All due credit to the crew: the first and most lasting impression one has of the film is the splendor of the visuals. Giuseppe Aquari's black and white cinematography is rich and vivid, lovely in capturing every little detail. The filming locations are gorgeous, and the production design and art direction equally so. The hair and makeup work is immaculate, and the costume design is wonderfully fetching. Camillo Mastrocinque demonstrates a marvelously keen eye as director, Gisa Radicchi's editing is smooth and fluid, and even the lighting comes across as rather inspired. May I just say, too, that I love the very title, and the premise is enticing. I think the cast is swell, too, all demonstrating fine nuance and poise to bring their characters and the picture to life. Commendations to them all!
The actual storytelling is far more troubled as Mastrocinque and Giuseppe Mangione's screenplay comes off as scattered and unfocused. A complete story is told, but I don't think it's fully coherent or cohesive. There are more than a few moments in the dialogue and scene writing that inspire a perplexed "what?" and I wonder: is it intentional misdirection on the part of the characters on hand, especially the antagonist? Or is it just sloppy writing? As the length progresses, I'm absolutely inclined to think it's the latter, not least as the climax abruptly throws a couple more story ideas into the mix that don't strike me as comporting with what the feature had previously been building. Even as dirty deeds accumulate, plot development is weak and less than gripping, and not always communicated well. Sharp an eye as Mastrocinque illustrates as director, his guiding hand in terms of orchestrating the execution of scenes is more questionable, for as they present too many instances are frankly unconvincing. This is deeply unfortunate, since on paper the narrative is, for the most part, strong and compelling.
What it comes down to is that for all the finesse in the contributions of those behind the scenes, the same cannot be said of the writing, or of its realization in front of the camera. 'An angel for Satan' is not a psychological horror film per se, but it definitely plays with a fundamental duality in one character, and one performance, that up until the outrageously floundering last few minutes drives the entirety of the plot. Such tales absolutely require subtlety and a delicate touch to pull off, and without it, the picture falls flat; see 2005 slog 'Headspace' as a prime example. This movie, as we see it, is entirely too blunt and heavy-handed in its treatment of this pivotal figure, so where the experience should be deviously dark and entertaining, instead it feels forced, ham-handed, and dull. I recognize the skills of the ensemble, but the acting in and of itself suffers from this same untoward forthrightness. Those moments throughout the length that are perplexing, inviting skeptical reactions, including the climax that's all but a non sequitur? Here's our answer.
I was ready and willing to engage with this movie from the start, and I did so with an open mind. My favor fell away bit by bit as the digital timer advanced, taking another major hit at the climax that pushed the needle in the wrong direction. I really do love all the work put into this by the crew behind the scenes; would that their efforts, and those of the cast, weren't wasted on material that's ultimately so club-footed and meager. I expected that I'd enjoy 'An angel for Satan,' but by golly have I been disappointed. I hope other folks get more out of this than I did, but in my opinion it's such a mess that I can't especially imagine recommending it.
The actual storytelling is far more troubled as Mastrocinque and Giuseppe Mangione's screenplay comes off as scattered and unfocused. A complete story is told, but I don't think it's fully coherent or cohesive. There are more than a few moments in the dialogue and scene writing that inspire a perplexed "what?" and I wonder: is it intentional misdirection on the part of the characters on hand, especially the antagonist? Or is it just sloppy writing? As the length progresses, I'm absolutely inclined to think it's the latter, not least as the climax abruptly throws a couple more story ideas into the mix that don't strike me as comporting with what the feature had previously been building. Even as dirty deeds accumulate, plot development is weak and less than gripping, and not always communicated well. Sharp an eye as Mastrocinque illustrates as director, his guiding hand in terms of orchestrating the execution of scenes is more questionable, for as they present too many instances are frankly unconvincing. This is deeply unfortunate, since on paper the narrative is, for the most part, strong and compelling.
What it comes down to is that for all the finesse in the contributions of those behind the scenes, the same cannot be said of the writing, or of its realization in front of the camera. 'An angel for Satan' is not a psychological horror film per se, but it definitely plays with a fundamental duality in one character, and one performance, that up until the outrageously floundering last few minutes drives the entirety of the plot. Such tales absolutely require subtlety and a delicate touch to pull off, and without it, the picture falls flat; see 2005 slog 'Headspace' as a prime example. This movie, as we see it, is entirely too blunt and heavy-handed in its treatment of this pivotal figure, so where the experience should be deviously dark and entertaining, instead it feels forced, ham-handed, and dull. I recognize the skills of the ensemble, but the acting in and of itself suffers from this same untoward forthrightness. Those moments throughout the length that are perplexing, inviting skeptical reactions, including the climax that's all but a non sequitur? Here's our answer.
I was ready and willing to engage with this movie from the start, and I did so with an open mind. My favor fell away bit by bit as the digital timer advanced, taking another major hit at the climax that pushed the needle in the wrong direction. I really do love all the work put into this by the crew behind the scenes; would that their efforts, and those of the cast, weren't wasted on material that's ultimately so club-footed and meager. I expected that I'd enjoy 'An angel for Satan,' but by golly have I been disappointed. I hope other folks get more out of this than I did, but in my opinion it's such a mess that I can't especially imagine recommending it.