Directed By Jon Gunn

Starring – Hillary Swank, Alan Ritchson, Nancy Travis

The Plot – Based on a remarkable true story, the film centers on Sharon Steves (Swank), a fierce but struggling hairdresser in small-town Kentucky who discovers a renewed sense of purpose when she meets Ed Schmitt (Ritchson), a widower working hard to make ends meet for his two daughters. With his youngest daughter (Emily Mitchell) waiting for a liver transplant, Sharon sets her mind to helping the family and will move mountains to do it. What unfolds is the inspiring tale of faith, everyday miracles, and ordinary angels.

Rated PG for thematic content, brief bloody images and smoking.

Ordinary Angels (2024) Trailer – Hilary Swank, Alan Ritchson, Nancy Travis, Tamala Jones (youtube.com)

POSITIVES

Gunn has produced quite a respectable career helming crowd-pleasing heroic feats of faith, particularly with “The Case For Christ” and “Do You Believe”, two films I enjoyed, and as is the case with “Ordinary Angels”, he wants again taps into the inspirational, but in ways that ground religious subtext with meticulous maturity that I greatly appreciated. Instead of propaganda films shunning Atheists, or with a persecution complex, Gunn instead spends his time reveling in the humbling of humanity inside of the power of coming together, in turn fleshing out a deep sense of community within the story that made this impossible feat a reality, to begin with. It’s a self-admitting crowd-pleaser, but one far more concerned with flehing out redemption arcs for its dual protagonists, which makes their convergence a perfect fit, as Sharon helps Ed to hold down the fort during the most turbulent time in his family’s lives, and Ed’s dilemma gives Sharon a sense of purpose in fighting back against a life of alcoholism that cost her nearly everything. It’s refreshing that the film never once uses them as unnecessary romantic pawns in ways that compromise the integrity of the true story, despite the tremendous ease to go that route, but beyond that how neither of them fit into these perfect molds for characters, affording Swank and Ritchson the capability to make them anything while in the confines of such simultaneously stoic performances. For Sharon, Swank revels in the consistency of a thick Southern drawl, but it’s the quirky restlessness of her demeanor that makes her such a wild card to any room she chooses to walk into, with Ritchson’s Ed often being the beneficial victim to her newfound mission. Ritchson himself combines resiliency and tenderness to a head-of-the-house male that most films set in the 90’s south couldn’t possibly capture, but considering his character is met with the untimely passing of his wife, as well as mounting financial woes, his performances combines the best of both worlds, allowing him to maintain the provider role that has been his whole life to this point, while filling the gap of nurturer left by a Motherly absence. It was also great to see Nancy Travis again, even if selfishly I’m not quite ready to see her as grandmother in the movies she accompanies. Lastly, I found the climax of this film to easily be the highlight of the film’s entirety, tapping into the kind of suspenseful urgency that I sadly felt was tragically missing from the rest of the proceedings. If it isn’t enough that this little girl is in a race against the clock to save her life, a soul-crushing snowstorm blankets the setting in ways that breed adaptability to the characters involved, and with some meaningful cinematography in the way the cold and unforgiving environments are articulated, as well as versatility for shot compositions covering distinct proximities within the storm to convey the difficulty of each respective role, the production garners an ambitiously uplifting pay-off that serves as the perfect exclamation mark to the proceedings, in turn gifting audiences a breath-stealing striker of an ending that outlines the many of so-called angels among us.

NEGATIVES

I’m wise enough to know that a film like “Ordinary Angels” will have an expansively deep and tear-seeking audience, I just realized early on that I am not among that demographic that finds it so charming. Part of that realization stems from the familiarity of the execution, with everything from meandering melodrama, to overtly precocious child actors with unbelievable dialogue, to even sitcom brands of humor being used as levity to break the tension on the ice, but the film’s biggest problem easily stems from its revealing brand of marketing, which leaves little meat left on the bone of curiosity to drive my indulgence. Considering the trailers reveal roughly 90% of this movie, I can appreciate the truth in the film they’re advertising, but at a cost of predictability to the proceedings, in turn leading to a complete absence of urgency in the tender race against that clock that only suspended once the aforementioned third act climax finally materializes. On top of this, there are plenty of strange bouts with the pacing itself, which constantly emphasizes rushed execution for arcs inside of a nearly two hour run time. Not to say that the ambitious run time isn’t earned, as the story of resiliency demands as much time as possible to properly flesh out, it’s just that the set-up between Sharon and Ed happens around ten minutes into the movie, with so little time and patience paid to their respective life trysts that drives much of the film’s dramatic factors. Because of such, we get a sense of never fully knowing of appreciating Sharon or Ed before being thrust into a whirlwind mutual conflict for each of them, and in the case especially for the former, never truly feels like she hits close enough to rock bottom to vividly illustrate her driving momentum towards helping this ailing family. As for the familiarity mentioned in derivative instances with the genre, they grew more tedious to my engagement the longer they persisted, especially the corny commanding of the score that violently shifts and meanders within the confines of a scene to obliterate nuance to the integrity of the scenes they accommodate. The worst are definitely cutesy schmaltzy compositions paid to moments of comic humility between the characters, as the price for my reactions grew more expensive by the minute, but the melodramatic emphasis of scenes that revel a bit longer inside of character conflict had me groaning and cringing for how sappy and shallow it all felt in cinematic maximizing, attempting to make everything feel world-building when most of the time the pocketed conflicts resolve themselves a scene or two leader. Speaking of which, I’m curious to hear the hospital’s perspective in completely absolving a $468,000 services bill, especially in 1994, long before the Affordable Care Act took shape. But that’s what we’re essentially dealing with here. A monumental conflict is introduced one scene, which should cripple this family whole, then in the next scene it’s resolved with Sharon casting a wink and nod to her opposition, and we’re just supposed to go along with it, without any kind of vital details towards how such feats were accomplished. This echoes louder with a complete lack of originality to the way it presents its individualized conflicts, refusing to explore deeper emotional layers to the characters, as a result of a feel-good narrative. This especially undercuts the appeal and bond in the growing friendship of Sharon and Ed, who often only converge on a missionary resolution, instead of one that grows their friendship away from it, and as a result you get a lack of non-romantic chemsitry between them that never fully realizes the bond that the on-screen text included during the movie’s ending. In my opinion, if the film took more of its minutes to included some of those subdued instances between them, which were easily my favorite of the film, then we’d attain a deeper sense of their friendship not being just one based entirely on responsibility, and perhaps allowing Ed to help Sharon with her timultuous relationship with her distanced son.

OVERALL
“Ordinary Angels” flies high with all of the inspiring and uplifting moments that it promises to its faith-based audience, but very little else long-term towards a mutually beneficial experience. With meandered melodrama, flatly undercooked comedic deposits, and plunging predictability, the film can’t conquer some of the preconceived notions with faith-based films, even if it fares less offensive than a majority of those mishaps. Swank and Ritchson carry the movies heart on their broad shoulders, but the mission becomes overwhelming with little to no foundation to the respective characters or friendship, cementing an experience that is fine with being ordinary and nothing more.

My Grade: 5/10 or D+