Home
| Search
| Now Playing
| News
| My Movies
| Games
| Boards
| Help
| US Movie Showtimes
| Top 250
| Register
| Recommendations
| Widgets
RSS
| Box Office
| Index
| Trailers
| Jobs
|
IMDbPro.com - Free Trial
| IMDb Resume
Copyright © 1990-2009
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
Watch it at Amazon
Buy it at Amazon Rent it at blockbuster.comDiscuss in Boards More at IMDb Pro Add to My Movies Update Data
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditstv scheduleAwards & Reviews
user commentsexternal reviewsnewsgroup reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guiderecommendationsmessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summaryplot synopsisplot keywordsAmazon.com summarymemorable quotesFun Stuff
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
merchandising linksbox office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specslaserdisc detailsDVD detailsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsIMDb user comments for
Gabriel (2007) More at IMDbPro »
111 out of 136 people found the following comment useful :-
$150,000 Aussie dollars., 18 November 2007
Author: Scott Paisley from Australia
I enjoyed this movie. If you have any interest in film making, I would rate it higher than 7 out of 10. It's worth while seeing what can be made for $150,000 Aussie dollars.
The movie may have some flaws, and I think the biggest one was budget. I would have loved to see this movie remade with a better budget. My biggest problem though was the quality of the film on the big screen. Considering it was filmed with a JVC HD101 camera, it's understandable that the film's not going to be as crisp as what people are used to. I hope someone gives the people who made this a chance at another film with a decent budget. At the very least give them a new camera to shoot with.
Acting was not one of the flaws in this film. I have seen many a bad movie with dodgy acting and this was no where near as bad as I was led to believe from people's comments.
Plot wise, it's an interesting tale. Understanding the concept of Purgatory goes along to help people get a grasp of what's going on. I can't believe how people claim this movie has no plot. I found this movie to be more a thinker with some action rather than a straight action film. Their is action in this film, but it is depicted a lot more realistically than most people probably would have liked.
At the end of the day, this is not the horrible movie that the first reviewer is making it out to be. It has plot, solid acting and the sound was fine. The quality of the picture though is probably the hardest thing to forgive. I think it's sad that a lot of people will read the first person's review and not see this film based on someones ability to write 10 lines of text. 10 lines being the magic minimum before they allow people to submit a review.
If you really think this film was awful go and watch "Ultraviolet" and you will truly understand what kind of films deserve to be given 1/10.
66 out of 90 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't judge the film too quickly, 18 November 2007
Author: arwen-g from Australia
I had my doubts about this film when I first saw the trailer - to me it looked like a ripoff of the Nightwatch premise. However, when I saw it I learned that the story itself was very different. Oh sure, it has a Jesus-like story arc much like the Matrix and a good vs bad that pretty much every fantasy film has.
What I liked about this one was that the story didn't follow the usual formulaic storyline that you can almost time down to the minute. At first I wasn't sure where the story was headed, but as it unfolded I became drawn into it. I enjoyed the story, and it's exploration of the concept of freedom. I found it to be a story of great substance, and bears watching a second time in order to fully appreciate it, much like films such as Donnie Darko.
I liked that the cast was filled with people I didn't know, it gave it a freshness and allowed one to view it without the context of the actors cluttering the story. I liked the gritty visuals and sound - it pulled this off without the need to provide motion-sick tablets with your ticket, unlike movies like the Bourne Ultimatum which took wobbly camera shots a bit too far. It is a look typical of many Australian films, such as Wolf Creek, but the comic-book look of the film gives it a sense of fantasy which suits the story perfectly.
One thing I particularly liked was the way the fight scenes were realised - a fresh approach to supernatural battles which, I think, works well.
I found the effects a little over-done at times, and some of the visuals could have used a bit more polish, but considering the film's budget (or lack thereof), I think it's very impressive.
Sure, it's no Hollywood blockbuster, but that's kind of the point.
47 out of 63 people found the following comment useful :-
Excellent Surprise, 20 November 2007
Author: Bloomer from Sydney, Australia
Aussie self-consciousness, whether it figures in support of this film or against it, ain't relevant. Gabriel is a great existential-goth-action piece about archangels and their nemeses warring in human form and grappling with their newfound human frailties. For budgetary reasons the film favours the goth and the existential elements over the action one, and it's definitely all the better for it, because what it ultimately develops which is sorely lacking from a lot of films whose stylings it's adopted (the Underworlds, the Crows, etc.) is a ton of genuine involvement. The unknown actors give universally fine performances, and in the case of bad guy Sammael (Dwaine Stevenson) a deeply charismatic and disturbing one.
