Date With an Angel (1987)

So much average

A Disappointing Continuation

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I admit I was a major fan of Micheal E. Knight as Tad Martin in his "All My Children" days back in the 1980s. I was elated back in 1987 when he finally appeared in a major motion picture, but unfortunately, the small Northern town I lived in at the time had no movie theatre. I had to wait for the movie to come out at the local video store and when it did, I watched and re-watched it in glee, loving how utterly handsome he looked and laughed at his goofball and comedic antics in the same vein as John Ritter from "Three's Company".Well, time hasn't been too kind. I was always aware this was a box office flop and thought it deserved better than that, but after ordering the DVD from Amazon recently , I've grown to think otherwise.I viewed it tonight now that I'm older and wiser than I was from the 1980s, and, after looking at it with more mature eyes, finally see the problem. Mike Knight didn't carry the film too well. He had the comedic talents and professional acting ability, but he didn't "stick out" like a star in a film should. His mingling with the mischievous prankster friends made him look like he was an "extra" among them and not the star of the film. It's easy to see why the film flopped.The potential was there with Emmanuelle Béart looking perfectly beautiful in a heavenly and ethereally way and with Phoebe Cates acting hilariously as the "jilted fiancee", but the problem was with Knight. A good looking guy with slapstick comedic talents, but one who's unable to carry the star power of a film like this. The story was also mediocre to the extreme. There was nothing to make it unique and it offered no surprises, just the potent performances of Beart and Cates. Other than that. a total dud. Sorry Mike.

I honestly have never heard of this before and I like the fact it's so different too! Emmanuelle Béart looked absolutely beautiful as the angel. She would definitely remind you of the angel pics in which you see normally in churches or restaurants. I was happy that her character and Michael E. Knight's character lived happily ever after. I would be absolutely disappointed if he was still engaged to Patty. The story wouldn't have made sense then! It would be desperate because you can tell by Jim, he wasn't at all happy to be with Patty. It was better for them not to be together. She was just such a show off and whiny. To be honest, you feel like you just want her not to be included in the story!This was the best underrated movie I have ever saw in ages! I love the fact the music was heavenly! Maybe they should've added in Madonnas song "Just Like A Prayer", it would have made this film more extraordinary. Now at the same time, it's grand! I give this 10/10 because it's just wonderful the way it is!

Minor Spoilers (I think)I remember seeing this film as a teen. I thought it was a great film, back then. I just saw it again and well. Yes, it was an eighties film, pretty typical. The story line was just okay. It got better in the end when he "figured it out" because, I sure didn't. I didn't even remember that from the first time I saw it either. The parts that stuck with me all these years were those of the Angel (Emmanuelle Beart) I was completely taken in by her etherial beauty. I love the scenes in the forest with her and the animals. When she lights up, well, it's worth watching for the sight of her alone. She has a grace and innocent charm that suits her role perfectly. Delightful.Phoebe Cates plays Patti the hero's, fiancée and gives a great performance.Unfortunately, it's a very one dimensional role and does not put her in a good light. They (writers/directors) have given her no redeeming qualities. Personally, I think she's a lovely girl, but she's not at all in the same league as Ms. Beart.Our Hero, Jim (Michael E. Knight), rescues the Angel in distress and behaves like a true prince. He has much to deal with trying to do the right thing and has no one but himself to depend on.I suppose, it's very much like a modern (well '80's) fairy tale. But all the characters are very one dimensional. Simply uncomplicated. And about the comments on whether Angels can speak, well, who can argue?! I suppose there are Angels like Gabe, and Mike that are vocal messengers. But this Angel's task was not to bear a message, she was to bring solace, peace, if you will. I think her eyes and facial expressions spoke volumes and words alone could never convey the intensity and sensitivity of the situation.I gave this movie a 10/10 simply for the eye-candy.

No spoilers here. The only spoiler is the wretched movie itself, trying to spoil the careers of anyone associated with it.I kept waiting for it to get better, then for it to end. It only got worse as it went on. After an hour, I could barely stand it any more, but slogged on through to wallow in its full wretchedness.Do angels not speak? I distinctly remember angels appearing and speaking in Bible stories. It would have been nice had writer/director Tom McLoughlin given some lines to the one actor in the movie we know has some talent - And that would be Emmanuelle Béart. But we only know that from seeing her other films, especially "Un coeur en hiver" and "L'Enfer." This is one even a Béart completist should skip.