Watch Angel and the Badman For Free

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

I came to watch the movie because I'm a fan of Luke Perry so I like to check out his work. It looks like most people here watched the movie because they wanted to see the new version of John Wayne's classic ... and were disappointed. Many of them opined that perhaps if someone didn't know about the incredible classic movie and just watched it on their own then they wouldn't be so let down with how the film turned out. I'm here to say that that's a wrong assumption. Yuccch. What a cliché movie. Starts off with the legendary gunslinger walking into the message carrier's office, "Hey you, I need to deliver a message." "Now, wait just a minute, you can't tell me what to do, this shop is closed." "I'm sorry Quirt, it looks like you won't get to send the message." "Uh, d-d-did you just say Quirt? As in famous Quirt?? Never mind there, friend, I'll do whatever you want, sir!" And the scenes like this just keep coming. The fun action does pick up toward the last ten minutes and the climax begins to pique the interest, but that doesn't make up for the previous hour of blech. Not only that, Luke Perry , although a central role, isn't in much of the film, which is why I watched it in the first place (then again, if you watching because of LDP or to watch this remake that shouldn't bother you, I guess). I also kept trying to figure out that in real life, who would take LDP seriously as a cowboy given his ethnicity as this movie's time was back when everyone was a racist? Wouldn't they at least mention it in the story? Would women be swooning over him back in the 1800's or whenever this was? Just curious. But it didn't take away from his acting, which was spot on. The ending was feel-good Hollywood, though I was really preparing myself emotionally for a proper yet depressingly tragic conclusion, the fact that I didn't get it and instead got a happily ever after gives me mixed feelings. I left the movie feeling like I really liked it because alls well that ended well, but the cinema connoisseur in me felt like they took the cheap way out. In the end I guiltfully enjoyed watching my guy Luke Perry, the movie made me feel good (but I also like drinking Coca Cola), and over the years I've been conditioned to not regret watching films like these because of those two reasons. However, the truist in me knows this movie wasn't amazing. Then again, look at the budget and the M.O.W. destination, you can't really expect a masterpiece, so there's really no reason to complain. I'm just saying, if you had the choice to watch a million amazing movies or this one...

