Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

bos-467-729629 This film intends to follow a classic comedy plot that has been done many times. I mean no criticism by that - it is a very good film that is marred by some terrible choices that feel to me like they should be blamed on production/direction, not the material, cast or setting.It could have been great. The message is a serious, decent, inspiring one with extreme comic relief. The kind of thing that Hollywood is usually pretty good at.Superb writing, fine casting (except as noted below), very nice location/construction/set design. How could they fail? I'll tell you.Robert De Niro was very good except for the ridiculous way he channeled Victor McLaglen's lower jaw (don't believe me? Go watch 'Broadway Limited' again) so hard that the jaw should have gotten separate credit. Maybe even a supporting actor award.I don't know what was wrong with Sean Penn. Maybe I just didn't believe that the rest of the characters could really that fooled.Demi Moore plays the cliché, the whole cliché and nuttin' but the cliché. And has to labor under an over the top 'lower class' accent with no back story justifying that she speaks like that. Maybe DeNiro's jaw (Victor's?) got to her. Truth in reviewing - I don't really like her work but I would have disliked her way less if they hadn't pushed her so hard in so many ways.John C. Reilly is very good a role that could have been expanded. Ditto Mr. Axton. Ditto the cute kid. Ray McAnally was a little over the top but not ridiculous.A missed opportunity!

The_Movie_Cat Sadly, said lines are a quote from the film, and not anything anyone has actually ever said about this comedy.With a regular run of comedic roles in the 90s it seemed as if De Niro was taking a dramatic shift away from his regular persona. However, it's easy to overlook the fact that six of his first ten pictures were comedies, often so-so farces like The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.After reaching his zenith as an actor and performing his most famous roles (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Deer Hunter et al) it was the dark comedies of The King of Comedy and Brazil that led him back into the genre. The decent but unremarkable Midnight Run followed, then this.We're No Angels has a title reminiscent of some Cagneyesque piece (indeed, it was based on a play and previously made in 1955 with Bogart) yet also sounds like the kind of vehicle you could imagine Laurel and Hardy starring in. Fittingly, it's set in the 1930s and Penn's simple-minded expressions, especially in the final scene, are almost Laurelesque. But even Laurel and Hardy couldn't string an amusing feature-length picture out of two escaped convicts (as the less than great Pardon Us would attest) so De Niro and Penn are on a hiding to nothing.We're No Angels is well acted, well directed and pretty well written. But it's a comedy with no laughs. A dramady, if you will. Yet after years of reading about this as De Niro's nadir, then... it's not that bad. Sure, he does mug a little too often in the vague approximation of a "comic" performance, but never enough to really grate. It's charming at times, engaging at others, and all the cast work well. Just don't expect to crack your face.

Andrei Boceanu Well, ask me why this movie has such a poor rating. Or maybe don't ask me, because I have no answer. The movie is just great. The acting is perfect for this script, DeNiro and Penn are so funny and also serious when is needed. Why such a poor rating ? Maybe because people are not so funny as they were once. For the people of our days a comedy is something like Scary Movie or a movie that makes you laugh every minute because of something stupid. But "We're No Angels" is funny, is romantic, is serious, is educative, is simply GREAT MOVIE. You have to watch it with an innocent eye, you must enjoy the movie. Don't look at it with a critical eye. That's not good for the entertainment. Just watch it to relax and to feel good. It deserves it. And you also deserve it.

Pamsanalyst Once we are past the opening scenes set in what seems to be a coal mine doubling as a prison, this film can be enjoyed as a fable. Many films should be prefaced with the phrase 'once upon a time' and this one is no exception. Producer DeNiro could not get Stan and Ollie so he put himself in the latter role, and chose Penn for the part of Laurel. We keep expecting to see Penn break out into Laurelish tears at any moment, and it is only the sound of the water that prevents us from hearing DeNiro shouting "whooaaaaaaa" as he slides down the falls. And there are so many times I expected Ollie to swat Stanley, but it never happens.Left to their mugging, my rating might be higher, but somehow inserting Demi into the mix spoils something. If the time were 1930, the little girl who plays a key role would have had a much older looking mother, or at least one who looked more bedraggled by her life in that wilderness.Then the storyline takes a disastrous violent turn just after the statute seems to have produced another miracle. Such a scene worked in Some Like It Hot when the killer jumped out of the cake. Here it ruins the mood that is being set. Surely there was another way to get the girl into the water.I have no problem, however, watching it again.