With practically no resemblance to the 1955 Humphrey Bogart movie (nor to the play it was adapted from), film-buffs might find themselves perplexed as how to take this remake: two convicts escape prison and find themselves in a border town disguised as priests. What could be formulaic actually has some grit and ambiance to go along with its slapstick. Demi Moore, as a single mother of ill repute, gives one of her best performances and works very well with Robert De Niro, who takes a while to warm up (he's not a mugger, but is encouraged in that direction by director Neil Jordan). Sean Penn, on the other hand, never quite finds his way here, using a thick accent which is mildly irritating. Much better is John C. Reilly in a fantastic supporting bit as a novice priest who worships Penn, and there's a cute little girl in the movie who never acts like a movie kid (she's a natural). Lots of surprises in this critically-lambasted comedy, not the least of which is an extremely moving finale involving a waterfall and a holy statue. **1/2 from ****
Add a Review
-
We're No Angels,First-Viewing, owned VHS,(Neil Jordan)- Robert DeNiro, Sean Penn, Demi Moore, John C. Reily, Bruno Kirby, James Russo
An interesting comedy starring two very talented actors. This is the first comedy role I've seen DeNiro in prior to his 90s comedies (analyze this, meet the parents, etc ). DeNiro and Penn play escaped convicts who disguise themselves in a small town. Although DeNiro is great, and in certain scenes definitely shows his superiority as an actor, Penn overall gives the better performance. With a more complex character, yet simple (he is very simple-minded, but a complex character), his performance is very good. Although Demi Moore really didn't have a big role, she was convincing as a local woman in the small town. John C. Reily, once again gives a good performance, in a similar role to that of his in 'Casualties of War'. Overall a good film for laughs and well done by the director and screenwriter. Thought the acting was the highlight, and had some very funny scenes. 8/10 -
The most enchanting thing this comedy has to offer is the cast—the performers (De Niro, Penn and Mrs. Moore) make very good roles.
De Niro got an opportunity here to cultivate his already obnoxious screen persona as a nervous, jumpy, sharp and (at least verbally) violent character, of copious irascibility; his interactions with Mgr Nogulich are delightful, when De Niro threatens him and wins his place in the procession. Penn shines at times; his festive sermon, the 'empty pocket sermon', is a bit disappointing, but that's the script.
Mrs. Moore is the courageous, loudmouthed and no—nonsense prostitute.
The touches of mysticism belong to the pop religiosity and ready—made sentimentalism (De Niro reaching to Mary in the waterfall; or the previous miracles, with the shoes and the tears), but nevertheless the comedy is never offensive; as you know, the comedy is a remake, so I credit the older script for taking this mild view of the religious life. I also liked the fact that WE'RE NO ANGELS is an amusement, not meant to be 'relevant' in any other way—merely a snappy comedy. The pace is everything, otherwise the characters are wholly _bidimensional and conventional. -
fdbjr13 December 2008Everyone knows what a black comedy is. But is there is such a thing as a white comedy? I think so, and I think this is one of them. In the same way that '21 Grams' works a fairly serious portrayal of a crisis of faith into a tense melodramatic thriller, 'We're No Angels' actually masks some serious thoughtfulness about the importance of faith and hope into a decently funny comedy of mistaken identity. It also illustrates concretely the truth of C.S. Lewis's famous dictum (from the Screwtape Letters)that all men become what they are pretending to be.
The movie is very plotty and all the loose points neatly wrapped up. What a lot of the critics have missed is that all of the jokes are thematic, and tied to the central topics of the movie.
I am not at all conventionally religious, but I do appreciate faith, and I liked this movie quite a bit. -
PredragReviews6 April 2017"We're No Angels" is a movie made for those faces, and one of the pleasures of watching the film is to see them looking sidelong at each other as they try to figure a way out of the complicated mess they're in. The movie has a lot of other good stuff to look at (including dramatic period locations in a small Canadian town) and to listen to (dialogue by David Mamet), but I can think of no other recent movie in which so much of the pleasure lies in watching the expressions on the faces of the actors - especially when they're reacting, not talking. Mamet and Neil Jordan, who directed the movie, wisely remember the most important thing about any mistaken- identity comedy: The fact that someone's identity is mistaken is not always funny even the first time and rarely thereafter. Movies that depend on mistaken identities for their laughs are among the slowest, dreariest slogs through cinema.
