The boundary between right and wrong can sometimes be so narrow that even the most principled and straight-laced of individuals can find themselves on the wrong side of the law. None of us is entirely immune to making mistakes, and we have come to realise that society is not necessarily designed to protect the rights of those who get caught up in precarious situations through no fault of their own. However, there are some that do choose to lead a life driven by sinister intentions – but the question that needs to be asked in these situations is quite simple: do they deserve a second chance as well? This is something that Neil Jordan and David Mamet explore in We’re No Angels, where the former directs a screenplay by the latter, in a remake of the 1955 film of the same title that follows a few days in the lives of a pair of escaped convicts that find themselves desperately seeking a safe haven, which proves to be a small town in upstate New York, where they are mistaken for two visiting priests – and realising that this can be a good way to hide from the authorities until the heat dies down, they fully embrace their new roles, despite their complete lack of experience and knowledge, neither of which end up being major obstacles in their attempts to start over without facing the consequences of their actions. It’s a relatively charming film with some strong ideas, but is far from Jordan’s most accomplished work, and never quite hits the stride that seemed to be its intention, leading to a film that has some great ideas, but mostly falters in the areas that matter the most, being entertaining at the best of times, but also slightly too flawed in how it executes some of its more ambitious themes, none of which seem to be particularly effective when we realise just how much potential there was based on the material with which they were working. Nonetheless, We’re No Angels does have its merits, even if they’re not always the elements that drive the narrative, but rather those which exist slightly off-centre, being symbolic of the audacity of the premise and the willingness to experiment with both form and content.

At a glance, We’re No Angels appears to be a relatively simple affair – it is crafted to be a period comedy set during the Great Depression, and which follows themes relating to redemption, social order and individuality, all of which are enshrouded by a layer of dark humour that is very much reminscient of both Jordan and Mamet, two very different artists but who nonetheless have a particularly unique approach to finding levity in the most unexpected of moments. As we mentioned above, the central theme of this film is exploring the concept of second chances, and whether even those who have been entirely diminished by society in terms of their reputation can be afforded the opportunity for redemption, something that should be a fundamental right to any individual who wants to achieve it, but yet seems to be exclusively reserved for a select few. The majority of this film is essentially the two protagonists undergoing a series of misadventures in and around this quaint hamlet, the small town being home to a variety of eccentric characters with whom they interact to maintain the front that they are priests, rather than murderous, deranged escaped convicts who are taking advantage of the generosity of this blissfully unaware community. It seems oddly appropriate that the only person who seems to see through the ruse is a foul-mouthed sex worker, who immediately recognises her ilk, considering she has spent nearly her entire adult life receiving scorn from the self-righteous members of the community, to the point where she can immediately notice when someone is cut from the same cloth. These ideas form the foundation for a very engaging story that touches on some serious, complex themes, which are subsequently covered in a shimmering sheen of darkly comical humour, which Jordan uses to make some fascinating and provocative points. It’s certainly not a film without its flaws, but its conceptual foundation is quite strong, and Jordan does his best with some limited options as far as exploring this premise is concerned.

One of the reasons we are drawn towards We’re No Angels has to do with the cast – the idea of Robert De Niro and Sean Penn in a buddy comedy does sound appealing regardless of the era, but taking into account where their specific careers were at the time, it makes it even more interesting. De Niro had already consolidated himself as one of the most objectively gifted performers of his generation, and could afford to take on slightly more unconventional, off-kilter work that was more fun than it was serious, which is exactly why I believe he was attracted to the idea of playing this role, especially considering it is a very entertaining character, and we would be collaborating with two very gifted artists in the form of Jordan and Mamet, who were already considered masters of their respective fields. Penn was steadily rising, his profile becoming more prominent (especially since there was a sentiment at the time that he was something of a De Niro protégé, so pairing them together was a smart choice) – the pair play off each other exceptionally well, and while a lot of the film focuses more on De Niro, there are ample opportunities for Penn to showcase his skills, which lays the foundation for two very good performances. The rest of the cast is solid, but not all that remarkable – Demi Moore (in quite an early performance) is quite good, and the range of character actors enlisted to play these roles fit the part perfectly, but it is ultimately all focused on the two leads, who bring a unique energy to the film, showing a lighter side to their skills while still working very much within their individual wheelhouses in terms of the characters that they are playing.

However positive some aspects of We’re No Angels may be, there are still a few notable shortcomings that prevent it from being entirely compelling, an unfortunate discovery considering the massive potential this film had at the outset. The first (and perhaps most troubling) problem is the tone of the film – neither Jordan nor Mamet is a stranger to constructing effective comedies, but it felt as if they didn’t quite agree on the kind of film they were making. Mamet’s screenplay reflects a bleak, nihilistic outlook peppered with harrowing observations that are both disturbing and profoundly funny, which is aligned with his stage work, whereas Jordan directed the film as if it were a madcap, off-the-wall slapstick comedy – and as a result, there is a massive disconnect between what is being said and what is being executed on screen. It’s not enough to entirely invalidate the film or its very strong merits (which cannot be taken away from it at all), but rather proves to make We’re No Angels slightly too unwieldy, the film never quite capturing the spirit of the material in the way it was intended. Another problem is that it clearly doesn’t quite know where it wants to go – it is adapting an existing work, but with several changes (for example, the original film was set during Christmas, which not only provided it with a particular seasonal atmosphere, but also a clear structure and obvious goal, whereas here that aspect of the story is entirely removed in favour of a different set of intentions), none of which actually prove to be all that effective in practice. It’s quite simply a film that doesn’t know what it wants to be or where it wants to go, which ultimately does cause a slight amount of confusion, since the viewer cannot engage with something that doesn’t make an effort to outline at least some sense of direction, which does ultimately cause it to slightly fall apart at the seams.

We’re No Angels is very rarely brought up in discussions around Jordan’s best work, and we can certainly understand why some may be reluctant to embrace it, since it lacks some of his most interesting qualities – he doesn’t go as far with the material as he should have gone, and the tone can sometimes come across as slightly jagged (although we can credit both of these shortcomings to Mamet’s screenplay, with his difficulty in finding the right approach being clear from the outset), and some of the directing can seem quite drab in comparison to the original film, which had some vigour behind it. However, as time has progressed, we’ve found that there is a steadily-growing community of supporters for this film, with some notable figures facilitating a critical re-evaluation of this film, which is definitely not unjustified, considering there are several merits to this film, they just feel slightly outweighed by the less-desirable qualities, but still not any less engaging. This is a film that aims to be more entertaining than it is particularly complex (although the final act is far too dramatic and intense, with all the upbeat humour Jordan had spent curating for the last hour being almost entirely wasted with a bland and unengaging climax), and it offers us exactly what it says at the outset, doing very little else to stand out, preferring to take a more simple approach, albeit one that isn’t always particularly compelling, and leading to a film that needed slightly more work (and perhaps a conceptual overhaul in some areas) to be truly effective.