All the scenes between the angel Emmanuelle Béart and Michael E. Knight were great, even brought me to tears near the end. But all the other characters, with the possible exception of Michael's father, were played as cartoons. Why the writer/director would make such a decision I cannot fathom.The angel costume/character is absolutely beautiful, wings and all, as is the lighting.I do so wish the ending had been the opposite - personal preference. After such a build-up during the penultimate scene, I was let down.Also wish we were allowed shorter reviews as in the past. It is difficult to come up with additional commentary when there wasn't much of value to view. When a project such as "Date With An Angel" offers employment to so many and takes such an effort on the part of the actors and crew, one would hope that the daily rushes would give a clue to the eventual outcome.

I don't know about you, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Tom McLoughlin, the writer and director behind "Date With An Angel", got his inspiration from the movie "Splash" when it was released three years earlier. However, "Splash" was a hit while "Date With An Angel" was a box office flop, and it's pretty easy to see why. Certainly, the fact that there were no big stars in the cast probably played a factor. But what really sinks the movie is how utterly stupid it is. The supporting characters (the fiancée, the future father-in-law, and the hero's buddies) are extreme stereotypes, and don't act in any believable way when they encounter the angel. The hero isn't fleshed out that much and comes across as a doofus. And while Emmanuelle Beart is beautiful, she is saddled in a role that has her character not only unable to speak English (until the last scene), but doesn't seem to understand English as well. As a result, the love that builds between the angel and the hero - the main drive of the movie - is completely unbelievable. The movie also has some unclear elements that suggest the original cut ran a lot longer and made more sense - a director's cut might fix that problem, but would probably bring in a lot more stupidity that would make the movie even harder to endure.

Minor Spoilers (I think)I remember seeing this film as a teen. I thought it was a great film, back then. I just saw it again and well. Yes, it was an eighties film, pretty typical. The story line was just okay. It got better in the end when he "figured it out" because, I sure didn't. I didn't even remember that from the first time I saw it either. The parts that stuck with me all these years were those of the Angel (Emmanuelle Beart) I was completely taken in by her etherial beauty. I love the scenes in the forest with her and the animals. When she lights up, well, it's worth watching for the sight of her alone. She has a grace and innocent charm that suits her role perfectly. Delightful.Phoebe Cates plays Patti the hero's, fiancée and gives a great performance.Unfortunately, it's a very one dimensional role and does not put her in a good light. They (writers/directors) have given her no redeeming qualities. Personally, I think she's a lovely girl, but she's not at all in the same league as Ms. Beart.Our Hero, Jim (Michael E. Knight), rescues the Angel in distress and behaves like a true prince. He has much to deal with trying to do the right thing and has no one but himself to depend on.I suppose, it's very much like a modern (well '80's) fairy tale. But all the characters are very one dimensional. Simply uncomplicated. And about the comments on whether Angels can speak, well, who can argue?! I suppose there are Angels like Gabe, and Mike that are vocal messengers. But this Angel's task was not to bear a message, she was to bring solace, peace, if you will. I think her eyes and facial expressions spoke volumes and words alone could never convey the intensity and sensitivity of the situation.I gave this movie a 10/10 simply for the eye-candy.

... but not even her unearthly, celestial beauty could rescue this film. And yes, the young Phoebe Cates was beautiful, but in looks alone, she's no match for Ms. Beart. But really, this is a idiotic film, with an idiotic plot, that is only watchable when Ms. Beart is on screen. Yes, she can do with just a glance what most actresses need a few pages of dialog to convey. I can't recommend this boring, badly directed and badly everything film, except for Ms. Beart. She's the only reason why you should watch this film, but fast forward any part she's not in.