Too bad that the film came out to be both simplistic and ordinary despite of the talent involved especially when it features De Niro and Penn,two of the best actors in Hollywood; and Jordan,one of the finest director of the industry.There were a lot of boring moments.Also,it just turned out to be somewhat corny and provides minimal laughter in a lot of scenes.Overall,it was definitely a misfire from the cast and the director involved as it does not live up to its potential.
Overall rating: 6 out of 10. -
callanvass8 March 2010We're No Angels is pleasant I'll say that much. It often left me with a smile on my face, but it never had me laughing out loud. DeNiro and Penn do great work together, having very good chemistry with one another, and it took a risk by going over the line, but managed to keep it amusing and fun. It moves along at a decent clip, with an extremely good opening of Bobby|Russo|, Ned|DeNiro| and Jim|Penn| escaping from prison, it was funny and very exciting. This is also the 1st movie we get to see the potential of John C. Reilly's comedic ability, his bumbling Monk persona often made me chuckle.
Performances. Robert Deniro is quite humorous and amusing here. I laughed at the way he got annoyed with Demi Moore's character, or his silly little prayers to get out of trouble, he was a lot of fun. Sean Penn surprised me by giving a decent performance. He was amusing, and added a lot of fun. Demi Moore is not bad as the out spoken Mom. She had her moments to be sure. James Russo is amusing as Bobby, he had good chemistry with Deniro and Penn.
Bottom line. This is quite pleasant and passed the time nicely. I would never consider it a milestone in either's career, but it's certainly a decent movie. Worth the watch.
6/10 -
Pamsanalyst5 July 2005Once we are past the opening scenes set in what seems to be a coal mine doubling as a prison, this film can be enjoyed as a fable. Many films should be prefaced with the phrase 'once upon a time' and this one is no exception. Producer DeNiro could not get Stan and Ollie so he put himself in the latter role, and chose Penn for the part of Laurel. We keep expecting to see Penn break out into Laurelish tears at any moment, and it is only the sound of the water that prevents us from hearing DeNiro shouting "whooaaaaaaa" as he slides down the falls. And there are so many times I expected Ollie to swat Stanley, but it never happens.
Left to their mugging, my rating might be higher, but somehow inserting Demi into the mix spoils something. If the time were 1930, the little girl who plays a key role would have had a much older looking mother, or at least one who looked more bedraggled by her life in that wilderness.
Then the storyline takes a disastrous violent turn just after the statute seems to have produced another miracle. Such a scene worked in Some Like It Hot when the killer jumped out of the cake. Here it ruins the mood that is being set. Surely there was another way to get the girl into the water.
I have no problem, however, watching it again. -
gattonero97520 August 2012I was truly disappointed with this picture. De Niro and Penn were cast right . It was the way they played their characters that was "out of character" for them! They both underplayed their roles as dim-witted convicts and to me , that hurt the picture immensely. I'm so use to seeing them completely annihilate a role with their raw intensity that seeing them barely acting or acting not in their "norm", just ruined it for me.
Still it was great to see these two legends act together. Demi Moore as Molly was a little better. As a tough single-mom trying to make a living for her and her deaf-mute child. She over acted but it was okay. She was a little more believable than De Niro in their scenes. Had De Niro acted like he should have, he would have blown away Moore in their scenes. Another thing that for me didn't ring through was Moore's and De Niro's so-called chemistry. There wasn't any! No sparks, no nothing! A big yawn! So the ending does not ring through at all for me.
Hoyt Axton as Father Levesque was great casting. He looked the part and his scenes rang true with me. The late Bruno Kirby as a guilt-ridden deputy was a little amusing. Again I found it hard to believe he and Demi were "getting it on" It was more amusing to me to see Kirby and De Niro in the same scene and envisioned them from way back in The Godfather:Part 2(1974) as Young Corleone and young Clemenza.
The late Ray McNally, who by the way this film is dedicated to in memory, did a great small role as the warden. He was intense and no BS in his pursuit of the escaped cons. James Russo as 'Bobby' the main bad-guy convict was brilliant. He oozed evil personified. Reminded me of James Remar's Ganz from 48Hrs (1982) Yes he over acted but it was necessary since both De Niro & Penn were so underplaying it.
