Own the rights?
13 out of 14 people found the following review useful: Neglected gem, deserves reissuing., 31 May 2005 Author: George Mpoukatsas from Europe
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.
12 out of 13 people found the following review useful: Wonderful romantic comedy of a husband learning to appreciate his exquisite wife through another man's attraction to her., 6 October 2002 Author: danland2 from Los Angeles, Ca.
Wonderful Lubitsch comedy about a distracted husband, a neglected wife and an ardent suitor that has all the magic, humor, romance of the directors previous work. Dazzling camera work by Charles Lang make Deitrich look positively luminous. All the cast are perfect. The audience I saw this with at the LACMA Museum screening were utterly entranced by this neglected masterwork. Kudos to UCLA for restoring this treasure to its original splendor and to LACMA programer Ian Birnie for giving us the opportunity to see this little gem in all its glory. A 10 out of 10.........
7 out of 7 people found the following review useful: How has it been overlooked?, 19 January 2007 Author: Christopher Wallis from Berkeley, CA
Lubitsch is recognized as one of the great directors of the 30s, and yet this wonderful film is not on any of the usual critical lists of notable films. Perhaps it was too modern for its time. It is perhaps Dietrich's best English performance (though even here she could be a bit more subtle), but the real star is the director, shining in the shots he composes and performances he coaxes from his actors. Lubitsch is a master of subtlety, and when he places important moments off-screen, it is in such a way as to heighten their impact. Since the censorship code is in effect, the sexual elements are cleverly concealed. For example, Halton and Barker discover that in Paris they both visited the same... seamstress. The naive Hays Office must have thought that was the joke, but the real joke is on them for it is clear--at least today--that the two did not visit her to get their sewing done. The sophistication of the film is unusual for its time.Pages could be written about this film. Suffice it to say that if you like 30s film at all, see this. In certain moments, it feels perfect. Probably one of the top 25 of the decade.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful: A Double Dry Spell, 13 November 2009 Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York
Looking at the criticisms so far voiced about Angel, the majority seems to feel it's a neglected Lubitsch masterpiece. Yet this was the film that caused Paramount and Marlene Dietrich to come to a parting of the ways. Marlene would not be back on the screen until she signed a new contract with Universal and made a comeback of sorts in something that would have been unthinkable for her in 1937. That film was a western, but the western was Destry Rides Again.Ernest Lubitsch and Marlene Dietrich hit a double dry spell in Angel. The sum and substance of it is that up and coming young British diplomat Melvyn Douglas meets a mysterious and alluring woman at Laura Hope Crews's palace in Paris who he falls hopelessly for. But the alluring as ever Marlene is merely the very bored wife of a senior diplomat who is a member of the nobility, Herbert Marshall. It also turns out that Douglas and Marshall are old army buddies.Somehow Lubitsch could not work his usual magic with Marlene. Her scenes with the two men seem to have no spark to them. In fact the ending is a bit of a shock, personally I think she made the wrong choice.Where Lubitsch did well in Angel was with the supporting players. Laura Hope Crews is quite a bit different as the worldly countess than as that pillar of southern society Aunt Pittypat Hamilton from Gone With The Wind. Some of the back and forth commentary between Marshall's butler Ernest Cossart and his valet Edward Everett Horton are also quite droll. What snobs those servants can be, much worse than the people who employ them.Sad to say Angel is a film with a lot of gloss, but no real substance behind it.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful: An Interesting Lubitsch, 6 June 2008 Author: Cherian from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I found this film to be an interesting Lubitsch. The film shows a married life and how troubled it is. The film also shows how miserable loneliness is. I heard that Samson Raphaelson wasn't satisfied with the finished script. I don't know if this is true or not. But it is certainly not one of the best Lubitsch films. The film had lots of interesting points. But the pace was slow compared to other Lubitsch films.This was also one of the few films where Lubitsch looked very unhappy on the set. Ernst Lubitsch was dissatisfied with Marlene Dietrich's performance in the film. She couldn't give the performance Lubitsch wanted. Ernst Lubitsch considered Angel(1937)as one of his unhappy directing jobs. This may have been the reason why the film wasn't strong as other Lubitsch films. And Lubitsch never worked with Marlene Dietrich again. I thought the film was worth watching. But not of Lubitsch's best films. There are interesting points about the relationship between Herbert Marshall (Sir Frederick Barker) and Marlene Dietrich (Maria 'Angel' Barker). Although they love each other, still the film shows what prevents them from being happy.There is one scene in the film that I really liked. Its the scene where the servants find out that Melvyn Douglas (Anthony) and Marlene Dietrich (Maria) barely ate any food in the plate. And they find out that Herbert Marshall (Sir Frederick) ate the whole food in the plate. This shows the psychology between the characters. And the audience clearly understands the scene.There are some brilliant camera shots in the beginning especially with the continuous shots moving from one window to another window. I think this scene happens when Melvyn Douglas comes in to meet Grand Duchess. So even a lesser known Lubitsch is worth watching. I rate the film 7 out of 10.
7 out of 21 people found the following review useful: Hardly Heavenly, and better in legend, 21 October 1998 Author: Sandy Douglass from Gotham
Given the talent involved -- Dietrich at the height of her allure, Melvyn Douglas (who proved such a wonderful foil to Garbo just two years later in "Ninotchka"), support from such able troupers as Edward Everett Horton and Laura Hope Crews, and above all the famed "touch" of Lubitsch -- "Angel" should be a sparkling romp, a melancholy romance of renunuciation, a worldly social comedy, or better yet, all three.Instead it's a mostly tiresome slog through familiar territory, as if all involved were inspired not by Dietrich or Lubitsch but by the stolid Herbert Marshall as Marlene's aristo-Brit husband.While several recent writers on both Dietrich and Lubitsch have tried to tout this as an undeservingly overlooked film, it's really most worth watching for Crew's pre-Pittypat turn as a Russian emigre-turned-nightclub-hostess, and her few brief scenes can hardly save the picture.Dietrich fans are better off hunting up stills -- she does look terrific in the wardrobe of English Gentlewoman tweeds and furs, and her legendary collection of emeralds were rarely shown to better advantage.
Add another review
