Look up! Prepare the way for ANGELS IN AMERICA (1 Viewer)

[PatrickL]

but I can't remember anything beyond F. Murray Abraham replacing Ron Liebman as Roy Cohn.

That, and Cynthia Nixon as Harper, were the only significant cast changes as far as I remember. At least, that was the last cast I saw on Broadway - Nixon and Abraham joining while the others (Spinella, Mantello, Chalfant, Grant, etc) remained. Debra Messing was Harper in the workshop for Part II, just to add a footnote.

 

[DeeF]

Not trying to pull rank, just giving out information:

I'm a Mormon, living in New York City. I'm also gay. The congregation I attend is filled with young married couples, mostly from the West, and the husbands are attending Columbia Law School.

I play the organ for church, which is on the third floor of the building at 65th and Columbus.

My parents live in Salt Lake City.

And 20 years ago, after finishing Brigham Young University, I was engaged (for a year) to a girl from Provo. We broke up in 1984, and she was subsequently married to a New York guy, and they have two kids, starting college!

I have so many things to say about "Angels in America," and I will get around to them, a few at a time.

For starters, though, I certainly don't think Kushner "captures" Mormons very well at all.

 

[Steve_AS]

Very Steven Spielberg.

What did everyone think?

- Steve

Good and occasionally great, but overall didn't live up to the hype. Seemed a bit dated and pompous -- guess what, the world *didn't* end in 2000, though in 2001 it changed for us here in the States, in a way that Kushner didn't predict. Pacino as Cohn had the best lines, but we've seen him do this evil macher schtick before -- in 'The Devil's Advocate' of all places. Streep was fine, Emma Thompson, embarrassing. And overall, speechifying replaced dialogue in too many places for my tastes. Maybe Part II is better?

 

[Dave Smith]

Maybe I'm easily pleased. I thought it was pretty magnificent. I've been raving about it to friends all day. I didn't have any prior conceptions though, having never seen the plays.

I did think some of the writing was very, erm, what's a word for "play-ish"? Characters on their own speaking aloud never quite works for me on film. But every time there was a scene that felt a little staged, another came along and impressed the hell out of me. Examples would be the dream sequence where Harper meets Prior, Roy's diagnosis talk with his doctor, Prior's discussion with Emma Thompson's nurse in the last hour, and any scene with the travel agent

Both my wife and I placed Mary-Louise Parker in her mid-20s, and until this thread I had no idea we were so wrong! So I definitely had no problem with her playing Harper.

I had no problem with Emma Thompson's acting either, but she wasn't the best actor here. I think Justin Kirk as Prior gets my nod, but the whole cast was excellent.

Looking forward to part 2 very much indeed.

 

[Michael Reuben]

guess what, the world *didn't* end in 2000

You might want to hold that thought until after you've seen part 2.

M.

 

[larry mac]

Sorry, but no dice with me. My wife and I only made it about a third way thru.

Too gay. Too play.

I've got a gay brother and sister, and am not anti-gay. But that doesn't mean an all-gay "play" is interesting to me. I expected something more like Six Feet Under. Some gay, but with normal production values, more like a movie or show. I won't even go to see a play, unless I know someone in it.

Very disappointed.

 

[Steve_Tk]

I didn't watch because I was waiting for reviews. Seems everyone is about half and half.

 

[BrianShort]

larry mcdonald: I enjoyed the show a great deal, though not as much as I was expecting based on the hype, and disagree about the "too play" comment. I suppose it was more talky than a regular TV show or movie would be, but I guess it didn't strike me as a televised play as it seems it did with some people here.
However, I do somewhat agree about the "to gay" comment. I don't know if I like using that phrase, because it sounds like I'm anti-gay, which I'm not (I love Six Feet Under), but I wasn't expecting every male lead to be homosexual. Having a few straight males in the show would add some variety

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that since it seems I wasn't quite alone, although that aspect didn't really detract in any way from my enjoyment of the show.

Brian

 

[Paul Jenkins]

certainly wasn't the best movie i've ever seen, but i'm going to watch the conclusion and make a determination then. at this point, an uneven C from me, lacking something for me, maybe connection with the characters, as I don't think the acting has been all that great in the first part...

But, as with lots of movies, sometimes the setup pays off in the conclusion, I'm hoping that is the case so I don't feel like I wasted 6 hours

 

[Steve_AS]

You might want to hold that thought until after you've seen part 2.

I might, though I have an idea of what happens in 'Perestroika'. In any case, the world still didn't end or even so much as change radically with the close of the millennium. Things just carried on, and even AIDS became a 'manageable' plague for the people Kushner wrote about (metropolitan gays). As as result, premillennial tension and the biblical portentiousness of titles like 'Millennium Approaches' now seem *so* 90's and a bit overwrought and hollow, even for an admitted 'gay fantasia'.

But there's always a risk in making grand artistic statements. Kudos to Kushner for having the balls to try.

 

[Ted Lee]

okay, the schedule has me confused. i'm trying to tivo it so i don't miss any eps.

http://www.hbo.com/films/angelsiname...ule/index.html

is there any diff between part 1, part 2 and the individual hours?

 

[Steve Tannehill]

is there any diff between part 1, part 2 and the individual hours?

The series is approximately 6 hours long.

Part I, which first aired Sunday, is the first three hours (a.k.a. "chapters")
Part II, which airs next Sunday, is the final three hours.

The only difference between Part I and what HBO calls Hours 1,2,3 (or Part II/Hours 4,5,6) is one of aesthetics...personally, I think the power of the play is diminished when you cut it up into smaller segments. But the content will be the same.

- Steve

 

[Ted Lee]

thx steve!

 

[Steve Tannehill]

A slight correction to my post...it looks like the credits are customized for the individual hours. For example, the song credits for "hour 2" only included the song "Solitude" by Duke Ellington. The song credits for "Part I" were inclusive of all three hours.

- Steve

 

[Roberto Carlo]

I couldn't but help the lack of posts following last night's finale. For my part, It confirmed my first impression: "Angels" was uneven. It was moving and touching in parts, silly and pretentious in others. THe former were the case in the scenes involving Prior -- with one exception -- and Belize. The Kaddish scene had me in tears.

The angelic appearances were just plain silly. THe Angel spoke gibberish and it was hard to take seriously. And the bit of theodicy/philosophy was pretentious. When Prior told the council so "sue God" if he comes back, he seemed unaware that the death toll of the 20th century was overwhelmingly man's doing, not God's. My point isn't religious; it's that "Angels"worked well without this bit of metaphysical speculation. THe story of love, loss, forgiveness and grace was powerful enough.

One last note: earlier in the thread, people suggested that Mary-Louise Parker was too old to play Harper. I watch "Angels" on HBO-HD and boy that seemed true! She looked so much older than the guy who played Joe that it brought the discussion to mind.

Still, I give it *** out of **** and I plant to buy the DVD when it's released.

 

[Ted Lee]

well, i tried to watch this, but just couldn't get into it.

i know it's based upon a play (isn't it?) ... but it really felt like i was watching a play -- not a movie.

i dunno...the dialog just seemed too "forced" for me. oh well....

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

So did you flip over to a reality show Ted?

 

[Ted Lee]

eh? who me ... watch a reality show?

 

[todd stone]

well the 2nd half was terrible as well. I was very let down by this movie.

I also despise when actors step out of their role and talk to the audience through the camera

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Todd, you didn't see the plays, did you? The movie was very true to them.

And I thought it was wonderful. And that's all I have to say about that.

- Steve