And last but least, Wallace Shawn as the translator and John C. Reilly as the young monk entranced and impressed with Penn's 'Father Brown', were excellent. So all in all these bit character actors made the film better than the main stars! What a shame because had Sean and Robert act the way they naturally do, they would have blown away everyone and stolen the picture. Oh well...there is always the original with Bogart,Ray and Ustinov. -
Shopaholic352 February 2014This movie was painful to watch. I'm not sure if it is just because it hasn't aged well but seriously I have never been so disappointed in a movie choice from Robert De Niro or Sean Penn until this moment. And also it was supposed to be a comedy. I thought I was in for an old-time laugh out loud comedy but not so; I didn't laugh once through the entire thing.
It looks like from the other comments that the only people who enjoyed this movie have some sort of religious affiliation or belief. To me that is not good enough. A movie with religious ties does not automatically make it a good movie, a solid script, plot, cast and crew make it a good movie.
Final recommendation: You have been warned, this movie is terrible and not worth your time. -
alexander.stroeck4 September 2002Although this is a below average DeNiro performance I enjoyed the movie. DeNiro is a jewel even if he stucks a little in some wooden stereotype comedy gestures. Still it's a very good 6/10 - I smiled most of the time.
-
The_Movie_Cat31 March 2008Sadly, said lines are a quote from the film, and not anything anyone has actually ever said about this comedy.
With a regular run of comedic roles in the 90s it seemed as if De Niro was taking a dramatic shift away from his regular persona. However, it's easy to overlook the fact that six of his first ten pictures were comedies, often so-so farces like The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
After reaching his zenith as an actor and performing his most famous roles (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Deer Hunter et al) it was the dark comedies of The King of Comedy and Brazil that led him back into the genre. The decent but unremarkable Midnight Run followed, then this.
We're No Angels has a title reminiscent of some Cagneyesque piece (indeed, it was based on a play and previously made in 1955 with Bogart) yet also sounds like the kind of vehicle you could imagine Laurel and Hardy starring in. Fittingly, it's set in the 1930s and Penn's simple-minded expressions, especially in the final scene, are almost Laurelesque. But even Laurel and Hardy couldn't string an amusing feature-length picture out of two escaped convicts (as the less than great Pardon Us would attest) so De Niro and Penn are on a hiding to nothing.
We're No Angels is well acted, well directed and pretty well written. But it's a comedy with no laughs. A dramady, if you will. Yet after years of reading about this as De Niro's nadir, then... it's not that bad. Sure, he does mug a little too often in the vague approximation of a "comic" performance, but never enough to really grate. It's charming at times, engaging at others, and all the cast work well. Just don't expect to crack your face. -
abjazz_ro5 January 2006Well, ask me why this movie has such a poor rating. Or maybe don't ask me, because I have no answer. The movie is just great. The acting is perfect for this script, DeNiro and Penn are so funny and also serious when is needed. Why such a poor rating ? Maybe because people are not so funny as they were once. For the people of our days a comedy is something like Scary Movie or a movie that makes you laugh every minute because of something stupid. But "We're No Angels" is funny, is romantic, is serious, is educative, is simply GREAT MOVIE. You have to watch it with an innocent eye, you must enjoy the movie. Don't look at it with a critical eye. That's not good for the entertainment. Just watch it to relax and to feel good. It deserves it. And you also deserve it.
-
mark.waltz20 August 2022For the most part, this is a very enjoyable variation of the play that was already in 1955 movie, greatly altered for this 1989 film. Instead of a general store, escaped convicts Robert de Niro and Sean Penn are hiding out as priests in a border town Catholic diocese residence. They're mistaken for two priests who seem to have lost their way, and while the search is on for them as escaped convicts, they turn the diocese upside down and attract the attention of the town pariah, Demi Moore.
I was glad to see a major contribution in the performance of stage and TV veteran Elizabeth Lawrence as the tough older woman who gives them a ride into town after she hits a deer. She's always a treat to see, best known as Palmer Cortlandt's Mrs. Danvers like housekeeper Mrs. Murdoch on "All My Children", on a break from that role when she filmed this. There's also Wallace Shawn as the translator for a visiting cardinal, John C. Reilly as a monk and Bruno Kirby as the local deputy guarding the bridge for the convicts and fooled by Penn and DeNiro being identified as priests.
