Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Leofwine_draca This is a boring, time-wasting horror film, in which an interesting story is destroyed by poor direction, a lack of pacing, and a lack of actual horror ingredients. Instead, the film focuses on human characters and their relationships. Frankly, if I wanted to watch trash like this, I'd watch a soap instead. After an hour in which nothing much particularly happens, the pace does pick up a bit and threatens to become exciting, only to lapse once again into a boring ending which looks like it has been severely cut short - by a lack of budget, perhaps? The acting is pretty bad from a bland cast; only the leading man, Christopher McDonald, displays much talent and even he is rather boring. One reviewer calls Rachael Leigh Cook's performance tremendous, but it's more like atrocious in my opinion. I don't like Cook and every time she appears, the film seems to go even slower as the cameraman concentrates on her blank face. Maximilian Schell is ineffectual as the chief bad guy, and while I think of it, Christopher Lee would have been perfect in the role (after all, he played a similar one in CITY OF THE DEAD). As for Stanley Tucci, his small part is pointless.I did find the actual story, which mixes in Satanism, Christianity and genetics, to be an interesting one which should and could have been developed further. As it is, it's just an excuse to show some ugly old faces in a bid to shock the audience. Images of a Satanic clock keep recurring throughout the film, which is extremely irritating. Although it's shot well, and the authentic Italian location work is nice, each scene is marred by a lack of real action and the dragging pacing. The script is confusing, the climax non-existent.The only thing to compensate for these major flaws would be some meaty gore scenes to enjoy, but with only a couple of brief deaths (by cat and by impalement), we don't even get those, which is a real cheat. THE EIGHTEENTH ANGEL's place in history stands as a minor precursor to the endless religious horrors that the Millennium stirred up (END OF DAYS, BLESS THE CHILD, etc.), and it fails totally as a horror movie.

Andy Ethell I just saw this film on Mid-day TV. It was excellent but I felt it was a little disjointed as several characters and people were not really explained.For example the long haired young man who took Rachel Leigh Cook for a ride-why did he seemingly have hypnotic power.Also I was a bit sad that the cat was made possessed. As a lover of cats this was a bit sad.The main highlight though was Rachel Leigh Cook-I would have liked to have seen more of her both in the film, and in the flesh as there was this implied feeling of lust by the various hooded figures.Ending I thought that the ending of film left possibility of a sequel-a bit like the Damian trilogy of the 70's.

jannagal The countdown is on...the devil is coming, the devil is coming. And, it wants some beauty, so let's kidnap some beautiful girls. From the phony somber stridency of the narrator's opening monologue, to the stupid clock that gives the countdown, this movie has the most implausible of themes. On first viewing, the movie was rated a 5, for some interesting camera work, and movie tone. But several months and several 100 movies later, a second viewing(why I wasted my time I don't know) warrants a lower rating. New rating: 4 As an aside, in one scene, the husband asks about his wife's work: It's "Etruscans" she says. "Ah, snails," he says. "No that's crustaceans," she says. "No sorry, that's mollusca," I say.

KuRt-33 "The House of Yes", "Family Rescue", "She's All That": all decent movies starring Rachael Leigh Cook. That's why Rachael was the only reason I wanted to see "The Eighteenth Angel" (well, that and the fact it was shown just after The X-Files). The short version: not even Rachael (as Lucy) can save this disaster.Here's the longer version: Some of the acting is so bad it's more frightening than the horror plot (a Satanic church wants the Antichrist back and all they need is a demon clock saying when they should sacrifice 18 angelic children). The worst performance is given by Maximilian Schell: instead of acting like a satanic priest he acts like he's the evil penguin in a children's story. When he recites the satanic verses, you think he's reading the recipe for pork chops. The more the story evolves the more ludicrous it gets. If you know the horror cliches, all you have to do is make a list and wait for it to come. Oh look, spikes: somebody's bound to get killed by them. (check) Oh look, nice horses: they are probably going to kill someone. (check) Let's wait for the cameo of a cemetary. (check) Etc etc. (check) Watch out for painful mistakes: father Simeon is praying to the Devil in a pentagram (check), but apparently the makers of this movie didn't know what a pentagram is. It certainly isn't what they used a movie. (If you don't know what a pentagram looks like: watch Jacob the Liar: in that movie they needed a Jewish star, but they used a pentagram.) Add the final ingredient: referring to and stealing from other movies. Maybe they can get away with referring to Brian de Palma's Obsession (the church scene), but it's hard not to spot they borrowed some ideas from The Exorcist. Once again: bad copying only makes a bad movie worse.So it's best to skip this movie? Yes, unless you like watching Rachael Leigh Cook. In this movie she is a teenage model, so there's lots of posing and looking nice. But she was much better in the movie list I started this review with, so that's not really an argument. Also, skipping The Eighteenth Angel means you don't have to see the ending of a movie which gets worse every scene. You'll clap your hand when the titles get there: not because the movie was good, but because it's finally over.