User reviews

Think of a coffin- beautiful metal or wood, but with death inside, so to the Alabasters are beautiful to look at but rotting inside. Or have you ever watched ants clean up a carcass of roadkill. Angels and Insects has some of the most beautiful costumes I've ever seen, but one of the most shocking stories. Will Adamson as Mark is very subdued,as Kristin Scott Thomas remarkable as Matty- who proves to be the real beauty.

I like how the director kept giving us subtle hints and then was not afraid to throw the truth in our faces- like being hit by the bucket of ice water. A.S. Byatt's story is well translated into film .

A fascinating film about people acting like insects. The costuming is beyond brilliant, but it is the actions of the people that really are striking in this film.

The matriarch of the family is definitely a Queen ant or bee. She constantly gorges herself as the others flutter about serving her.

But it is Eugenia (Patsy Kensit) who is the focus of the film. A poor naturalist (Mark Rylance) is madly in love with her, but her racist brother (Douglas Henshall) warns him that he is not of the right class and should be real. William (Rylance) flits ever so cautiously towards Eugenia's web and is ensnared. I am sure there is something beneath the surface here; maybe the same something that caused Eugenia's former fiancée to kill himself.

But, it is not always the beautiful butterfly that attracts. Sometimes, it is a plain little ant like Matty Crompton (Kristin Scott Thomas), who is busily working on her own plans for William.

This all takes place shortly after Darwin's Origin of the Species was published, and during the Civil War in America. Both colored the story.

Upon the death of Mother, Eugenia ascends the role of Queen ant, continuing to produce heirs. At the same time, a collaboration of William and Matty results in a book being published.

Then the shocking secret comes forth.

Mark Rylance, Patsy Kensit, and Kristin Scott Thomas were all fantastic in this shocking tale.

As one fellow IMDb user stated, there are very few reviews in the grey area for "Angels and Insects". However, I can honestly say that when I first saw the film in 1995 (I was about 12 at the time) I wasn't very impressed. From a very young age I have been interested in period films and thought provoking themes, however, upon first viewing I was incredibly bored by the whole project.

Flash forward to 2003 and I found that I had a whole new appreciation for the film. As a matter of fact, it has become one of my favorites. I don't find the plot particularly shocking, however, the execution of the script is excellently paced. I like the fact that William Adamson realizes that beauty isn't necessarily exhibited on the outside. (However, I find Matty to be far more striking in appearance than Eugenia). He realizes that like his insects (ants in particular), the Alabaster family has a unique and questionable structure/nature.

The soundtrack, costumes, and use of light and location are superb. It isn't by accident that the costumes mimic some of the insects mentioned in the film. (For example, Eugenia's bee dress and her Morpho Eugenia sapphire gown). The Alabaster estate is quiet a piece of eye candy, as are the shots of insects set to the beautiful string based soundtrack. Though this use of symbolism may not be very original, it is beautiful just the same.

I do have to come to the defense of some of the actors, however. Some comments mention that the acting is somewhat wooden. I tend to disagree. (Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course). Okay, so Patsy Kensit may not be the next Vanessa Redgrave, however, I think she offers what the part calls for. Her "wooden" nature fits the character. I see Eugenia as having a definite mental imbalance, thus her often subdued acting seems appropriate. Kristin Scott Thomas is excellent as the clever and mysterious Matty. As for the rest of the cast, I believe that they all did a fine job portraying these somewhat difficult characters.

I have yet to read the A.S. Byatt novella "Morpho Eugenia", however, that is going to be my next project. Naturally, I would be curious to see how the film and the novella compare. Either way, I still feel that "Angels and Insects" deserves my highest regards.

A fascinating and psychologically suffocating film based on a novella by A.S. Byatt.

A doomed love affair and some serious family dysfunction provide the content for the story, and director Philip Haas ratchets up the sense of something rotting at the film's center to a high degree.

Though all of the acting is fine, what I remember most about this film are the costumes, all designed to evoke insect imagery. The film deservedly won an Academy Award nomination for its costume design, and should have won, but the Academy decided to recognize "The English Patient's" assortment of Banana Republic outfits instead.

