Michael (1996) User Reviews (135)

He is an angel, not a saint.

[flingebunt · 7/10 · 13 June 2005]

Angels are a bit of an American obsession, but are often rather boring. They are the messengers of God, and also the arc angels are great warriors (Lucifer being the toughest and best looking until he was kicked out of heaven).

So what happens if you don't believe in anything, let alone angels and you are sent to investigate an angel story, only to meet one with wings and less than angelic attitude.

Maybe that is what America needs, being a puritan is different from being good. Michael is a rude, obnoxious, womanizing messenger of heaven who will fulfill your wishes, and make you care enough about the world that you will be touched.

Funny, but not greatly so, touching but not overly sentimental, intelligent without being clever...it is just a good simple, small comedy. Watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Angel comes to earth to help out

[helpless_dancer · 7/10 · 27 November 2000]

Warm hearted flic depicting arch-angel Michael as a brawling, overweight, cigarette smoking slob who loves to dance and cavort with the opposite sex. He does have a good side, however, as he strives to set things right in the lives of a couple of burnt out losers before being recalled to heaven. Funny, well played out film; very enjoyable although somewhat irreverent.

Lovely Capraesque Comedy Drama

[bigbillyt · 21 February 2004]

It has been quite some time since I last saw this film. However, the amazingly low IMDB score has prompted me to jot down a few thoughts and memories I have regarding this under-appreciated masterpiece.

I find it appalling that this film would score so poorly in this arena. It is a wonderful, life affirming story with a positive message. Perhaps this is what we have come to. The comedy is not gross enough, the message too sentimental and the meaning too simple for modern "sophisticated" audiences. Well, I for one, absolutely loved every minute of it. It is easily Andie MacDowell's best performance. William Hurt is fantastic as the cynic who comes around in the end and the whole supporting cast does a wonderful job. Of course, John Travolta is superb. This is one of my favorite roles Travolta has played and it is simply resplendent. I would have to say this is in my top twenty of comedy-dramas ever. I just happen to love the way the film unapologetically illustrates how wonderful life is. How even the little things that we take for granted, like pie, are fantastic and how we should enjoy every minute like it was our last.

For a much more detailed and well written review see the fine work of jhclues who echoes my feelings about the movie so much that I feel it would be redundant of me to restate, probably poorly, all that they have already committed to page.

It is also interesting that so many people really hated it. I wonder if they weren't just put off by the "less than traditional" view of a religious subject.

"Well we don't exactly know how it works with angels."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 6 December 2014]

"Michael" was made back to back with Travolta's 1996 picture "Phenomenon", and if you liked one, you probably like the other. Both offer John Travolta in offbeat kind of roles while still trading on his leading man sex appeal. I'm kind of surprised by the relatively low rating this picture has here (5.6 as I write this), because I thought the writers provided some fairly clever elements to Travolta's character. After all, how often do you come across the angel who kicked Lucifer out of heaven? And how can you miss with a canine co-star like Sparky?

Well I guess the things that entertain some movie fans will turn off others. Some of the reviews here feel the picture denigrated the whole idea of 'angelic' angels, but then again, who wrote that rule book? I found it kind of cool that Michael (Travolta) remained true to a personal (if I may be allowed to use the word personal referring to a heavenly host) code of honor and sense of duty while accompanying Frank (William Hurt), Huey (Robert Pastorelli) and Dorothy (Andie MacDowell) on their quixotic journey. If one didn't know better, you'd really believe there's such a thing as the world's biggest ball of twine and largest non-stick frying pan.

I guess you can tell I liked this picture, even if it's not in the same ballpark as say "Casablanca" or any other Top 100 film out there. I dig the quirky stuff along with the clever set-ups and unusual situations. If you think about it, John and Paul had to get their inspiration somewhere, and in my book, you can never have too much sugar.

mildly humorous

[hbs · 7/10 · 25 October 1998]

It's sweet and entertaining, and I really enjoy the scene where he eats breakfast and the one where he tells the dog "Now remember, Sparky, no matter what they tell you, you can never eat too much sugar" -- this being a maxim that I live by...

