--- title: "Angels in America: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/tv/angels-in-america/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/tv/angels-in-america" critics_score: 69 critics_reviews: 9 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Angels in America (2003): what the critics said Critics' score 69 from 9 reviews: 6 positive, 1 mixed, 2 negative. Most critics come down in favour, and the praise clusters in the same places: Mike Nichols’s direction, Tony Kushner’s script and a cast led by Al Pacino as Roy Cohn. The warmest reviews argue that the six hours earn their length and that Nichols keeps the play’s theatrical scale while making it work as television. The acting is admired almost everywhere, including by critics who do not care for the whole. The dissent is sharper than the numbers suggest, and it is largely British. The Guardian and The Times both find the piece verbose and pompous, with Gill calling Nichols’s direction uncritical, and The Telegraph judges that the play shrinks on the small screen even as the performances hold up. Even admirers concede that some of the staging, the angel sequences in particular, sits awkwardly on screen. The spread is wide, with little in the middle: critics either accept the scale as the point or name it as the problem. ## The Hollywood Reporter — Barry Garron Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 7 December 2003. The six-hour HBO adaptation is demanding yet rewarding, with sweeping themes that justify its length as an artistically ingenious work of television. Nichols transforms the play into spectacular TV while retaining its theatrical essence, aided by a virtuoso cast and magnificent production values. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/angels-america-review-2003-hbo-tv-adaptation-1153657/) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 30 November 2003. The critic praises Mike Nichols' adaptation as a rare, masterful screen version of a stage epic that fully captures the play's grandeur, urgency, poetry, humor, and emotional melodrama without losing its theatrical power. The production is hailed as a class act thanks to its smart text, fabulous acting, and immaculate presentation, ensuring it a long life on cable, video, and festivals. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2003/tv/reviews/angels-in-america-7-1200537704/) ## Empire — Angie Errigo Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 6 September 2004. The critic finds the HBO adaptation largely great and essential 'event' TV that the medium needs. They single out Mike Nichols' direction for mixing theatrical spectacle with cinematic style in thrilling, beautiful sequences. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/tv/reviews/angels-america-review/) ## The AV Club — Nathan Rabin Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 27 September 2004. The critic praises the phenomenal cast, Mike Nichols' sensitive direction, and Tony Kushner's script for achieving generation-defining ambitions in portraying the AIDS crisis and gay America. Some theatrical elements prove unwieldy on screen, particularly the angel scenes. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/angels-in-america-1798199989) ## The Telegraph — James Wolcott Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 5 February 2004. The adaptation shrinks the theatrical epic's brio and audacity when moved to television, though it cannot be dismissed due to strong performances from the cast. Al Pacino's turn as Roy Cohn and other actors' work are highlighted positively amid the overall shrinkage effect. [Read the review](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3611628/A-descent-of-angels.html) ## The Guardian Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 15 February 2004. The critic finds the HBO adaptation of the play a pompous, star-studded event television piece that fails to translate effectively to the small screen. The grandstanding manner and verbose style are singled out as unsuited to television. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2004/feb/15/features.review47) ## The Times — AA Gill Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 8 February 2004. The series is seen as arch, verbose and ultimately undemanding despite its pedigree and cast. Mike Nichols's direction is criticised for being uncritical, and the production's liberal smugness is noted as a flaw. [Read the review](https://www.thetimes.com/culture/tv-radio/article/television-aa-gill-stars-are-wasted-on-these-arch-angels-ttlfbzpzrn9) ## Collider — Rhianna Malas Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 3 December 2023. The 2003 HBO miniseries is one of the greatest examples of storytelling on screen and a landmark adaptation that elevated the miniseries format. It is praised for its epic scope, stellar cast including Al Pacino, Meryl Streep, and Emma Thompson, and its powerful portrayal of the AIDS crisis. [Read the review](https://collider.com/angels-in-america-hbo/) ## /Film — Debopriyaa Dutta Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 17 October 2025. The Mike Nichols-directed HBO miniseries is a must-watch that beautifully translates Tony Kushner's play to the screen. It is celebrated for its complex examination of queerness, Reagan-era politics, the AIDS epidemic, and its zany yet poignant larger-than-life qualities. [Read the review](https://www.slashfilm.com/1999658/al-pacino-emmy-record-miniseries-angels-in-america-hbo-max/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/tv/angels-in-america.md