The film has a few moments where it seems to go off kilter for a little while, but always finds its way back. The performances by DeNiro and Penn are completely different than anything else I've seen them do before, with DeNiro doing some hysterically funny facial contortions and Penn a character with a big heart acting like an overgrown Bowery Boy. His sermon near the end is actually quite touching and does seem like something his character would orate. Director Neil Jordan and screenwriter David Mamet made some wise choices in updating this (still a period film) and keeping it light yet inspiring. -
cmrea15 May 2013This movie is downright awful! It has what could be argued as a great cast, but everything about this film is painfully horrible. I can't believe DeNiro and Penn made this movie. Either the director is at fault for creating this mess, or the actors blew it. You'd think actors of their caliber might have managed to save this film, but DeNiro, especially, sunk it. DeNiro plays himself, badly. In fact, the more I see of DeNiro lately, the more I wonder about his true acting ability. Was Raging Bull a fluke? He's really picked some dogs the past 10-15 years, which is a shame. Sean Penn is pretty much in the same boat. Don't even get me started on Demi Moore. I've seen better acting in 4th- grade school plays. Take my advice and ave a couple hours of your life and pass on this movie.
-
Michael_Elliott6 March 2009We're No Angels (1989)
*** (out of 4)
Remake of the 1955 film has Robert DeNiro and Sean Penn playing escaped convicts who hide out as priests in a small town where they try to sneak across the border into Canada. Most of the reviews you read for this film will probably be negative but I've always enjoyed what the movie has to offer even though there's no way of denying that it could have and should have been a lot better than it turned out. I think the biggest problem with the film is the direction of Jordan who just wasn't right for the material. This is suppose to be a comedy yet you wouldn't know it because Jordan handles the material so dark that it's rather hard to get many laughs. We've get some rather strong tones on religion and even some strong violence, which just doesn't sit too well in a comedy. Even the entire atmosphere of the film is rather dark, which is a staple of Jordan but again, that wasn't really needed in this film. What does work are the performances by DeNiro and Penn who are excellent together. Playing dumb is never an easy thing but both men pull this off remarkably well, which is very important since most of the laughs come from them not understanding anything to do with religion yet they're suppose to be priests. The two men's facial expressions is what works the best because the look on their faces when they're put on the spot are just flawless as is their constant begging and pleading for various things throughout the movie. Demi Moore has a supporting role, which brings in more darkness that really isn't needed but Bruno Kirby and John C. Reilly turn in nice supporting performances with Reilly really standing out as another priest obsessed with Penn. The laughs throughout the film are certainly minor but to me the film still works well thanks to the terrific performances. You really don't expect to see DeNiro and Penn in a movie like this but they both pull it off very well and make it worth viewing. -
SnoopyStyle11 December 2019It's 1935. Ned (Robert De Niro) and Jim (Sean Penn) are friendly cellmates in Black Ridge State Penitentiary near the Canadian border. Jim is beaten by the sadistic warden for talking. Ruthless killer Bobby escapes from his execution and forces them to help him escape the prison. On the run, the guys are mistaken for priests by Mrs. Blair. They are desperate to cross the border but are forced to stay at the monastery with the search party nearby led by a deputy (Bruno Kirby). They pretend to be Father Brown and Father Riley. Single mom Molly (Demi Moore) is willing to sleep with men for $5.
This seems to be a screwball comedy struggling with some serious material and a darker tone. Neil Jordan is a good director and he should be able to make this work. De Niro is trying to be bumbling. The jokes rarely succeed. There are aspects which suppress the light humor. The setting has more in common with Popeye. People die right from the beginning. Demi Moore is too young for De Niro. As a comedy, it doesn't have enough laughs. It would help if their crimes are proclaim to be something non-violent. They need to be somebody whom we want to escape. It's interesting. -
view_and_review13 March 2020Ned (Robert De Niro) and Jim (Sean Penn) break out of prison rather haphazardly. They were forced to go along with another inmate, Bobby (James Russo), as he shot his way out of Blackridge Prison. Once out they were determined not to go back. If only they could cross the border into Canada they'd be home free. In the meantime they had to lay low and pretend to be priests to avoid detection.