Grade: B+

The sets, costumes, and players are all beautiful. The acting is quite good. But the story is predictable pretty much from the get-go, which makes the conclusion anti-climactic. A beautiful, boring movie.

Strong performances highlight this film, set in Victorian England during a time when science and society overlap to reveal secrets of nature, as well as some of the deeper secrets born of the human condition, which, as in the case of those depicted in `Angels and Insects,' directed by Philip Haas, were never intended for public disclosure, encompassing as they do, love, shame, ignorance and desperation, and all on a highly personal level. it's a film that points out that Man, the most intelligent and highly evolved species, without the accompanying responsibility often lacks the order and discipline of the common ant; and, unhappily (as this film so succinctly illustrates)-- such conditions do inexcusably prevail. And, that being the fact of the matter, in the end, all that separates us from the insects or the animals are the aspirations of those individuals who are determined to take us all to that higher level, no matter what the cost in terms of personal sacrifice, and in the final analysis, we are-- for better or worse-- only what we make of ourselves.

After ten years on the Amazon and surviving a shipwreck in which most of his work is lost, naturalist William Adamson (Mark Rylance), now lacking a home and means of his own, is taken in by his benefactor, Sir Harald Alabaster (Jeremy Kemp), who hires William to assist him with the writing of a book, as well as to tutor the younger of the children in residence on his estate. It's good fortune for William, who finds satisfaction in his work, as well as in making the acquaintance of one of Sir Harald's daughters, Eugenia (Patsy Kensit), with whom he quickly becomes enamored.

Eugenia, however, is a rather fragile flower, struggling with the inner demons of a dark secret born of unspeakable tragedy. A member of the family intimates to William the nature of Eugenia's distress, but though he then understands, he is prevented by class distinction and bloodline from assuaging her grief or pursuing her hand. He can offer only friendship; but as he soon discovers, where matters of the heart are concerned, friendship alone is a cold mistress. And despite his best efforts, the shadows that plague Eugenia's soul remain. William, though, is determined to break through her darkness and bring her into the light. But some secrets are better left buried, and before it's over, William may discover more than he bargained for.

Beautifully filmed and acted, working from a screenplay co-written by Philip Haas and Belinda Haas (adapted from the novel, `Morpho Eugenia,' by A.S. Byatt), director Haas sets a deliberate pace, which along with the stunning cinematography of Bernard Zitzermann, gives the film a riveting, hypnotic effect. The scenes explode in vivid bursts of color that are so aesthetically appealing to the eye, and which create such a pronounced atmosphere and tone, that the viewer is eased into the drama and summarily swept away by the story. Initially, Haas plays down the enigmatic nature of the tale, but gradually exposes what lies beneath, shading the terms of his revelations so very subtly and effectively. The keen eye will detect hints along the way, but Haas is so discriminating in his presentation that the real impact of the film is decidedly reserved for the denouement, which is extremely effective. Haas understands the emotional terrain with which he is dealing, and it shows-- both in the innate perspectives of human nature which he so readily conveys, as well as in the performances he obtains from his actors.

As Adamson, Mark Rylance lends a quiet, personable charm that works perfectly for his portrayal of this man who has seen, perhaps, too much of the world, and as a result, by choice takes that which is pleasing to him at face value. It's an honest depiction of a just man, who views the world about him objectively and without judgment, which in the end, of course, is to his detriment. It is the quiet strength of Rylance's performance, however, that makes it so effective and emotionally involving.

Patsy Kensit does an admirable job of capturing the angst of Eugenia, this young woman who lives in a seemingly perpetual state of inner-turmoil. She creates a character that is sympathetic, but who evokes little empathy, which is quite in keeping with who Eugenia really is, the woman hiding behind the same mask that guards her unbearable secret. And it's effective work, too, inasmuch as she presents Eugenia as fragile, but not too vulnerable, which goes far in establishing the true nature of her character.

