Michael

Frank Quinlan and Huey Driscoll are reporters for a trashy tabloid paper who are on a bad run of bad stories. When their editor lays down an ultimatum to them, they bring him a potentially great story – a real life angel. They are accompanied by a supposed angel expert, Dorothy Winters who has really been sent to keep an eye on the reporters for editor Vartan Malt. When they arrive they find the 'angel' to appear to be genuine but to be a lot less, well, angelic than they expected him to be – smoking, drinking and womanising. Michael agrees to go back to Chicago and be in the papers but only if they can travel back by road and make stops along the way. As Michael gets his traveling companions in and out of trouble it begins to seem that he may actually have a bigger aim to achieve than just getting into the papers. In the UK it is not the 'done thing' to cheer, clap or deride films or trailers in a very public way in the same manner as US audiences will do as the norm (my first time in a US cinema was a surprise when the audience applauded), but it is the reason I will always remember this film. When the trailer was shown in the UK, the audience I was with actually jeered and booed it (myself included) because it just looked so damn lame and stupid. So I skipped it in the cinema (as many did) but then caught it on TV a few years later. Although it is far from a perfect film and its mood and tone are poorly matched it is actually nowhere near as bad as it looked. The story is the usual earthbound angel stuff that Hollywood seems to quite like and it meanders along rather aimlessly, turning into a very vague road movie of sorts. The romance is obvious and uninspiring but generally the film is fun when it manages to have it's tongue in its cheek. The problem is that it can't decide if it wants to be sappy and romantic or daffy fun. When it tries to be more of a traditional Hollywood romance it doesn't really work that well and indeed is rather laboured. However when it just gets silly and focuses on a really tongue in cheek Michael then it is much more enjoyable as long as you can buy into the sense of humour that it is selling. These two styles don't really come together and they give the film a rather fragmented feel that takes away from the fun (if silly) aspect that stood a good chance of really working if given a little bit more dominance in the film. Sadly the film falls back too much on sentimentality and it sours the mix because it is manufactured, processed, unengaging and quite forced. For the same reason the performances are mixed. For the most part Travolta is quite funny and just appears to be taking the p*ss and enjoying himself – the way he doesn't seem to take it seriously helped me enjoy the film a lot more. He is silly of course but I found this to be enjoyable in light of the more ponderous 'worthy' roles he has played in the years since his Pulp Fiction comeback. Lumbered with the promise of romance, Hurt is not that good but is nicely cynical for the majority of the movie; MacDowell is painfully lame at times and her character is pretty poor, she is a big part of the reason why it is hard to really care about the romance in the story. Both Pastorelli and Hoskins seem to have fun and share a handful of good lines throughout the movie while little roles for other well known faces vary between the effective (Joey Lauren Adams) and the simply pointless (did Richard Schiff really need work this badly?). Anyway, the film is not great but it is not awful either. It's mix of the sappy and the silly is pretty badly done and I was left wanting a more engaging romance and a lot more of Travolta's mockingly silly performance. All told it is maybe worth a watch once but it is far from being a good film and, if you don't like John Travolta's performance then there isn't a great deal else to watch it for.

source: Michael

You either catch the vibe or you don't. It is wonderfully meta and heartfelt, quirky in a way I have never encountered. Features the best portrayal of a modern Angel, divorcing it from Puritanism but making faith a fairytale like Ephron other movies. Amazing dance scene, all-star sleeper cast, some scenes that just land, even when they shouldn't. It's the movie I don't tell anyone about unless I know them well because it is tied into formative years of my life.

**1/2 out of **** As far as feel good movies go, this one isn't bad. It has its share of good moments, but besides that there's not much there. The actors give it their all and are very likeable, but a better screenplay could have been used.

Why the hell would anyone make a movie like this? Don't they have any pride left in their puny little damaged-by-Holywood bodies? A movie starring William Hurt and Robert Pastorelli, the two most boring actors in America who can't utter one single line without it sounding like they have a migraine. Then use a "hip" actor, like John Travolta who everyone thought was the coolest guy on earth after "Pulp Fiction". I did too, but after this movie I have lost all respect for him. Throw in a good looking woman, of the "old-fashioned girl kind". We don't want any slutty 90's women, no, use Andie McDowell, America's moral majority's own little chastity persona. And finally, throw in a cute little dog for good measure, and there you have it. A sentimental, moral, pathetic, ridiculous, silly, stupid, inane, infantile, boring, unbelievable, crappy, pseudo-sad piece of elk poo. Oh wow, angel who curses, drinks and has sex! How daring! How brave! How controversial! Kiss my ass!

What if angels drank beer, smoked cigarettes, got into bar fights, and wanted to see worldly delights like the biggest ball of twine or the biggest frying pan? You would get this contemptuous pile. Believers and non believers alike can come together for some classic corny filmmaking. Garbage from start to terrible finish.

I hear what people are saying, that this movie shouldn't be over analyzed or viewed with religious perspective, just enjoyed. Now, I enjoy movies more than most, though I found the fundamental subject in this film to be very poor indeed. See, I view Michael as the literal father of humanity on Earth, and the original prophet of God. He is the ancient of days, the archangel, the co-creator of this world, the man who cast satan out of heaven. To see him portrayed as Lebowski is sincerely disappointing. Personally, I believe that a line was crossed. This was simply the wrong story for one of the greatest men this planet has ever known. When making light of things, some subjects are just off the table.

My website (theflickguy.org) lists "Michael" as one of the worst films of the modern era. The following is an excerpt: "Everyone slums some time in their lives, this was Travolta's turn. I still don't know what the point of this terrible film was. Nora Efron has proved to be a competent writer and director, so what the hell happened here? The Archangel Michael takes a new spin here and is portrayed as a ham-fisted, chain-smoking sugar addicted fornicating slob whose biggest contribution to humanity (after sending Lucifer to hell) was that he invented "standing in line". Yes, how funny and charming. I don't find this offensive, I find it stupid. In its defense, I can say that the ending was ever bit unsatisfying as the rest of this painful attempt at story telling."

This movie just doesn't have it, like other nora ephron movies do. I stopped watching after 45 minutes, because there was too little interesting going on to keep watching. Liked the scene were you seen travolta for the first time (an angel with a belly, dressed only in a boxer and wanting a cigarette), but that does not make a movie. Hated it. 2.

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!