It is a fairly typical Nora Ephron movie. She's not an very good director, more of an accomplished hack I think, but she does a workmanlike job and the movie has a much better cast than the script deserves. It's low-key fun.

Another Sappy Ephron Film

[ccthemovieman-1 · 3/10 · 27 October 2006]

This was more of a love story than one about an angel who comes down here to earth, although both angles of that story are given a good share of the movie.

If I took this movie to heart, as someone who knows and believes the Bible, I would have canned it pretty quick, but I don't think the general atmosphere was either mean-spirited or blasphemous. It was just ludicrous or just plain stupid.

I mean, John Travolta as a grubby angel? Smoking? Scratching his groin? Quoting the Beatles? A "warring angel" who knows nothing about Heaven? An angel who flirts with all the women? Yes, it's all absurd and certainly Biblically- incorrect.

I could tolerate all that but I don't know how many people, whatever beliefs they hold, who could stand a boring film which this turned out to be during the second half of it. It begins to drag when the romance begins between William Hurt and Andie MacDowell. Some of the dialog during that romance is so stupid it's insulting to any discriminating viewer.

This is another Nora Ephron-directed film. Man, I can't believe how many incredibly stupid movies this woman has either written or directed. At least she's consistent.

Michael - angel number 1

[johnny-08 · 7/10 · 17 October 2007]

Caught this movie on TV and I watched it again. I said to myself, it's been a long time since I watched this movie, so why not. And once again this movie thrilled me. It is so easy, so watchable and so human that I don't know why some people dislike it.

John Travolta shines as Michael (his dance and every move), angel that can hardly be related to this word. He smokes, drinks and he eats like some savage, but he's got big heart. On his way Michael helps all people he meets. Dorothy Winters (Andie MacDowell) in her singing and finding a right man. Frank Quinlan (William Hurt) in developing himself as a good and decent man. Michael even helped dear old Pansy Milbank (Jean Stapleton) - that last scene is beautiful when they dance on the street.

Travolta had great help in other actors. Andie MacDowell is so beautiful and likable, William Hurt is great as usual, late Robert Pastorelli shows his talent. Jean Stapleton and Teri Garr are also good, but my favorite supporting actor in this movie is Bob Hoskins as the tabloid owner.

So we've got here a solid movie about people with a warm story also and attractive cast. Just don't take this movie seriously and I can guarantee you'll have fun.

Blowing a premise with promise

[DSearch1 · 3/10 · 18 June 2008]

For the most part, "Michael" is a disaster – ten minutes of charm and ninety's worth of missteps.

Travolta and MacDowell do their best, frequently rising above Nora Ephron's numbingly banal script. But the film moves like a snail. And even within its fantasy context, the characters behave implausibly on a regular basis. (Reporters who routinely let the story of a lifetime – an apparent angel living on Earth – out of their sight?)

Someone forgot to tell romantic comedy maestro Ephron that William Hurt, brilliant in so many other films, is no Tom Hanks. The movie's "climax" redefines the word contrived. Ephron may be shooting for Heaven here, but unfortunately "Michael" is a long, long ride through cinema heck.

Lovely!

[Jaiseserrat · 7/10 · 4 March 2006]

Though this film doesn't stand out particularly from the movie crowd, its still a very nice film to sit down and watch with your feet up! There maybe the odd one or two mistakes you catch, and the cinematic are a little slipshod, the film itself is very enjoyable and has a wonderful atmosphere to it. The music contributes a lot to the mood of the movie.

The acting is none the less impressive (especially the dog he he!) with John Travolta taking the lead of the fun-troublesome-loving Michael. Other characters feel very genuine and perform very well within the film.

