Framescourer A tough AS Byatt adaptation from Philip Haas which takes a cold look at Darwinism. Rylance's Mark Adamson is a ruined botanist who takes not only the charity of his patron Sir Harald Alabaster but, in time, his daughter Eugenia's hand. Something is not right though and tragedy strikes him a second time when he discovers her secret.Haas has created a lush film, overflowing with life as if the Alabaster house were a jungle itself. This is the irony of the film. A strange transformation seems to have taken place whereby the appropriately named Alabasters have lost the warmth and colour of a moral existence, a better life of which only Sir Harald, Mark and the discreet but ardent Matty Crompton seem to be aware. Kristin Scott Thomas gives the best of the performances as the intelligent but buttoned-down Matty. It's just a shame that her role is necessarily minuscule compared to the less engaging Patsy Kensit, well-cast but not particularly memorable as the frigid Eugenia, not that an unsympathetic Ryalnce does much to help her, I'm afraid. Douglas Henshall is ideal as the insipid Edgar. 6/10

StephanieGould I had to watch this film for a class about Mid-Victorian Britain...with my professors and my class...and I was shocked at the story; Not just how awful the acting was, but that the script was actually bought and given a green light for production. The costumes were stylized and the design was nominated for an Oscar...how that was possible, I don't even know. The only thing redeemable about the film is Kristen Scott Thomas. Mark Rylance and Patsy Kensit give two of the worst performances I have ever seen in my entire life. Rylance's pitch and tone of voice never changes and Kensit was overly dramatic to the point of being comical. I would only see this movie if you want to laugh. But even at that, you're going to be wasting money...even energy by renting this movie. Stay away...

franzfelix Angels and Insects is a thoughtful adult tale predicated on an anagram of the word "Insect." It benefits from a provocative story, interesting collection of characters, the charm of a period setting, and several philosophical and social musings, all worthy of consideration. The casting is generally admirable, as is the carefully selected country house setting. Unfortunately, all of this is brought to ruin by Philip Haas' inept directing. Haas is unable to elicit a single convincing reading from any of his characters, each one single dimensional and unsympathetic. Haas does not believe his audience capable of following the subtle story, so every symbol set in florescence, every theme overstated and restated ad nauseam, every moment of foreshadowing underlined and forced. This heavy handed approach is exacerbated by Paul Brown's ridiculously overwrought costumes, which try frantically to convey the image of humans as insects. Worst of all, Alexander Balanescu contributes a genuinely ugly and distracting musical score, which could ruin a far better film. For example, in an early scene when Adamson returns to Britain and is feted at a private ball, instead of using authentic music to nail the period effect and introduce all the elegant and subtle feelings that run beneath the Victorian surface, Balanescu concocts a drone that is an explicit imitation of locusts. This scene, which could be such a foil to the dance in the Amazon that precedes it, is utterly dreadful. If it is artistically useful to scream that humans and bugs are the same, Haas' approach might have worked. For the viewer who prefers to construct his own meanings and contexts, he will deplore that something intelligent has been debased to middle school stupidity. Perhaps those who admired "The Piano" (another film that frantically worried the view would not Get The Message, constantly harassed by garbage music) would also like this film. This viewer regretted that a marvelous story, worthy of a master filmmaker's hand, was wasted, as it is unlikely that anyone will ever attempt a remake. Pity.

LilyDaleLady (**Some very minor spoilers)An excellent and very accurate adaptation of A.S. Byatt's ("Possession") novella, "Morpho Eugenia", which was published along with her "Conjugal Angel" under the title "Angels and Insects".The story basically takes the traditional "plain governess" story that we are familiar with from countless romances, but especially "Jane Eyre", and subverts it, bringing in modern concepts of sexuality, genetics and incest to what is traditionally a very discreet and modest literary genre. The brilliant young actor Mark Rylance (he's also the Artistic Director of the restored Globe Theatre in London) stars as a mid-19th century naturalist who is forced into a lowly teaching position on a estate, when a tragic turn of events destroys his life's work of insect studies in South America. At the house, is a plain but brilliant young governess (Kristen Scott Thomas) but he overlooks her for the aristocratic daughter of the family (Patsy Kensit), who is traditionally blond and gorgeous. Initially blinded by the erotic quality of their marriage, he is gradually drawn into a web of lies and deception by the corrupt aristocratic family.A few reviewers have commented on the loud and gaudy costumes of the film. Although the designers are taking a few liberties, and clearly want us to associate the costumes with various insects, like bees, in fact they are not as bizarre as first impression would indicate. We often think that 19th century costumes were very grim and dark, but this is largely because we only see them in B&W photos of the period, or the few faded examples that have survived. In fact, the bright fabric dyes of the period WERE very loud and gaudy, and the taste of the time was for big prints, contrasting colors and lots of elaborate fringes, ruffles, etc. (I studied fashion history in design school, and I can vouch for this!) It IS startling, because we have been largely misled by "tasteful" costume dramas, but I found the picture of the 19th century represented here to be fresh and authentic.Since many contemporary domestic films and TV movies have dealt with the theme of incest, it may not strike some viewers as all that shocking or extraordinary, but in the tightly repressed Victorian era, such things would be deeply hidden and repressed, and even more so -- never spoken of, which would guarantee that such things would continue to go on, only in secret.I think whether or not this film (or the novella for that matter) touches you, depends on whether you identify with the idea of the "plain jane" who has to inevitably watch the man she desires reject her and choose the prettiest girl. Since these actions result in tragedy and disaster, and the "plain jane" ends up triumphing and getting her man in the end, "Angels and Insects" is following basic romantic novel tradition, with a few highly original and unusual quirks along the way.I personally enjoyed it very much on this level -- however, there may be people (especially some men) who find this sort of thing mind-numbing, and the few graphic sex scenes will not be enough to keep them from running screaming out of the room. So -- make a judgment call on those grounds, but for the right type of viewer, this is intelligent and interesting film-making.