68
Metascore
8 reviews · Provided by Metacritic.com
- 88Chicago TribuneDave KehrChicago TribuneDave KehrArchangel is a perfectly self-contained aesthetic object, maddening in its arbitrariness and opacity, yet wholly absorbing in its flurry of urgent yet incomprehensible significations.
- 88The Seattle TimesThe Seattle TimesArchangel, defying every contemporary cinema convention as it does, won't be to everyone's taste. But for those interested in the wilder possibilities of what film can do, it's an absolute must
- 75Chicago ReaderJonathan RosenbaumChicago ReaderJonathan RosenbaumWhat comes across is a fascinating fetishist delirium, where memories of remote war movies get recycled into something that's alternately creepy and beautiful.
- 70Time OutTime OutThe war scenes are extraordinary, although thrown in far too liberally; even better are the daft tableaux vivants which seem to comprise Archangel's only entertainment.
- 70Los Angeles TimesKevin ThomasLos Angeles TimesKevin ThomasSo much for the plot; what's important is Maddin's witty, knowing evocation of vintage movie kitsch. [11 Dec 1991, p.F11]
- 60The New York TimesStephen HoldenThe New York TimesStephen HoldenFrom its flickering, inky cinematography to its wavering late 1920's-style sound track, to Veronkha's kohl-eyed vampish look, the movie is an expert parody of a period movie style.
- 50Austin ChronicleMarc SavlovAustin ChronicleMarc SavlovAt once perplexing and joyous, Maddin has crafted a film that, for all the confusion inherent in the tale, unfolds on its own unique (and rather tedious) terms. Love it or hate it, this is one film that just doesn't give a damn what you think.
- 50The Globe and Mail (Toronto)The Globe and Mail (Toronto)Wonderfully theatrical in conceit and frequently beautiful to look at, Archangel is nevertheless choppy and listless in pace, and has little of the surrealist zing of the earlier film (Tales from the Gimli Hospital). [03 Sep 1990]