I was a bit worried by the wordlessness and flat grey look of the earliest scenes, but as soon as we hit the first dialogue two-hander, I got pulled into the characters' situation. Also, the film never looks as grey again as it does right at the start, even if the digital video footage doesn't give much depth of field in this dark world.
The fights are spaced out, but they're very cool. The choreography is of The Matrix almost ESP-martial arts kind, yet filmed in nice clear wide shots with minimal editing (or editing that's well-disguised by passing obstacles) so you can see what's going on. Sometimes it's guns, sometimes hand-to-hand, sometimes both, with bullet time, slow-mo, folks zipping around bullets, all the nifty stuff that's been developed in this genre. There's also an exciting shootout in strobing darkness that reminded me of Equilibrium's gun cabal scenes.
The film Gabriel reminds me of most strongly, however, isn't something super recent. It's Blade Runner. In that film, replicant robots unsure of their identity and nascent emotions variously went into hiding, went insane or fought for their survival in a world that wasn't really theirs when push came to shove. Replace 'robots' with 'angels' and you've got the basic premise of Gabriel. The angels are sent to purgatory to get in amongst the humans and steer them in the right direction, or in the case of bad guys The Fallen, keep them corrupt. But to adopt the mortal form is to become vulnerable to human weakness, and that's what Gabriel has to struggle with as he tries to rally his angel pals who've failed before him for one last battle.
Freakin' good film!
50 out of 70 people found the following comment useful :-
No surprises here, 17 November 2007
Author: neva1700-1 from Brisbane, Australia
I went and saw this movie primarily because this one of very few Australian movies that is trying to be mainstream instead of art house, and I think that effort deserves to be rewarded. There is nothing really new and different here. This film borrows very heavily from others in the genre, most notably "The Crow", with occasional nods to "The Matrix" and even "Ëquilibrium". However having said that the film looks great (especially considering the very low budget), the action is okay, and the acting is competent. So no one is going to win an Oscar here. So what. Its an entertaining way to pass a couple of hours. Don't expect great feats and you won't be disappointed.
36 out of 50 people found the following comment useful :-
I wanted to hate it, 9 February 2008
Author: lopesche from Canada
Well, after reading some of the reviews here, I was expecting this movie to be awful. I wanted to watch it as the storyline sounded intriguing. From the moment I starting watching this movie, I wanted to hate it. Most of the time, films with these kind of story lines, always seem to mess up, and was expecting the same here. But, it wasn't the case. The time seemed to fly by, usually a good sign when watching a movie. Now yes, if you 're the "critic" type, or work for the Oscars, you might have lots of negative things to say about this film, but then again that would be the case with any movie. It doesn't have the Hollywood glare, nor did it have the budget, but if you're not so concerned about the "aesthetics", you will enjoy this movie. If you enjoyed the movie Constantine, you will enjoy this.
42 out of 65 people found the following comment useful :-
Not as bad as one would think, 16 November 2007
Author: Shannon Pope from Australia
I saw the film last night. And i honestly don't think it was that bad. Obviously, the film had a few weaknesses and some of the dialog is a little embarrassing, but the majority of the acting was executed fairly well. The effects were great (remember, kiddies... truck-all budget.. a lot of crew working for free). I think an audience needs to cull out all their ideas of fantastic four and other insanely budgeted Hollywood trash films and go in with an open mind when approaching this film. I honestly found it enjoyable. Even the bad bits. um... just a quick note to the fool who said death proof sucked - You really need to lower your ridiculous standards if u thought that film was rubbish.
7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Great Indie Film, 23 September 2008
Author: cdh-22 from United States
I would have to say this rates at my favorite Indie/low-budget/Aussie films overall. Great acting, special effects, and story line, all despite it being produce with out-of-pocket money. I can't stake my life on this, but I believe I heard it was roughly 150,000 Australian dollars. For a couple of these actors, it was their film debut. The casting was phenomenal. Each one, although I'd never heard of any of them before seeing this film, was very into their performance. I did recognize Samantha Noble, when watching See No Evil afterwards. I highly recommend this film to anyone who likes Indies, stories of the occult, or just likes to see how acting should be done.
5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
It's worth watching, 30 December 2008
Author: gultepee from United States
I was quite afraid of quality of the movie before watching it. But, it is definitely not another B class horror/Gothic/cheesy movie.It has a decent story, interesting characters, just enough tweaks to keep everything in place. I should also add the action scenes are quite well done; couple of them are quite remarkable, and no overkill.
