brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

"Angel" is an Ernst Lubitsch film with three top actors, Marlene Dietrich, Herbert Marshall and Melvyn Douglas. Yet, despite this, the story is amazingly flat and unappealing. It's not a bad film...more one that leaves you expecting so much more. After all, Lubitsch is practically legendary as are his movies.When the story begins, Anthony (Melvyn Douglas) meets Lady Barker (Marlene Dietrich) in Paris and arranges to meet her for dinner. During the dinner, Anthony is totally smitten by her and the night seems magical. However, the woman never tells him who she is and he gives her the nickname 'Angel'. When the evening is over, he has no idea who she was nor how to get in touch with her.Sometime later, Anthony meets an old friend, Sir Barker (Herbert Marshall). The evening goes fine...until Sir Barker's wife arrives and Anthony sees that it's Angel. What next? See the film.Making a romantic film that involves adultery is a major uphill battle. Adultery isn't a romantic thing and despite the Lubitsch touch, it all seems a tad tawdry. Tawdrier still, if you read between the lines you realize that the place Anthony and Angel met is essentially a high-priced brothel...though it's certainly NOT obvious when you watch the film. In addition to this big problem, the film simply is too talky and too flat....which is so surprising. I can see clearly why this is not among Lubitsch's more famous films.

I've seen all of Lubitsch's films and I rate Angel as his worst. The faults are in a bland repetitive script and the strangely ambiguous, wooden performance of Marlene Dietrich. There are times she appears more masculine than her costars Melvyn Douglas and Herbert Marshall.The sexual playfulness and subtle daring - so delightfully evident in Lubitsch's other films - here often fall flat. Made a few years before Angel, one of Ernst Lubitsch's best films, also based on a play (Noël Coward's Design for Living), has a woman at the center of a love triangle. The shock, particularly for a 30s Hollywood movie, is that the three live together in a bohemian Paris flat. In his directing, as well as the performances of Frederic March and Gary Cooper, there is never a hint of homo-eroticism. Ironically in Angel the best scene, a climactic one between Douglas and Marshall, is full of sexual energy.Subtle sophistication was always an Ernst Lubitsch trademark. There is little evidence of sparkling wit and originality in Angel.

Imagine a movie set in Paris directed by Ernst Lubitsch, the masterful director of such Parisian sexual innuendo comedies as Ninotchka, The Love Parade, The Merry Widow (1934 version), One Hour with You, and Design for Living. Imagine as the male lead Melvyn Douglas, who was so great in Ninotchka. Imagine as the female lead one of the great European stars of the cinema, a magnificent beauty like Garbo or Dietrich. Imagine that it concerns a Russian countess living in exile in Paris.But don't imagine that it's another Ninotchka. Far from it. It's Angel, in which all those ingredients that two years later would go to make one of the great Hollywood comedies, with Garbo and Douglas directed by Lubitsch, instead made for one very dull semi-comedy.Where to put the blame? The script, certainly, which isn't funny and never seems to know where it's going. Are we supposed to sympathize with Dietrich's character because she's abandoned by her husband, or condemn her for considering infidelity? The men at Paramount who approved it, and who should have spotted a bomb in the making. It is seldom funny. We seldom care about the characters. (Why did Paramount keep starring Herbert Marshall in pictures? He is just not interesting.) One or two scenes are mildly clever, which was probably Lubitch's doing. The rest verges on stale melodrama. The end isn't convincing.Taken all together, I'd say forget it. This is one Angel that never takes flight.

The Lubitsch touch is omnipresent in this relatively unknown but extraordinary romantic comedy. The theme of a potential marital infidelity of a disaffected upper class wife (a gleaming Marlene Dietrich) is dealt with unusual sophistication and insight, building up slowly to a brilliant denouement, while the core dilemmas and the predicament of the main character are continuously and subtly underscored. The confrontations between the characters are a delight of restrained pathos, whereas Lubitsch, unsurprisingly, perfectly recreates a confined world of rigid social norms that suppresses any emotional profusion. All the performances are top notch, the secondary characters are equally memorable and the whole film is pervaded by the genius of one of cinemas most charismatic directors, Ernst Lubitsch. One wishes that modern romantic comedies had only maintained even a fraction of the wit and incisiveness that Lubitsch established as a norm in the 30s.