"We're No Angels" is a fair-to-middling movie. There were a couple of laughs and a tad bit of suspense as Ned and Jim tried to elude their captors. De Niro was funnier than I expected while Penn rehashed the annoying Brooklyn accent he donned in "Casualties of War." -
Spazman29 November 2004People talk about seeing a film and never being able to get that time back. This is one of those movies. If I didn't know better I would say that DeNiro and Penn were deliberately doing bad acting. DeNiro's face is frozen in a mock grimace the whole film is seems like. Demi Moore's character has no decernable character. It is half developed at best. If I had to guess I would say that the actors lost a bet and had to appear in this film. Then I learn that DeNiro produced it. I don't know how these can be the two Oscar winners I know and love (DeNiro for Godfather 2 and Penn for Mystic River) So what kind of film is this really? Is it a comedy? No...it's not funny. Is it a drama...No! It has no suspense. Is it a waste of time for who ever sees it....YES!!!!
-
trailfiasco26 March 2005I was aghast at and distracted by the over the top mannerisms of both DeNiro and Penn in the staring roles. I know that this was supposed to be a comedy/drama, but all that head bobbing was too much. Not that all of the other roles were something to write home about. The priests and monks were caricatures as were the warden and his bunch of deputies. Demi Moore added little but a gratuitous nude scene and a lot of senseless yelling. The ending was a predictable mix of worldly and spiritual resolution, but most interesting to me would be what happens after the end of the movie when all the secrets are uncovered between Demi and DeNiro. Why did I watch it if it bothered me that much? Well, my wife liked it because of the religious underpinnings and sentimentality. I guess between the two of us it averaged a 5 just like the overall rating.
-
dvision238 July 2003I just saw this film again after not seeing it for over a decade. For all you who are wondering... is it good? is it bad? I have this to say. Excellent cast. Excellent castING. One of Demi Moore's best (yet small) roles (I'm not a big fan of hers.) Great script (Mamet). Great score. High quality filmmaking. They don't make them like this anymore, really. If you don't agree that its a very clever, dry-witted film, then, oh well. That's what makes the world go round. 9/10.
-
More of a question really. Why did De Niro's head keep constantly bobbing around like that while he pulled the old sniffing Mafia Face? did that appeal to anyone out there? it irritated me immensely. Have to score the film low as I couldn't see any finer points as his head kept bobbing around and distracting all else. Penn's Performance seemed sound from what i could see through my red mist and basically saved the film, he also resisted from picking up this head bobbing method under immense pressure to do so, I wasn't so lucky for three days i couldn't keep it still. I wonder did the Director suffer from Star Fright as any other Director would have said something on the first take, like 'Mr De Niro why are you bobbing your head like that? are you OK?'
-
fan-1725 July 1999I always look for the beginning choices of an actor,Demi Moore stays constant in her choice of roles(outsider),Sean Penn with his usual dichotomy of hard guy/softie and De Niro himself but with a twist of humour.I enjoyed the epoch and the guilt and penitance idea of choices we make in life.I just liked the film and I could see a few times Demi Moore trying to keep a straight face which made me laugh.
-
jvddoes25 May 2002This movie is shocking: it drains a huge amount of talent (Moore, Penn!, De Niro!!) in a stale non-story.
Moore acts as a single, prostetuting herself to make some money for her ill child. Although the decision to take part in this film must have given her the proper mindset, one is left with the impression that Demi got stuck in her first attempt.
Penn is a bit like Stan, but only a bit.
De Niro seems to have thought that making faces and funny gestures should be enough for a comedy; it isn't.
Why do people participate in a film like this? I can think of no rea$on. It's a waste of time. Of life. It's a sin! -
Latheman-926 March 2003Robert De Niro, Sean Penn, David Mamet, and Neil Jordan combine their considerable talents to produce this sorry little mess of a film. While the plot has terrific potential to be a good comedy, very little actually works here. There were perhaps two occasions when I actually laughed, and the rest of the time I wore a wan smile waiting for the humor to begin in earnest. It never did. De Niro should stick to dramas, because he does not have, has never had, and never will have what it takes to be a good comedic actor. His primary contribution in "We're No Angels" is to mug for the camera to an extent that would make Lucille Ball embarrassed. Sean Penn is little better, using a wide-eyed, lost-little-boy expression throughout the film in an attempt to convey his character's wise-simpleton persona. Demi Moore can't act -- period. The characters played by Wallace Shawn and Ken Buhay are completely superfluous to the story, and so on. Ray McAnally and John C. Reilly provide nice turns as the prison warden and naive young monk, respectively, but they're not enough to save this production. This film is a low point in the careers of both screenwriter Mamet and director Jordan, and that is a bad combination. Rating: 4/10.
