Angels in America is a HBO miniseries adapted from the Pulitzer Prize- winning play of the same name by Tony Kushner.It has superb cast namely: Justin Kirk,Al Pacino,Patrick Wilson,Meryl Streep,Ben Shenkman,Mary- Louise Parker,Emma Thompson and Jeffrey Wright.Mike Nichols directed. Set in 1985,the film has at its core the story of two couples whose relationships dissolve amidst the backdrop of Reagan era politics, the spreading AIDS epidemic and a rapidly changing social and political climate.The story centers around Prior Walter and Louis Ironson, a gay couple that falls apart when Prior grows ill as a result of AIDS. But cancer is not the only thing invading Prior's life: He begins to have religious visions of an angel announcing that he is a prophet. Louis, who doesn't cope well with disease and suggestions of mortality, leaves and starts a relationship with Joe Pitt, a closeted Mormon who works for Roy Cohn -- the real-life right-wing lawyer, notorious for his ruthless behind-the- scenes machinations. Add in Joe's depressed and hallucinating wife Harper, his determined but open-minded mother Hannah, a fierce drag queen/nurse named Belize, and you've still only begun to discover the wealth of characters and story lines in Kushner's ambitious work.This is a great mini-series. Although it contains a lot of gay themes,it touches more than that.It tells about the changes in society and how people are affected by it at all levels and it touches on other themes such as about AIDS, conservative politics, history, relationships, self awareness, religion, theology, love, forgiveness, survival and transcendence.Also,it contains great acting from its superb cast led by Al Pacino and Meryl Streep.And most of all,it is must-see to fully understand what people go through in society.

Although this movie was based on a good concept, it was overdone and extraordinarily long and boring. I wish I had spent my time watching paint dry.Although the context was great, the movie was slow to the point of comatose.They really needed to compact the show a lot because it lost SO much in the watching... and waiting.Where they got it right was in having the same actors doing multiple scenes - that was really interesting and fun.The acting was excellent but it was WAY to overextended.My husband and I didn't even watch it until the end - it was that boring. I insisted that we do just to say we did but we will be "donating" this movie to anybody that actually wants to see.

One thing to remember if you're thinking about watching this -- and it is one of the gay classics -- is that it has uneven patches. But when you're just about fed up with a patch that is senseless, tedious, or irritating, suddenly it gets good again. And of course in totality, the whole thing gels and feels complete and meaningful and uplifting.One great thing about the film is that it encompasses a wide variety of characters. It's not confined to a tiny group of gay friends, one or more of whom might get sick. In this regard, it succeeds much better than even "Rent" does.So do take a look at it if you're interested in gay-related cinema or AIDS-related themes. Just realize that, however, it probably won't be quite what you expected. But, in that, it might actually turn out to be better than you expected!

Despite a few A-List actors this is not a mainstream film and thus is not meant for your typical widespread audience with a short attention span. I don't know the details behind who funded this but it was clearly not made to make money, and I am very supportive of anyone who has the courage to take a risk and present a story from their heart - as opposed to selling out to fit Hollywood guidelines. Also, the series was made from a different point of view that most of us will hopefully never get to see in real life, showing suffering in a very visceral way, and that is another aspect that should be applauded.But I am afraid that is where the compliments end for Angels in America. The screenplay was very, very political where the characters either directly or indirectly blame a Republican ideology and President Ronald Regan for the AIDS crisis, as if he and his supporters were the ones that was causing AIDS to spread instead of the common sense fact that AIDS is spread through promiscuous men having unprotected anal sex.Al Pacino does a good job in his portrayal of Roy Cohen although I am sure his character was exaggerated to show more of his perception from the gay community. Aside from that, the film was dark and dreary with absolutely no hope for any of the characters except for their drug induced hallucinations. At the end of the film I didn't feel bad for anyone although I suppose I could have if they weren't portrayed in such a self serving and spiteful fashion. My favorite scenes included Mary Louise Parker as she was the only one that was light-hearted an innocent without an agenda of her own.The far majority of scenes were drawn out and unnecessary. The fact that the same exact story could have been told in 3 hours instead of 6 really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.Again, I support films that go against the tide, especially ones for a cause, but this screenplay, or adaptation rather, was over the top, drawn out and boring.