So after a long day at work, stick "Michael" on in the evening with some ice-cream and enjoy a very quality film in its own right :)

The Worst Movie Ever Made

[baddmachine · 1/10 · 16 June 2000]

Do you ever wonder what is the worst movie ever made? Stop wondering. I'm telling you, Michael is it!

It is not "heartwarming," "entertaining," or "Travolta at his best." It just sucks. If I had kids, I would let them watch Deep Throat before Michael!

A sold-out John Travolta, a washed-up and balding William Hurt, and an about to die any time now Jean Stapleton highlight this turd of a film.

But wait...you'll get to hear Andie McDowell sing! Yeah. Hollywood really s**t all over us with this one!

charming, quirky, offbeat, light, fun ... do not take too seriously

[john-herbert22 · 8/10 · 28 October 2005]

Possibly the best John Travolta role ever. Saturday Night Fever was a great movie & role, but a LONG time ago. I can't think of many of his movies or roles I've even liked, and it's easy to think of rotten ones. He can do meanies like in Pulp Fiction, but he makes the perfect funky angel, and it's hard to imagine anyone doing a better (equally slobby) job with it. Plot summaries are available everywhere, but the plot isn't the point. Just go for the ride and enjoy the cleverness of the little funnies along the way. There is nothing to dislike about this movie, unless one is searching for something profound. I wish there were more movies like this. We need a break from deep or awesome or grisly or complex or hysterical.

I can't believe nobody got this ...

[webb_bill · 7/10 · 1 August 2005]

What movie would you think carried the following scenes: Twister in a Midwestern state -- Stiff character who needs a heart -- Dopey character who needs a brain -- Cute little dog who steals scenes -- A trip to a big city to see a big man who really is little

and, to top it all off,

-- The lead female character's name is Dorothy! And she sings!!

Sweet little movie, made even more interesting with all of the Wizard of Oz echoes. Not really sure what Nora Ephron meant by it, but still it's interesting.

William Hurt is an excellent choice for the Tin Man. He's stiff as a board. Robert Pastorelli would have been better as the cowardly Lion. I could have imagined Michael Richards as the Scarecrow who needed a brain, but I guess the writers didn't think another character was warranted.

Still, a fun flick for a rainy day afternoon.

One of the worst movies ever made.

[lightninboy · 1/10 · 21 April 2005]

I wanted to like this movie, but there is very little to like about it. It starts out with Jean Stapleton and a Randy Newman song in Iowa (Northwest Iowa, I guess), reminiscent of Norman Lear's Cold Turkey, which was one of the best movies ever made, according to people on IMDb. So far, so good. And the idea of the archangel Michael living at Pansy Milbank's motel on earth? Well, give it a chance, it's supposed to be a comedy. Okay, so far, so good. But Michael does things that an angel not fallen would never do, and that completely blows any credibility the movie might have had. The other characters in the movie don't have much appeal, either. Michael brings a dog back to life, and we're supposed to be in awe of that. The people make up corny country songs. In the end, Stapleton dances with Travolta. Big deal. If she was smart, she wouldn't even be in this movie. When it was over, I thought, "Gee, what a stupid, tasteless, boring, corny, sacrilegious movie!" It's not fit to be seen by children or anyone else.

John Travolta will 'ruffle your feathers'

[Missileman1 · 14 May 2006]

in this, yet again, Nora Ephron pleaser. How can you not sniggle, laugh, guffaw and even cheer for a love-handled, smoking, suger-eating, beer-drinking, bull-charging, bar-dancing Archangel who sloops cereal and pie with his whole left-hand wrapped around a spoon-handle while outfitted in Vinnie Barbarino's middle-aged body with wings? It's one of the most ludicrous, classic, side-splitting images available on the silver screen. And if you don't 'get' that image, here's a quarter --- go buy yourself a life.