You'll find some resemblances with Dark City, Donnie Darko and Blade Runner.
Yes, the scenario is about the history old war between pure good and total bad. But, that war would never loose its popularity and this movie is a good addition to the list.
3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Pretty decent if you like fantasy with Angels and Demons., 31 October 2008
Author: Shoib Rafiq from Australia
First of, don't expect a blockbuster like UNDERWORLD. This movie was shot with a budget of Au$ 200,000, that's Australian, by a guy who never wrote or made a movie before. Consider all these when you watch the movie and you might forgive its short comings.
Sure a lot of idiots complain that there are better movies with lower budget, yes, well ask how many of them are effects driven action movies with such a large scope like GABRIEL. Clerks !?... um no.
Frankly, Gabriel is a the indie action film. These being said, the movie moves at a pretty typical style and pace until the ending when it really pays off. The fights are quite cleverly choreographed and the editing is pretty tight. Its the dialogs that needed improvement and the story needed to explain itself a more. Half the time you'll be left wondering the rules of the world.
In the end, watch it for yourself and discover. As an independent effects driven action film with a style of SIN CITY, it is definitely the 1st.
19 out of 36 people found the following comment useful :-
Wasted Potential, 15 November 2007
Author: Wenna johns from Australia
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Save your $15 or $7 on Tuesdays. i don't care if it was made for free. no budget means no time limit. this movie has a lot of issues mainly that the plot makes no sense and is very inconsistent.
the actors accents fade in and out, and it doesn't bond to any particular structure.
On triple J they said that it was a compilation of many ideas. and thats where they wrote it from, but its total bull.
the trailer is misleading, and as a whole looks like a cheap pilot with passable special fx. not that they weren't brilliantly executed and well produced.
i think i could've got over it faster had the plot been better. but you can't mask a bad story line with good special fx, as we all know from previous experiences with tom cruise movies- not to say i didn't enjoy them. they just kind of..made no sense.
i think i'm more annoyed since it had such good potential to be a ridiculously good movie.
maybe the characters could have been wiser instead of saying vague stuff everywhere. tip toeing over topics to not offend. potential viewers. all in all it was basically the matrix and Constantine, which we all know featured keanu reeves. but the acting in this was even poorer than that of the movies it was being compared to.
Then putting in a completely unnecessary sex scene to illustrate the emotional attachment between 2 angels. when there was a perfectly sufficient kiss. Who knows. maybe some people like that. maybe some people enjoy bad movies because they're bad i don't know I'm not a doctor.
no character development. its one of those movies where it completely depends on the vague dialogue to introduce characters that are already little known to the audience.
just because you call a character by the name of a fallen or arch angel from some passage in scripture doesn't help the audience find out what relevance they have to the plot.
all we know is they're the enemy. and they have guns. guns that shoot bullets- in Purgatory??? and bad acting. i think thats the most damaging part.
i think the best way I could describe the special fx are if the chaser did a spoof of the matrix. THATS what the cgi was like.
it was blatantly Australian. which once again with a low budget of 0 and volunteer work might be a good argument. but once again that argument doesn't quite stand the test of time when you try to keep track of the plot.
1. a bad guy goes to purgatory getting rid of "the light" and the power from "the source"
"the light" being code for "good" and "the source" as a vague interpretation of a higher power without referring to "The Lord".
and they drop in the words "forgive me" every couple minutes lest we forget that these are angels and not just dudes named after angels.
the over use of coloured contacts made me cringe- although there was one of the best dark flashy strobe scenes i've ever seen. with rapid machine gun fire a dozen men and a dark warehouse. that was pretty sweet. totally discotek style.
the overall soundtrack was played to invoke emotion on the scene. but the mastering of it was terrible, volume was inconsistent.
they had a freaking guy from star wars help them, no wonder the overall production values are pro looking. seemingly.
now i'm not professional movie critic, and I'm not a doctor and I don't usually go on about movies this much. but its trying to convince the public that its something that its not with that trailer.
i watched the trailer after i watched the movie. and it fooled me again. into hoping there was a better made movie. a better version. with actual relevance. to anything.
instead i was left empty. alone. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO ANY OF THOSE CHARACTERS WERE?????????
at least dogma was smart about making a joke out of religion. this was just picking random bits and pieces and making a Frankenstein of a movie.
I SAW NO WINGS. oh wait. cos they were in human form...i forgot. yet they can somehow call upon super human strength and heal each other. yet once "healed" the guys still limp around.
Don't Bother. Imagine the lord of the rings if it had no big name actors and was made by the hallmark channel, on a low budget.
Add another comment
Related Links