WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Blake Rivera If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

rgcustomer With 250+ reviews already, I'm probably not adding much to the conversation, yet I need a place to say it, so here it is.I've seen the stage version, and I've seen the film three times. And I really do not see what the fuss is about. I've tried, but I don't see it.It's not a bad film, and earned its 7/10 from me. It has good music, good acting, and acceptable effects.But I have a big problem with the writing. I found it to be overlong, without delivering a clear message, and too much directed like a filmed play, rather than a serious film.The angels in particular were among the most idiotic things I've seen in a long time. In a way, I guess that's appropriate, but just didn't fit with the rest of the film. If you edit all that out, I think you could get a better film. Of course, the title would have to go...I also found that the use of Roy Cohn and Ethel Rosenberg didn't fit. Why put a real man as a lead in a fictional film? It's not responsible. There was no Joe Pitt, and he never worked for a 2nd Circuit justice. It all unravels from there. If you're in fiction, it's best to stay there. If you're in docudrama, try to stick to the truth.Themes in this film are gay men and: AIDS, 1980s USA, Republicans, Mormons, the closet.While I have seen better films on gay men and AIDS (In the Gloaming, And the Band Played On) and closeted gay Republicans (Outrage) I haven't yet seen a film that covers as much ground as this one, or that covers the 80s as well. On the other hand, I know there are many significant ones I haven't seen, and I do expect I'll find one better than this.Anyway, I do admire the attempt, and the result is worth watching, although not great.

Jinn I picked up the 2-disc DVD at the video shop (I love how they're still called video shops... :), - and it's set in 1986 ... My mother and I thought "Angels in America" would be brilliant with the cast, the awards and the angels...When I hire a movie, I watch the whole thing to see how it turns out... But this one, hurry up & get to the end already!!! My mother kept on saying "this is a terrible movie," referring to the uber-angst, and lack of angelic presences and I could have done without the religious overtones. Many Non-Christians also believe in Angels.My mother and I were very disappointed by there being hardly any angels and while I like Emma Thomson, her serious PMT Angel didn't do much for me (despite the awesome effects). Touched by an Angel? How about F***ed by an Angel? .... The Angel's egoism and screeching I felt off putting and cringe-worthy ... and the way the Heavens were failing, and the way they were all carrying on up there. What big wusses. How very reassuring ... NOT! I liked how the movie was set in the 80's and the characters were interesting, and complicated ... though honestly I believe that much of the hoo-haa could have been cut out, tightened up and made into a 2 ½ hour movie. The performances I liked best were Mary-Louise Parker as Harper, Justin Kirk as Walter. And Emma Thomson's Angel - minus the hollering.It did have some wonderful messages and pearls of wisdom about accepting homosexuality (I am bisexual myself) and those with AIDS, and believing in yourself, accepting yourself, standing up for yourself, about the body being the garden (or temple) of the soul, that we're all on a journey of our own choosing and we can choose to make it a great one ... and the message that humanity was evolving But I, I, I, I, Iiiiiiii honestly thought it could have been much better.

aciolino Yes, in these days of immature observations, stereotypes, a populace suffering from severe A.D.D., you, too, can write a hit Broadway show and/or TV series! All you need to do is have your own inflated sense of self pompously attack a major religion that had, quite simply, helped create Western Civilization for 2,000 years, lecture while talking down to your audience, and give us pretentiously conceived characters hooting and hollering, spitting and cursing their way through life, and you've done it.And remember, you ain't nothing, if you're not a victim! It's bad enough that the film and it's author exploits and tragic disease to his own, barely discernible end, (propaganda) and that it is done with such unabashed childishness, but must I be insult me as well, with such inane and unrealistic plots and dialogue, most of which would be rejected by a Junior High School theater class?? Stay away from this self-righteous, hypocritical mess, but if you do decide to watch it, ask yourself: why do I care about any of these people?

daniel-mohler Its amazing how such a boring, ridiculous and unimaginative story has attracted such a high profile cast. The characters lack depth, the surreal sequence of scenes lacks any discernible storyline to the point were even the sad parts of it turn out unintentionally humorous.Furthermore the movies outlook on future events give away its limited, childish view of the world. The shock and awe of some scenes combined with the immature stereotypes that should have better been spared leaves any viewer scrambling for a message or intelligent spark with nothing to do but shake ones head.Instead of a time period, the movie depicts a small minds view biased by a specific mindset and fails to grasp the spirit of that era by pushing this immature and unobservant point of view on its audience.If you could (insert utterly boring task here) instead, do it. Your time is better spent than watching this movie.