Angels and Insects

Bomb Rating: 

Don't let "Angels and Insects" fool you. It's just the type of art film that pseudo-intellectuals think is incredibly insightful because they don't have the slightest clue what is happening. They don't want to be out of the loop when clueless pseudo-intellectual reviewers begin heaping on the praise, so they too spout acclaim. However, the unpretentious will see the plot twists coming a mile away, since director Philip Haas heaps analogies and symbols on us with all the subtlety of a diarrhetic gorilla.

Scientist William Adamson (Mark Rylance) is hired by the rich, upper-class Alabaster patriarch to organize and classify his collection of artifacts. William is from English working stock, so when he falls in love with the beautiful high-class Eugenia (Patsy Kensit), the tension begins to strain his soul and his relationship with Eugenia's annoying brother, who is, to use the technical term, "a colossal wanker."

Every metaphor in "Angels and Insects" comes screaming across the screen like a runaway fire engine. William's work with bugs and the continual references to evolutionary theory makes it obvious that something is amiss with the resistant Alabaster family. Alabaster, you see, is hard, and once it's formed it can't be changed into another shape. Welcome to "Metaphor 101."

Why this film is unrated is difficult to figure (there is a visible weenie -- Hollywood executives: PROTECT YOUR WOMEN). As a result, this film's only notable achievement is that its likely to trick a few perverts into learning some evolutionary theory.

To spread the word about this Angels and Insects review on Twitter.

To get instant updates of Mr. Cranky reviews, subscribe to our RSS feed.

Like This Angels and Insects Review? Vote it Up.


Rate This Movie:

Average: 4 (1 vote)

Other Cranky Content You Might Enjoy

  • Trying to figure out what this title means could easily make up theentirety of any review given that nobody on Earth probably has the slightest clue.

  • It's no longer really even a question of seeing these films and evaluating them on any subjective level.

  • This film is essentially little more than a continuing stunt.