I found the supporting cast, well -- well-cast. Hurt, MacDowell, Pastorelli, Hoskins, Stapleton et al played the characters they were given to a 'T." And despite Travolta stealing the show, those characters are quintessential to the storyline – you'll see. Though this is a simple feel-good story (nothing complicated to follow, just out of the ordinary) with laughs, sniffles and a touch of heart, you can't get out of this without some introspection into your own life. Maybe that's why the IMDb nay-sayers of this film have such a problem with it (you poor, sad people).

Please – do yourself a favor, ignore the 'lifeless' and treat yourself to something GOOD. Lord knows, we can't get enough of that

A Decent Film..

[namashi_1 · 6/10 · 22 September 2011]

Nora Ephron's Box-Office Super-Hit 'Michael' is A Decent Film, that manages to pass-off as a light-entertainer, that also packs in some fine acting.

'Michael' Synopsis: Two tabloid reporters checking out a report of the Archangel Michael living with an old woman find that it's true. But that's not the only surprise.

'Michael' is a fantasy film, but, the Angel here is not shown doing "The Impossible". Actually, the depiction of it's Angel Michael, over-here is portrayed as a boozing, smoking, oversexed slob—yet capable of imparting unexpected wisdom. But, Despite those aspects, Michael does come across as a free-soul & oozes excitement.

Screenplay by Nora Ephron & Delia Ephron is decent & fast. However, the culmination to this story, is not convincing. It just doesn't leave an impact. Nora Ephron's Direction, is polite. Cinematography, Editing & Art Design, are proper. Performance-Wise: John Travolta as the Archangel Michael, is lively. William Hurt, like always, does wonders. Andie MacDowell is routine. Robert Pastorelli supports well. Bob Hoskins appears in a brief role.

On the whole, 'Michael' is a decent entertainer, that doesn't disappoint.

"It is not my area..."

[rodneyrf · 7/10 · 25 March 2013]

Thumbs up! This silly yet enriching picture makes us travel back in time, enabling us to naively live up a story as we commonly did in Frank Capra's movies. Michael, the angel, says many times: "It is not my area...", for many of the questions and doubts people have. We must live life without worrying too much. That's why the angel is sent down. He shows that we should live up life lightly, trying to share happiness and content with others.. It's something each and every one of us should try to do, step outside ourselves see just what our contributions can be. As I always say: Good movies never leave us. Take your time having authentic and original laughs in this light yet profound comedy. Enjoy!

A x-files episode starring MacDowell (dvd)

[leplatypus · 4/10 · 10 October 2010]

I was surprised to see that this movie is actually a supernatural road-movie in rural America as the best episodes of the "x-files". It could have been Mulder and Scully go into Iowa to bring back an angel.

If Andie is a great add, Travolta as an angel sucks! Maybe it's his part, maybe it's his characterization or surely it's his personality but i found him pretty irritating. He hopes to be funny but he doesn't make me laugh; he tries to be compassionate but he is freaking nuts. Thus, each emotion he wants to give, he finally delivers the opposite: that's not the definition of a talented actor! On the opposite, Andie is as sweet and fragile than ever and she makes a good team with Hurt.

Unfortunately, their romance is not well scripted as the myth of angel: there isn't a decent speech about religion, faith, heaven just a winged crazy man with paranormal powers. Except for "you've got mail", Ephron never convinces me as a writer / director and i rather find her movies dull and sleepy!

Surprising feel good movie

[evteach · 7/10 · 2 July 2022]

Lovely movie filled with negative curmudgeonly characters, showing that redemption can come from unlikely sources. Made in 1996 and still relevant in 2022.