It is Kristen Scott Thomas, however, who gives the most memorable performance of all, as Matty Crompton, a member of Sir Harald's extended family. Scott Thomas, so extraordinary in such films as `The English Patient' and `Random Hearts,' has never been better than she is here. Her portrayal of Matty is entirely honest, presented in terms that are so effectively subtle and understated, and which align so perfectly with the discerning approach Haas takes, that she successfully elicits the empathy of the viewer. This is, without question, an Oscar-worthy performance, coincidentally coming in the same year that Scott Thomas was nominated for Best Actress for her work in `The English Patient.' It goes without saying that it was an incredible, memorable year for this incredible actor.

The supporting cast includes Douglas Henshall (in an extremely noteworthy performance as Eugenia's brother, Edgar), Annette Badland (Lady Alabaster), Chris Larkin (Robin), Anna Massey (Mrs. Mead), Saskia Wickham (Rowena), Clare Redman (Amy) and Paul Ready (Tom). The metaphor of the ant colony makes a thought provoking statement about the potential for dysfunction among the higher, more `intelligent' life forms in the absence of moral discipline and the responsibility carried by Man as the most highly evolved of all creatures. Engaging entertainment and much more, `Angels and Insects' is a plea for humanity to be the best that we can possibly be. And it's the magic of the movies. 9/10.

When William Adamson an entomologist (Mark Rylance) marries Eugenia Alabaster (Patsy Kensit) the daughter of an aristocratic family, he realises that he will always be considered an outsider. He spends much of his time with his insect collection, drawing, and describing specimens and writing books about his butterflies and ants etc. However, Eugenia both beautiful and wealthy is one specimen he prizes above all others. Mark Rylance plays the quietly spoken entomologist with sincerity and always in character. Patsy Kensit is suitably sullen and mysterious with her changing moods and strange ways. But it is Douglas Henshall who plays her obnoxious lascivious brother who livens up every scene in which he appears. The Victorian conversations and mannerisms while well done do tend to irritate after awhile and it is quite pleasing when Eugenia's mother with her high-pitched voice quietly passes away. It seems to me that the interiors of the castle are quite incompatible with the magnificence of the exterior walls, but that is really of little consequence. As we watch the story unfold, we become aware that it is not only William's presence that is so upsetting, but something deeper, more mysterious, some untold secret brooding over the whole family. It is not too difficult to guess what that secret is. One of the early impressions of the film is the predominance of the unusually bold bright colours in the ladies' costumes - bright blue, bright red and bold stripes. Surely they are wrong for this era. I can only guess that the writer (or was it the art director?) got the idea that the women in their Victorian dresses could reflect the colours of the insects - butterflies, ants and bumble bees. Despite its selection for the Cannes Film Festival 1995, it is not a great film, but quite entertaining to watch despite its slow beginning, and for those who like a happy ending, everyone gets their just deserts. The film underlines the fact we all already know that the aristocracy is not always kind to outsiders.

One of the most intricate, well-made films I've seen. The acting is tremendous, the imagery is subtle yet stunning. A film which makes one think of the intricacies of human relationships. The pilgrimage of the hero from the brutal Amazon to "civilized" society which he finds to be anything but civilized in spite of the gorgeous trappings of the upper aristocracy. Highly recommended!

the ugliness that is revealed in the end of the movie is somewhat predictable. the writers seemed to have given too much away. and at time the film moves quite slowly. definitely not for fans of jerry bruckheimer movies. on the other hand if you have a thing for Darwinian thought, well written prose, and don't mind a bit of nudity, this may just be your thing. The British accents are quite thick and a bit of humor could soften the film up. Did humor exist in Victorian england? It sure doesn't turn up in any of the literature? The movie has some fine acting and adequate directing but the writing borders on poetry. Does anyone actually speak like the Adamson character in this film? Who Knows? 7 out of 10 on a good day. A lazy Sunday morning movie.

