jim McKay is making movies unlike most American directors. Sure, they're small productions, and they're not playing at theater chains in the Midwest, but they have more heart and represent real life more than any other American auteur I've seen in a while.

It's a story about a troubled teen, Angel Rodriguez, and the social worker who gives him a chance. The story, however, doesn't make ridiculous leaps; it doesn't form an unrealistic bond between a grown woman and an inner-city boy. It's honest, and it's real. Their relationship is just a spring board into their characters, as we watch them independent from one another for the majority of the movie. THIS IS NOT ANOTHER DREADFUL COMING-OF-AGE MOVIE. Shot on location, great hand-held cinematography, and incredible performances from unknown actors (except for the six feet under woman, of course).

For fans of "Love Streams", "The Son" (le fils), "Il Posto", "George Washington", "Assisted Living", "Raising Victor Vargas", and, of course, "Everyday People" and "Our Song".

Terrible and pointless movie

[redsand-46736 · 24 August 2021]

This movie is so bad and poimtless that I actually signed up here just to vent about how bad this movie is. What a waste of an hour plus of my time. If my 10 year old scribbled something randomly it would make a much better movie than this. What is twice as unbelievable is how such a bad and storyless movie can be on a paid service like HBO MAX.

I agree with WateerFountain...This movie had heart and a real understanding of its characters.

[newyorktalk · 21 January 2007]

"Jim McKay is making movies unlike most American directors. Sure, they're small productions, and they're not playing at theater chains in the Midwest, but they have more heart and represent real life more than any other American auteur I've seen in a while. "

• WaterFountain.

Well said. I heartily agree.

Those who didn't like this film should stick with the DieHards, Terminator III's and other assorted in your face, hero's are right, plot point driven drivel that they are used to and NOT come on here to discourage those who just MIGHT be interested in authentic, no delusions, no manipulations, perceptive works of art like this...from seeing it.

Oh and btw, ANNA SIMPSON is HOT.