I Want to Dance

[Hitchcoc · 5/10 · 11 May 1999]

While this film provides some cockeyed entertainment, mainly from John Travolta's portrayal of a less-than-traditional angel, it is a pretty weak entry. The best part of the movie is the beginning when the sleazy tabloid reporters hunt down their lead. The first view of Michael is pretty startling. After this, it becomes an episodic ride through America, asking the question, "What would an angel do in this situation." I found the relationships vacuous and uninteresting and the conclusion couldn't be more predictable. And, of course, it's another chance for Travolta to dance. I wonder if the fundamentalists will think of the way one of the arch-Angels is portrayed. I'm not sure that there is a lot of creativity afoot these days in Hollywood.

quirky premise

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 2 August 2016]

Chicago tabloid National Mirror's editor Vartan Malt (Bob Hoskins) is looking for the next wild story. Reporter Frank Quinlan (William Hurt) gets a letter claiming to have an angel. Huey Driscoll (Robert Pastorelli) is the photographer who also owns the tabloid's mascot Sparky the Wonder Dog. Malt sends them and new hire Dorothy Winters (Andie MacDowell). He tells them that she's an angel expert but she's actually a dog trainer hired to replace Driscoll. In rural Iowa, Pansy Milbank (Jean Stapleton) has been boarding the angel Michael (John Travolta) and he isn't what the newspaper crew expected. He isn't imaginary, has wings, not very angelic, and a real ladies man.

This Nora Ephron movie seems to have a better premise than the eventual execution. Travolta is plenty charming. Hurt and MacDowell should have solid romantic potential. Pastorelli doesn't have the fun kind of comedy. There is nothing particularly wrong with this comedy except that it's not that funny. Travolta is more quirky than funny. His angel nature is never in question and the movie doesn't have the tension of questioning the truth. It's the same quirky idea again and again.

a horrible movie

[Lurker-7 · 1/10 · 13 June 1999]

This movie makes you wish imdb would let you vote a zero. One of the two movies I've ever walked out of. It's very hard to think of a worse movie with such big name actors. Well...Armageddon almost takes it, but not quite.

Funny and heartwarming little movie

[sirlovealot · 8/10 · 24 June 2006]

I really enjoyed this movie for what it is: A funny little film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Plot summaries are available everywhere so I won't go into details. Michael isn't about a complex plot anyway. It just builds on a great premise and takes the viewer on a wonderful road trip.

John Travolta's performance as a chain-smoking, lady-loving, bar-brawling, pie-eating angel is just perfect. And who doesn't love Sparky?

Watch this if you want to have a few laughs and a overall good time. Highly recommended.

Comfort food

[throckmorton · 6/10 · 11 November 2004]

Again, a film that shoots right under the horizon of the Higher Standards experts, right to the bottom line of "It's Fun!".

In this age of fiat dictated "Moral Values", it's a joy to sit back and watch something that plays piccadore to those theocrats who need to increase their dietary fiber.

I wandered through all of the New Arrival shelves at the local Major Video Chain and saw nothing new that I hadn't seen or that I wanted to see, and my eyes happened to catch on the box for Michael. I've watched it several times over the year, but not for a while, and it was a perfect choice for a relaxing evening home alone.

Really wanted to like it but...

[lobstersurreal · 1/10 · 22 March 2021]

... but intolerable. Turned it off after 50. Great premise but utterly butchered and horribly executed.

I for one am not religious neither non-religious. So that part didn't bother me. Although I have a soft spot for 90s nostalgia but this was just terrible. I remember watching a clip of it in South Africa's Mnet when it came out and got turned off by the wings' depiction. It just looked gross. And here I am 28 years later and still couldn't be sold.

While Phenomenon was phenomenal, the fans of the former will be massively disappointed. This was just all over the place.

"Michael" looked like a big baby except nothing adorable about him. I wasn't turned off by smoking or sexual reference but minor things like:

-Why would there be a largest milk bottle and largest twine in such close proximity? -Why would a fight break out all of a sudden? -What was the point of the dumb bull fight?

It was just plain cringe. It was nothing charming, the plot was glacial and even after 50 mins it went nowhere. Andie McDowell overdid a naive ditz character without coming as coy, sweet and heart warming. Rest of the cast were all stooges. (FWIW, as I am watching the angel movies, "Legion" was another terrible one, but "Angels on the Outfield" drove it out of the park.