A U.S.-British co-production for PBS, from A.S. Byatt's story "Morpho Eugenia" (a better title!), this head-scratcher of a human drama involves a Victorian England bug-specialist who comes to stay with a wealthy family and falls in love with his benefactor's lovely but unstable daughter. A carefully plotted picture, which might mean slow or sluggish--yet the film is never boring. Moments of eccentricity, romance and surrealism are blended together with skill, and the actresses in particular (Kristen Scott Thomas and the wonderfully brave Patsy Kensit) are first-rate. It's a difficult film, but one worth staying with. **1/2 from ****

Angels and Insects is one of the most visually stunning movies I have ever seen but every bit of the immense beauty & luxury that is on the screen contributes to the sense & definition of exquisite excess that is so ingrained in the Alabasters' way of life. If one imagines this movie as a 1940s Hollywood effort, perhaps starring Olivier & Fontaine, ala Rebecca, then one must really appreciate the subtly shaded performances. I have never seen better acting onscreen, especially in the performances of Rylance & Thomas. And all the interplay of idea & emotion, science & passion, objectivity & subjectivity, so rarely transferable from print to film are so brilliantly achieved here. Hey, even the sex scenes are among the best I've ever viewed.

Hard up scientist marries into wealth, but eventually must seek freedom.

Basically a romantic Victorian costume drama with intellectual trappings. The themes are breeding, heredity, environment, with a bit of political theory, but above all honesty and deception. These don't cohere completely, but the mix is interesting.

The film feels very awkward at the start. First up, the lighting is so plain, like a TV drama from the '70s - it really sucked the atmosphere out of the location. Then the dialogue was stilted, and it took a long while to warm to the lead actor's restrained delivery.

But it's a very good cast, especially the actress playing Mattie, who as ever conveys so much with her beautiful, intelligent face. Her character is the key to the story and, after all the intellectualising, it's really about freedom of choice without any true insight on the family.

They played around with costume, but dressing one character as a bee was a bit much! And in the background the hallmark of an intellectual English film - the constant buzzing of a little chamber orchestra as it saws away mournfully at its cellos.

The pace does pick up, and the pay off is satisfying, so overall decent entertainment.

Angels and Insects is a thoughtful adult tale predicated on an anagram of the word "Insect." It benefits from a provocative story, interesting collection of characters, the charm of a period setting, and several philosophical and social musings, all worthy of consideration. The casting is generally admirable, as is the carefully selected country house setting. Unfortunately, all of this is brought to ruin by Philip Haas' inept directing. Haas is unable to elicit a single convincing reading from any of his characters, each one single dimensional and unsympathetic. Haas does not believe his audience capable of following the subtle story, so every symbol set in florescence, every theme overstated and restated ad nauseam, every moment of foreshadowing underlined and forced. This heavy handed approach is exacerbated by Paul Brown's ridiculously overwrought costumes, which try frantically to convey the image of humans as insects. Worst of all, Alexander Balanescu contributes a genuinely ugly and distracting musical score, which could ruin a far better film. For example, in an early scene when Adamson returns to Britain and is feted at a private ball, instead of using authentic music to nail the period effect and introduce all the elegant and subtle feelings that run beneath the Victorian surface, Balanescu concocts a drone that is an explicit imitation of locusts. This scene, which could be such a foil to the dance in the Amazon that precedes it, is utterly dreadful. If it is artistically useful to scream that humans and bugs are the same, Haas' approach might have worked. For the viewer who prefers to construct his own meanings and contexts, he will deplore that something intelligent has been debased to middle school stupidity. Perhaps those who admired "The Piano" (another film that frantically worried the view would not Get The Message, constantly harassed by garbage music) would also like this film. This viewer regretted that a marvelous story, worthy of a master filmmaker's hand, was wasted, as it is unlikely that anyone will ever attempt a remake. Pity.

This was thoroughly engaging and thoughtful film, with a rich and fascinating plot and characters.

The opening scene of the natives of South America dancing is a well edited opening, and the word 'Angels" appears over it. Indeed, all the Angels in this film are not in England (where the rest of the film takes place). William Adamson (Mark Rylance), a biologist who collects rare insects (especially the butterfly), survives a shipwreck and comes under the protection of an upper class English family. That's where he falls in love with Eugenia (Patsy Kensit). But every family has it's secrets.

Someone described this as "Merchant-Ivory meets Tennessee Williams", which is a perfect way to describe this film.

Several have complained about the actors, saying that there is not a single stand-out performance. I disagree, as both Rylance and Kristin Scott Thomas (in a performance worthy of an oscar nomination) acquit themselves well. The script is also very well written, and the costumes deserved the Oscar nomination.

