<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in &quot;Angel Eyes&quot;. Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel E]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Angel Eyes</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>Dr_Dmitri-Yuriev</strong> — <em>20 years ago(May 27, 2005 08:43 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in "Angel Eyes". Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel Eyes, then click on the little speaker that's next to the thumbs up pics.<br />
<a href="http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/archive/765.html" rel="nofollow ugc">http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/archive/765.html</a><br />
Here are what other major critics said about her amazing performance in "Angel Eyes".<br />
"Putting aside her last two choices, The Cell and The Wedding Planner, it seems J.Lo can deliver when given the right material and the right director."<br />
Paul Clinton, CNN<br />
Jennifer Lopez is the real thing, one of those rare actresses who can win our instinctive sympathy. She demonstrates that in "Angel Eyes," playing a tough cop who does everything she can to wall out the world, and yet always seems worthy of trust and care.<br />
Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times<br />
"The performers bring the bluesy story to life in a pleasing chemistry that could have just as easily not happened with other performers."<br />
David Hunter, HOLLYWOOD REPORTER<br />
"A well-acted character study of a hardworking woman, by a screenwriter (Gerald DiPego) and a director with enough integrity to dispense with the usual Hollywood distractions."<br />
Mick LaSalle, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE<br />
"The movie works because Lopez gives such a terrific performance."<br />
Richard Schickel, TIME MAGAZINE<br />
"A carefully crafted romantic drama of considerable insight and emotional impact that provides Lopez an acting challenge she meets with ease."<br />
Kevin Thomas, LOS ANGELES TIMES<br />
But there's a nice atmosphere to the movie, thanks to Lopez's earthy, straightforward performance;<br />
By Desson Howe , Washington Post<br />
But J.Lo has something the camera loves: an emotional directness that can cut through slick muck such as The Wedding Planner.<br />
Peter Travers, Rolling stone<br />
For her part, Lopez is more relaxed onscreen than she's been in a while, and she and Caviezel look stunning together;<br />
by Mark Holcomb, Village Voice<br />
Lopez adds grit and credibility to an often woozy tale of hard-won romance between two emotionally wounded adults. Jennifer Lopez is the only compelling reason to see Angel Eyes. She displays a discipline, a lack of petty vanity and, above all, a natural gift for screen acting that makes for instantaneous, strong emotional connection to the characters she chooses to play.</p>
<ul>
<li>Susan Stark, DETROIT NEWS<br />
Philadelphia Inquirer / Carrie Rickey:<br />
"Lopez is so remarkably unaffected and guileless that she manages to carry the film through its mood swing, if not successfully to its conclusion."<br />
Boston Globe / Jay Carr:<br />
"Lopez is not yet the actor Caviezel is. Still, she fills her performance with conviction, does a couple of her own stunts, and has enough star presence to fill the big screen."<br />
Chicago Reader / Jonathan Rosenbaum:<br />
"The sincerity of their performances (Lopez and Caviezel) overrides the intermittent implausibilities of Gerald Dipego's script."<br />
"Sin has chosen me, I am part of Sin, I am one with Sin forever. Immortal!" - Seymour_Omnis</li>
</ul>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/231384/listen-to-ebert-and-roeper-rave-about-her-performance-in-angel-eyes-just-click-on-the-link-and-scroll-down-to-angel-e</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 16:54:54 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/231384.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:30 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in &quot;Angel Eyes&quot;. Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel E on Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:42 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>UmaW</strong> — <em>16 years ago(February 15, 2010 01:52 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">yeah those are pretty good, too bad with a better scripts and those review she would have at least got an other Golden Globe nod.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937383</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937383</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:42 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in &quot;Angel Eyes&quot;. Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel E on Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:41 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>evmmnval</strong> — <em>18 years ago(March 28, 2008 03:29 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Ever since I saw her in Mi Familia I've considered her a very good actress. Anyone who doesn't should check that movie out. Like Yossarian, I've liked her work in pretty every movie of hers I've seen. Actually, this was the one I liked the least, and I still think it was good!</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937382</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937382</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:41 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in &quot;Angel Eyes&quot;. Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel E on Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:40 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>valko_dc</strong> — <em>18 years ago(August 10, 2007 08:48 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Jennifer was really great in this movie.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937381</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937381</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:40 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in &quot;Angel Eyes&quot;. Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel E on Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:39 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>sammy105</strong> — <em>19 years ago(March 19, 2007 01:56 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">True, true. By the way, thanks for all the pasted reviews, Dmitri, but the only one I found useful was this one:<br />
Chicago Reader / Jonathan Rosenbaum:<br />
"The sincerity of their performances (Lopez and Caviezel) overrides the intermittent implausibilities of Gerald Dipego's script."<br />
That's exactly what I've been trying to put my finger on all this time, but could not find the words. The movie is implausable, yes. Many parts feel weird. When JLo comes up to her dad, I found it strange that he says "I feel like I don't have a daughter anymore" when he's the one who's keeping her away and she's the one trying to fix their rel-ship.<br />
I don't think some parts were well thought-through. And JLo's brother doesn't really seem very hispanic to me :), though one never gets the idea that he's adopted.<br />