-
MovieAddict201620 March 2004Some movies become forgotten over the years, and "We're No Angels" is one of them. It's not a great comedy, but it's not a bad one, either. It's far more serious and moralistic than I had ever imagined, and Robert De Niro and Sean Penn essentially run around posing funny faces for the camera throughout, whilst the Catholic religion is used as a structural backdrop. It's a very different sort of role for De Niro, whose comedy is usually a bit more sophisticated. Here he barely talks at all, and when he does, it's usually harsh barking or screaming or frustrated whispers. It's not De Niro's most memorable role but it's certainly an unusual one.
A lot of the movie focuses on mishaps and misconceptions, as all of the movies from this genre do. It bears resemblance to last year's "School of Rock," about a loser who was mistaken for a teacher. This time the loser is equal to a pair of two escaped convicts and the teacher position is likewise that of priests.
The story all begins with Ned (De Niro) and Jimmy (Penn) escaping from a northern jail circa 1930. After heading for the Canadian border, they find themselves pursued by a ruthless jail warden and a town of do-gooders. Luckily for the duo, right before they come to the Canadian border, they are mistaken for two long-lost Catholic priests, Fathers Brown (Penn) and O'Reilly (De Niro). After given an introduction to the area by a fellow priest (Hoyt Axton), they decide to hide out for a while using their new personas. No one would ever suspect a priest, right?
The problem is that Fathers Brown and O'Reilly are supposed to be two of the smartest priests alive, having written a controversial book about the true meaning of the chapter Revelations in the Bible. So you can imagine the fear that Jimmy experiences when he is asked to lead the church in a pray prior to a meal.
Meanwhile, the mandatory romance is inserted into the movie, using Demi Moore's single, rough, over-protective mother as the love angle for De Niro's character. Demi spits out an unconvincing northern accent, as De Niro stares at her a lot with critical eyes and tries to get her into bed. The romance is not necessary but it seems a lot more worthwhile than most of the romances in some of these films.
The movie is one of the most forgotten I have ever seen; I'd never really heard of it prior to purchasing the newly-issued DVD. But I figured De Niro and Penn couldn't be that bad, and I was right.
I think part of the reason so many people like to ignore it is that it doesn't poke fun at religion. It doesn't make the clergymen out to be strange idiots. Rather, it makes the two escaped convicts seem out-of-place in a heartwarming place. The spirituality affects Penn's character, Jimmy, and his final decision on the bridge that separates Canada from America is one that we have sensed was long coming since his fascination in the church grew.
De Niro and Penn have two of the best faces in Hollywood, and a movie like "We're No Angels" uses this to its advantage. Making up for the long gaps of laughter, the director, Neil Jordan, focuses more on his two lead actors and their reactions to situations. Most of the time throughout the film, De Niro shrugs his shoulders a lot and emits low, agreeable groans from his throat in response to questions, while Penn looks confused and bewildered. There's a great scene where an eager-to-please clergyman (John C. Reilly) asks "Father Brown" something about his book, and Penn sort of stares at him for a few moments with searching eyes, trying to find a way out of the situation.
For some reason, the mistaken identities setup has been a long-time fascination for Hollywood. Just look at "Some Like it Hot," "Tootsie," "Nuns on the Run," "Sister Act," "School of Rock," etc. I think it's because we can all relate to a lot of the situations that the characters go through, and a lot of the embarrassment they suffer. We like to watch them ease their way out of dangerous areas and lie through their teeth.
"We're No Angels" is one of the better examples of this formula executed quite well. It's not a terrific movie, but the actors are, and the script by David Mamet comes up with its own occasionally hilarious segments that make the movie uneven, but a lot more fun than you might expect. No, it's not great, but it's just funny -- and sweet -- enough to recommend.
3.5/5 stars.- John Ulmer