Angels and Insects (1995)

Great acting and directing plus an ingenious plot line make "Angels and Insects" a movie worth watching. Returning to civilization from the Amazon, Mark Rylance is taken in by a wealthy, aristocratic family. He falls for the oldest daughter of the house, Eugenia, who is lovely but troubled. He thinks she is the most beautiful creature he has ever seen.What he discovers about the Alabaster family is a dark secret which shatters his world.The movie is beautiful to watch and a real thought provoker. I highly recommend it.

This is one of the most visually repulsive movies I have ever watched.I enjoyed reading the other reviews for this film….I got a good laugh from the person who described the women's dresses as being like a visual jackhammer. The dresses are supposed to reflect insects the field of study of the main character.The first thing I personally noticed aside from the bumble bee and other jack hammer dresses was that the lighting was too bright indoors. It looked like flood lights were everywhere when in fact a night scene in that era would have been candle lit. Thus my first disappointment=something looks cheap or wrong here…was this filmed with some unknown color film? Second there is the revolting albino poor white trash looking group of aristocrats living in an authoritarian like atmosphere (the Alabaster family...whitest whites alabaster get it?? ) with servants cringing towards walls etc… It could have easily turned into a horror movie.And finally last there is the predictable totally unbelievable modern feminist twist to the story—-the unbelievably talented in every sense of unbelievable "right on" strong woman who rescues the milquetoast male lead---something guaranteed to win it Oscar nominations. What can I say....ho hum...it would get a lot of claps on Oprah. It is something you can't seem to escape from any more

A Victorian period drama with quasi erotic bits! Poorly acted, bland and boring and for much of the time very predictable for me. The main characters are pretty lame and are acted much the same.Mark Rylance, as William Adamson, seems to have perfected an expression of blank emotion (or maybe it's just boredom).Patsy Kensit's character exists to simply have a different frock on in EVERY scene she's in or get her kit off.Douglas Henshall provides the 'evil' character & is actually quite good, he doesn't overdo it so it never reaches the pantomime stage, however Annette Badland has no trouble in reaching these dizzy heights as Lady Alabaster (PK's characters mother).Kristin Scott Thomas plays a subdued second female lead and, like Henshall, comes away with some credit One has to assume it's not the actors fault as the director, Philip Haas, surely got what he asked for.How on earth this got the Evening Standard award for Best British film in 1995 beggars belief (it MUST have been a BAD year).

This movie presents a brilliant stage worthy level of acting to the screen. I was stunned by the quality and subtlety of the performances especially the lead and Kristin Thomas. The story is almost painfully slow but that helps create a mood and sexual tension that works perfectly. I was literally on the edge of my seat both with the drama of the characters and just wanting to be closer to their nuanced performances. Jeremy Kemp as the elder Lord of the manor Sir Harald Alabaster displays aristocratic intelligence rarely found in films. The dinner table discussions of the emergence of the radical new approaches to evolution and culture surrounding Darwin's revelations are compelling. Also the role of Edgar, representing the boorish son who clings to the old ways of class hierarchy is finely wrought. Highly recommended. A thoughtful film.