The people who produced the made-for-television remake of the 1947 John Wayne classic "Angel and the Badman" should have heeded Michael Caine's sage advice. According to Caine, never remake a classic. No matter how good your movie is, it will never top a classic. Instead, the noted British thespian insists producers remake second-rate films. A greater possibility exists for the remake to surpass the flawed original. "Max Havoc: Ring of Fire" director Terry Ingram's "Angel and the Badman" remake isn't half as good as the original. Anybody who has not seen writer & director James Edward Grant's 1947 version of "Angel and the Badman" might actually enjoy this modest but politically-correct, romantic oater. Otherwise, carved-in-the-leather John Wayne fans might reserve it one derisive snort. This simple but powerful drama concerns the conversion of a hardened gunslinger by a peaceful Quaker woman.Two significant changes include the visual differences and the changes in character. Whereas the 1947 version was in lensed in glorious black & white, the Hallmark Channel Original remake exploits the advantage of color. Sadly, the photography and the sets look at best budgetary. Furthermore, whereas the heroine in the original was a virgin, the remake heroine is a single-parent mom with a son who father died. Admittedly, Lou Diamond Phillips cannot rival John Wayne, but Deborah Kara Unger gives Gail Russell a run for her money. The Bradley - Town Telegrapher (Olin Howard) constituted a major source of comic relief in the original, but actor Michael Teigen generates none of Howard's hilarity. Carson in the original is a rancher who has set off the Quaker's water supply to their farm, while in the remake he is the town mayor who reduces their rent. Setting wise, the original took place in the Southwest whereas Ingram's remake occurs in snow swept Oregon. They appeared to have shot entire sequences in freezing weather because you can see their oxygen crystallize as they utter lines of dialogue. Other than its color photography, Ingram and freshman scribes Thomas Makowski and Jack Nasser have eliminated the atheist and whittled away at the Quaker. Nevertheless, they retain most of the original dialogue. Indeed, sometimes it seems almost word-for-word. Unfortunately, the same is not true for the actual events. Budgetary constraints compelled Ingram and company to rewrite the action. For example, rather than a runaway wagon chase that ends with our hero and heroine taking a plunge into a river, the remake substitutes a fire that nearly kills the heroine.Each film opens with Quirt Evans killing three men, catching a slug in the chest, and then riding off to wind up in the dust in front of a Quaker homestead. The congenial Quakers attempt to help him, but Evans refuses to accommodate them. He insists that they take him to the nearest telegraph office. Initially, the telegrapher refuses to send a telegram because he has just shut down the office. When he discovers that the wounded man is Quirt Evans, he taps off the message, something about a mining claim. The Quakers take him back to their home and put him to bed. Later, the town physician arrives and fills him up of laudanum, but he watches helpless as Evans thrashes around in deliriously in the bed. The doctor complains that he cannot operate on Evans and remove the bullet unless the patient calms down. Intuitively, the Quaker patriarch fetches Evans' revolver after he has removed the cartridges. In the original, the Quaker wife is instructed to put the shells back in Evans' gun belt, while in the remake she is ordered to throw them away. Not even a mediocre made-for-television remake can mar this memorable scene. The physician operates and Evans recovers. John Wayne looks a sight funnier walking around with a blanket wrapped around his hips than Lou Diamond Phillips. Of course, Temperance (Deborah Kara Unger of "The Game") is an older woman who has been married, given birth to a son, and lives with her parents after he husband died. In the original, the Gail Russell character has not been married.Mind you, the "Angel and the Badman" remake is tolerable, especially if you haven't seen the original. Although Lou Diamond Phillips is a talented actor, he is sorely miscast. Worse, John Wayne casts a long shadow. The singular advantage that Phillips brings to the role is that he looks like villain, where Wayne was always heroic. It doesn't help matters that Phillips is forced to wear a truly hideous looking hat. Phillips has appeared in several westerns, and his "Young Guns" movies were minor classics, but "Angel and the Badman" lacks the spirit or the ferocity of them. Moreover, Luke Perry as outlaw Laredo Stevens is no match for perennial villain Bruce Cabot. Harry Carey virtually stole the original as the wholesome, home-spun exemplar of justice, Territorial Marshal Wistful McClintock. Suffice to say, you need to watch the original "Angel and the Badman" if you enjoy the remake.

Not only is this a bust, a grandchild of the great Duke Wayne plays the sidekick Randy in the film. By no means is this an endorsement by the Wayne family. If it was you'd be seeing an actual verbal or written endorsement by the licensing agent for John Wayne. And if you think this one is bad, wait until you see the remake of True Grit which is supposed to be in the works. It's almost like the Hollywood writers were all replaced with remake happy zombies.All you see these days are sequels or bad remakes of past classics. As the other commenter forgot to say it is already free to watch since it was a straight to TV release, that's how bad it was. Not even worthy of the big screen. I have to say this is the worse the Hallmark Channel has ever done.No one, and I repeat no one, can do a John Wayne movie other than John Wayne. I'll make a suggestion to anyone who thinks they can do a remake of any film done by Duke Wayne. Forget it... you'll lose your shirt. This is not even worth a $.99 download release.

Nobody does it better. I repeat, NOBODY, does it better than The Duke. Don't bother watching this until you can see it for free. John Wayne is The Ultimate Cowboy! Nobody does it better! Nobody ever did it better! Nobody ever will do it better! To try and copy him is a fools errand.If you wanna watch LaBamba, Lou Diamond Phillips is the perfect choice. If you wanna see teenage cowpunks go bad and shoot up town after town, he can get the job done. If you wanna see teenage punks screw up in high school and make the teacher look like an idiot, he's pretty good at that, too.Remake a John Wayne film?!?!? NO WAY!