The independent news organization of Duke University

Angel Eyes

Walking out of Angel Eyes, I thought of the advice my father gave me a long time ago about choosing movies to see in the theatre. He said, "You can always tell a bad movie if the advertisements for it use short phrases from the critics, especially if you've never heard of the critics." The ads for Angel Eyes do just that. A quote from Univision critic Cecilia Bogran says, "A great love story." What we don't see is what she said just after that. I imagine the full quote was something like, "A great love story might be what Angel Eyes aspires to be, but instead you find a dense fog no eyes could penetrate."

Jennifer Lopez is the only thing in the movie worth watching. She seems to muster up real emotion for the trenchcoat-clad Jim Caviezel. His character, however, is never fully explored and seems to be a cheap ripoff of City of Angels, except Caviezel is creepier.

The story line starts strong. Lopez plays a no-nonsense cop with no time for a fulfilling social life. She falls hard for the mysterious, forever-5-o'clock-shadow man, Caviezel. Then the story gets muddled and the introduction of numerous subplots never go anywhere and stop the story in its tracks. Then it is just time to wait until it is over because nothing else is going to happen-ever.

Angel Eyes is not a pleaser, but J.-Lo. and Jim Caviezel are not bad to look at for a little less than two hours. If you're just going for some eye candy, you're in for a treat. Don't look too close though; the film itself is an eyesore.

-By Cary Hughes

Discussion

Share and discuss “Angel Eyes” on social media.

Trending