Angel is a film based on a novel and that is evident in some places as overwrought is not enough to describe some of this film's dialogue. Truly awful. The whole Yewtree inspired conspiracy plot is tawdry and poorly researched. Sure, some psycho babble about the effects of child abuse in this film might be true, but it's all arse covering nonsense in the end as it's used as just a timely origin story for the titular psycho killer with superhuman strength and a level of convenient intuition Tom Clancy would be proud of. Crap. Can i keep saying that? Of course, it's my review. This film is utter crap.
I don't even know why this story is combined with some Spooks like crap involving some terrorist hunters getting involved in a cover up. I would say the combination of psychodrama and conspiracy spy thriller was quirky, but quirky would suggest the film has charm, which it doesn't.
The oddly specific social commentary in Angel i found to be unneeded, like most of the stuff in the film. Sure, a few little references to real life events will further legitimise our plot said writer/director/tv actor Ray Burdis to himself, probably. But it didn't. It's just esoteric and immersion breaking due to poorly written in it was.
What else to say? The film looks really cheap. Like all poor adaptations, the narrative's focus is scattershot around secondary and tertiary characters. The acting ranged from panto to constipated. Was there a soundtrack here? I can't honestly remember. Angel is really bad. It's tabloid sensationalism, only without the patronising entendres and is not as fascy, though it does have a good go at it. An intriguing premise ruined by an abysmal execution.
I don't even know why this story is combined with some Spooks like crap involving some terrorist hunters getting involved in a cover up. I would say the combination of psychodrama and conspiracy spy thriller was quirky, but quirky would suggest the film has charm, which it doesn't.
The oddly specific social commentary in Angel i found to be unneeded, like most of the stuff in the film. Sure, a few little references to real life events will further legitimise our plot said writer/director/tv actor Ray Burdis to himself, probably. But it didn't. It's just esoteric and immersion breaking due to poorly written in it was.
What else to say? The film looks really cheap. Like all poor adaptations, the narrative's focus is scattershot around secondary and tertiary characters. The acting ranged from panto to constipated. Was there a soundtrack here? I can't honestly remember. Angel is really bad. It's tabloid sensationalism, only without the patronising entendres and is not as fascy, though it does have a good go at it. An intriguing premise ruined by an abysmal execution.