Angel Eyes

May 18, 2001 0 By Fans
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Still of Jennifer Lopez and Dan Petronijevic in Angel EyesStill of Jim Caviezel in Angel EyesJim Caviezel at event of Angel EyesStill of Jim Caviezel in Angel EyesStill of Jennifer Lopez and Jim Caviezel in Angel EyesStill of Jennifer Lopez and Jim Caviezel in Angel Eyes


A mysterious man is drawn to a feisty female police officer and a unusual relationship ensues, as not everything is as it seems.

Release Year: 2001

Rating: 5.5/10 (13,101 voted)

Critic's Score: 39/100

Luis Mandoki

Stars: Jennifer Lopez, Jim Caviezel, Jeremy Sisto

While pursuing a suspect one night, Chicago Police officer Sharon Pogue nearly becomes the victim of a fatal ambush. A mysterious stranger, Catch intervenes, disarms the assassin and saves Sharon's life. Is it a stroke of luck? A twist of fate? Or just a concerned citizen who happened to pass by at the right time and wasn't afraid to get involved? Maybe, But Sharon and Catch have met once before. As the two fall in love, they discover the truth about each other and are forced to deal with the secrets from their past.


Jennifer Lopez

Sharon Pogue

Jim Caviezel

Steven 'Catch' Lambert

Jeremy Sisto

Larry Pogue, Sr.

Terrence Howard


Sonia Braga

Josephine Pogue

Victor Argo

Carl Pogue

Monet Mazur

Kathy Pogue

Shirley Knight

Elanora Davis

Daniel Magder

Larry Pogue, Jr.

Guylaine St-Onge

Annie Lambert

(as Guylaine St. Onge)

Connor McAuley

Max Lambert

Jeremy Ratchford

Ray Micigliano

Peter MacNeill

Lieutenant Dennis Sanderman

Eldridge Hyndman


Kari Matchett


The Deeper You Look. The More You Will Find.


Official Website:
Warner Bros. |

Release Date: 18 May 2001

Filming Locations: Chicago, Illinois, USA

Box Office Details

Budget: $38,000,000


Opening Weekend: $9,225,575
(20 May 2001)
(2375 Screens)

Gross: $24,044,532
(15 July 2001)

Technical Specs


Did You Know?


Jennifer Lopez insisted that the part of Catch be played by Jim Caviezel even though she didn't even know his name. She had recently been impressed with his performance in
The Thin Red Line.


Errors in geography:
When Sharon walks up to the parents' house and meets Kathy, a speed limit sign in the background says "Maximum 40". That would mean 40 kph in a residential area in Canada. In a residential area of Chicago, the sign would read: "Speed Limit 25" for 25 mph.


[Catch has brought Elanora her groceries]

I brought you nectarines cause the peaches were hard as rocks

User Review

A *Good* "Bad Movie"

Rating: 7/10

If you're a hard core movie fan, you learn to appreciate good "Bad
Movies." There are movies that go so far off the tracks in terms of one
or several essential features of film art — casting, script, sets,
pacing, editing, lighting, coherence — that there is no way that you
could, being honest, recommend them without qualifications to an
unsuspecting viewer.

Movies that go off the tracks in these essentials and offer no
redeeming features are just plain Bad Movies. You you make fun of them,
and then you forget about them.

But some Bad Movies offer, amidst the badness, unique moments of grace
and truth. You allow yourself to be sucked in, and you studiously
ignore or forgive all the screw-ups that went into making them "Bad
Movies." "Angel Eyes" is a *Good* Bad Movie.

Why Bad? Genre incoherence is the biggest problem here. "Angel Eyes"
was marketed as a supernatural thriller that offered spooky, scary
insights into fate, love, danger, and perhaps life after death. Ads,
and the first portion of the movie, hinted at a weird alternate
identity for one character. Was he a ghost? An angel? A devil? Would
"Angel Eyes" be another "Sixth Sense" or "Wings of Desire"? That's all
just smokescreen. I'm not revealing any spoilers by saying that no one
in the movie is a ghost, an angel, or a devil; that conceit from the
ads is jettisoned pretty quickly.

There is a subtext of fate, destiny, love and death, but that isn't
worked really hard, either. That whole subtext could have been skipped
and you'd still have pretty much the same movie.

The movie you get is a movie about traumatized people finding love and
rebirth. And that is one great theme.

Another problem with the movie is its misunderstanding of how quickly
people can recover from trauma. But, hey.

I say "but, hey," because this movie has a lot going for it, and it's
worth seeing for what it has going for it.

Jim Caviezel is an underrated actor. He's not wooden; he's subtle. It's
tragic that we've gotten to an era where audience's eyes can't
appreciate a quiet actor in the Gary Cooper mode.

Caviezel is a worthy inheritor of the Gary Cooper mantle. He's
stunningly handsome, has a big, gorgeous body — he's a former
basketball player, and it shows — and he possesses Cooper's quiet
masculine tenderness and humility.

All these qualities have allowed him to strike the perfect note of a
very male spirituality in a number of films, from "Frequency" to "Thin
Red Line" to "Pay It Forward" to "The Passion" to "Angel Eyes." In his
early scenes, when the movie doesn't want you to know quite what he's
about, he is perfect as a perhaps ghost-angel-devil-weirdo homeless

He's equally good, later, as an entirely corporeal lover.

He plays a wounded man, and Caviezel has the gifts to convey his
character's inner pain. You believe that he cares as much as he does
about what wounded him; you believe that his wounds could have done to
him what the movie wants you to believe they did to him.

Jennifer Lopez is equally good. Face it — Jennifer Lopez is a fine
actress. Yes, she appears on tabloid covers. Yes, she made "Gigli."
Yes, she poses in naughty clothes a lot. Yes, she is a Puerto Rican
from the Bronx.

And you know what? She's a fine actress. Don't let her non-silver-spoon
pedigree keep you from appreciating what she can do on screen.

Lopez is as good as a cop here as she was in the more celebrated film,
"Out of Sight." She's winning, charismatic, natural, and lovely to look
at. Even in a white t-shirt and navy blue cop uniform slacks, she is

Like Caviezel, Lopez plays a wounded character ready to be reborn by
love. She's equally as good as he, but she conveys her different wounds
in a different way. One wounded person retreats; another lashes out in
violence. It's interesting to see which party picks which method.

Sonia Braga is in this movie. Any movie with Sonia Braga in it can't be
all bad.

Victor Argo, in a very small part as a very flawed man, is JUST
PERFECT. 100% believable and heart-wrenching. I'll never forget his
moments locked in silent misery, a misery he causes and a misery he

Finally, there is a not-to-be-missed scene between an abused family
member and the abuser. A character speaks into a video camera at a
family reunion and … the scene just took my breath away. At that
point I wanted to cry and surrender my full respect to the movie, in
spite of everything it had done wrong so far.

Don't let bad reviews prevent you from seeing this movie. Nothing's
perfect. There's enough heart and beauty here for the discerning viewer
to appreciate.