Btw, 666 - great quote!!!! Naken Gun rules!</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937380</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937380</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:39 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in &quot;Angel Eyes&quot;. Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel E on Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:38 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>andros12</strong> — <em>19 years ago(March 03, 2007 09:41 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I first saw this movie in 2001 and today a VHS version was on sale at my local supermarket for $2.99.  I remembered it as a kind of understated psychological drama which hadn't attracted a large audience.  The first thing that struck me upon watching it again tonight was the selection of the actors and the glowing futures that awaited them, most notably Jim Caviezel, Terrence Howard and Jeremy Sisto.  I studied Jeremy for some time realizing that I had seen him since in another<br />
dysfunctional<br />
role and then it came to me; he played Billy Chenowith on<br />
Six Feet Under.<br />
I was also suprised to be reacquainted with the somewhat of a cult favourite, Shirley Knight, who turned up as the<br />
den<br />
mother.<br />
As at least one person on the set of<br />
Passion of the Christ<br />
mentioned, Jim Caviezel is able to radiate a kind of subtle<br />
mystical<br />
intensity and depth of emotion which serves him very well, especially in this case, as it helps to enhance and elevate the romantic component of the film.  Ms. Lopez provides a wonderful counterpoint as the more logically based<br />
realist<br />
and the combination of the two personalities provides a suitable chemistry as the characters learn to be of mutual aid in their individual healing and personal growth.<br />
A memorable piece of work</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937379</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937379</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:38 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in &quot;Angel Eyes&quot;. Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel E on Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:37 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>apogee_31</strong> — <em>19 years ago(July 22, 2006 11:37 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Yes, I completely agree with the above posts.  I was shocked to see the 5.5 rating, especially when Titanic is voted the 10th best movie all time.  I'm also surprised that JLo got such a bad rap.  She was terrific in this movie!  She really is talented!</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937378</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937378</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:37 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in &quot;Angel Eyes&quot;. Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel E on Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:36 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>yossarian100</strong> — <em>19 years ago(May 08, 2006 01:23 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Well, sure, but I don't listen to or follow celebrity gossip, other than what slips by the built in editor I have installed in my feeble brain, and, in all honesty, I couldn't care less what actors do on their own time or what they're like in real life. I only look at their work.<br />
I only listen to gossip at work. Then it's entertaining.<br />
I agree completely with your take on both the movie and her performance. Thanks for the feedback.<br />
Writing about movies is like dancing about architecture</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937377</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937377</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:36 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in &quot;Angel Eyes&quot;. Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel E on Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:35 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>Kuato_and_George</strong> — <em>19 years ago(May 08, 2006 01:09 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I can tell you why she isn't very well liked.  Because she portrays this "average girl" (Jenny from the block) image, and a lot of things you hear about her are quite the contrary. She's rumored to have quite the diva attitude, and is supposedly a little primadona.<br />
I will give her huge amounts of credit though, this movie was awsome and she was great in it. It totally slid udner the radar. She plays a normal person very well.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937376</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937376</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:35 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in &quot;Angel Eyes&quot;. Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel E on Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:33 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>yossarian100</strong> — <em>19 years ago(May 03, 2006 03:02 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">ANGEL EYES is a good movie and Jennifer Lopez gives yet another good performance. I have no idea why she gets so much criticism. She's done a good job in everything I've seen her in. I guess there are just certain actors people love to hate. I'm glad I'm not one of those people.<br />
Writing about movies is like dancing about architecture</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937375</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937375</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:33 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in &quot;Angel Eyes&quot;. Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel E on Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:32 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>IMDb User</strong></p>
<p dir="auto">This message has been deleted.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937374</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937374</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:32 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Listen to Ebert and Roeper rave about her performance in &quot;Angel Eyes&quot;. Just click on the link and scroll down to Angel E on Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:31 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>666Night999</strong> — <em>20 years ago(June 26, 2005 09:55 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">And?<br />
I thought she was pretty good in this.  I don't know why some people bashed her for this role.<br />
And I think the 5.6 rating is criminal.  This is at least a 7, imo.<br />
"Nice beaver!"<br />
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."<br />
The Naked Gun</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937373</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1937373</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 13:11:31 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>