One of the ten best of 1996.

This movie is deceptive- the costumes stunning, the actors both subdued and hard to read. Yet the story is brought out in such subtle ways that when the sordid secret is revealed it makes sense. I wish the main character had been a little less subdued, but the woman all plays their parts remarkably well. Most of all this is a film about intricate ways of man, both as an animal and an intellect.

"Angels and Insects" is a slow starter with several strikes against it from the outset. First, the title is a turn-off (from the Byatt book of the same name). Secondly it's a period piece (circa mid 19th century England). Thirdly it factors in Darwinism, Amazon natives, ants and insects, and other esoteric subjects which don't make films appealing to the masses. Finally it has none of the usual Hollywood tinsel and trappings. Those, however, who can get past all that will find a masterpiece of filming, acting, directing, writing, costuming, orchestration, etc. A slowly captivating and somewhat melancholy story of the goings-on within an English manor, "A&I" delivers powerful drama, sterling performances, and masterful execution by the auteur. A great watch for those who love cinema for cinema's sake.

I find this movie absolutely fascinating on all levels: basic idea, story, acting, imagery, set design, colors, music. It all fits together so well and tells a fascinating, rather sad story of beings, their limits and the way they deal with it in a time period of great changes and discoveries. Set entirely on a beautiful Neo Gothic country estate and its grounds, the plot evolves like a dream. The main character looks amazingly like Abraham Lincoln (the story is set during that president's lifetime but presumably in England). He is a man of reason and science - and of no means. He arrives as a kept intellectual and falls for the beautiful daughter of his benefactor. The attraction is exclusively erotic (the movie can be credited for some explicit sex scenes which are for once not gratuitous but as necessary as they are believable) and rather unexpectedly he finds himself adopted into the family and a permanent resident of Dreamland. Always of an alert disposition he observes - and is in turn observed and manipulated. Dreamland finally turns out to be a nightmare, the true nature of things small and not so small are revealed. The Odyssey continues.

Tepid. What a waste of a good title. The production has more in common with television than film. Instead of exploring in a challenging and sensual way the themes implied by the title, the movie timidly rehashes conversations we've all had about metamorphosis. Chalk one up for the marketers, who created warm and enticing packaging for a film that is emotionally distant at best. I don't think the fault lies with the material - in terms of pure plot, the story itself is quite satisfying. But the filmmakers are so incompetent that you feel like you're in high school English class listening to someone mumble through a Shakespeare recitation. Presentation is everything, but they give nearly nothing. Feels like the whole thing was shot by the second unit. The costumes are beautiful.

Kristin Scott Thomas (a major reason I rented this) is underused, though as effective as they allowed her to be.

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.

i decided to tape this movie without watching it and save it for a rainy day, and did it ever pay off! this is a great movie. now i admire antonia susan's writing, but trying to slog through morpho eugenia (book from which this movie was made) was like a peculiar form of torture-- insect description til i thought i would vomit. never thought i would say this, but the movie is so much better! it has all you could want:great acting{no matter what some people say about patsy kensit, if they hadn't wanted some one with her particular talent she would not have been cast. so there.i bite my thumb at thee.} great costumes, setting, and surprise twist ending--! see this movie.

final words:watch it for the sheer guilty pleasure

To have produced such a wonderous film and have it snuck out to the viewing public is quite an accomplishment. The exlplanation escapes me. From the opening scene to the crawl of credits,this one hell of a movie. It achieves a complex intellectual portrayal while maintaining the pace of a well told story. It has everything a lover of the art could desire.

Glossy costume drama that is inert for two thirds of the movie. A lot of this has to do with Mark Rylance speaking so softly and hesitantly that one wants to tell him to get on with it. But the main problem is that Patsy Kensit is way over her head with this one. The only time I thought she was really acting was when she panicked when she was getting covered with moths (and methinks that she was really panicking). Also, Kristin Scott Thomas' Matty, instead of coming across as a champion of liberated women everywhere was merely reduced to a know-it-all that I tired of pretty quickly. The film's only saving grace was the references to insects, which was rather interesting. Other than that, a rather boring historical picture with some shocking subject matter to make it relevant.