Angel's remake of 'Angel and the Badman' with Zachary Levi opens, drawing mixed reviews
Angel's remake of the 1947 John Wayne western 'Angel and the Badman', directed by Julio Quintana and starring Zachary Levi, opened in US theaters on 9 October 2026. Variety finds it fitfully engaging but sanctimonious, while Screen Rant welcomes it as a gentle tribute.
1 / 2
The story, neutrally told
Mixed · 2A remake of the 1947 western 'Angel and the Badman', directed by Julio Quintana and starring Zachary Levi in the role John Wayne played, opened in theaters on 9 October 2026. Screen RantN “a brand new remake of Angel and the Badman arrives in theaters today.” Read at Screen Rant ↗ VarietyLC “The latest, directed by Julio Quintana, stars Zachary Levi” Read at Variety ↗ Mixed · 2The film comes from the Angel media company and streaming platform, which Variety says was rebranded from Angel Studios in 2025; Screen Rant still calls it Angel Studios. VarietyLC “the Angel media company and streaming platform, rebranded from Angel Studios in 2025” Read at Variety ↗ Screen RantN “The new remake comes courtesy of Angel Studios'” Read at Screen Rant ↗ Mixed · 2The original, directed by James Edward Grant, was Wayne's first film as producer. It follows the wounded gunman Quirt Evans, who is nursed back to health by a Quaker family and falls for their daughter Penny, played by Gail Russell. VarietyLC “Wayne’s self-financed debut as producer as well as star” Read at Variety ↗ Screen RantN “Wayne plays Quirt Evans, a wounded gunfighter - and famed man of violence - who stumbles into the care of a pacifist Quaker family” Read at Screen Rant ↗
Left · 1Variety notes the story has been filmed before: a 2009 Hallmark Channel version starred Lou Diamond Phillips and Deborah Kara Unger, which makes the new film the third version. VarietyLC “It’s actually the third iteration; a 2009 Hallmark Channel adaptation” Read at Variety ↗ Mixed · 2Both outlets say the remake keeps the original plot but replaces the Quaker family with a generically Christian one. Meg Fraser plays Penny, and Tommy Lee Jones plays the lawman who suspects Quirt. Screen RantN “The big difference is Angel Studios tone down the religious zeal of the pious family from Quakers to Christians.” Read at Screen Rant ↗ VarietyLC “The Quaker religion has been replaced here by all-purpose Christian belief” Read at Variety ↗ Centre · 1Screen Rant also lists Neal McDonough as the villain. Screen RantN “Neal McDonough, who plays the villain.” Read at Screen Rant ↗
Left · 1Variety's Guy Lodge calls the remake 'fitfully diverting' and says the first film remains the most compelling of the three. He says the new version trades the original's chemistry for 'plenty of sanctimony and not much of a spark'. VarietyLC “The new “Angel and the Badman” trades those virtues for plenty of sanctimony and not much of a spark.”“Of the three, the first movie remains the most compelling.” Read at Variety ↗ Left · 1Variety praises Tommy Lee Jones, who it says is 80, as the film's best element. It finds Levi proficient but unable to reconcile the tonal swings, closer to Jason Sudeikis in 'Ted Lasso' than to a dark angel. It also criticises the production design as looking freshly made and the cinematography as competent but undistinguished. VarietyLC “Tommy Lee Jones certainly does, in the old Harry Carey role”“Levi can’t reconcile the tonal swings, but he’s proficient”“Every belt buckle looks freshly yanked off the rack” Read at Variety ↗ Left · 1Variety adds that the film's blend of Christian virtues and violence may appeal to audiences who share the distributor's 'values-based' approach. VarietyLC “may well connect with audiences hip to distributor Angel’s business model guided by “values-based” stories” Read at Variety ↗
Centre · 1Screen Rant is more positive about the project. It calls the original underrated and a quiet character study, and says that remaking a lesser-known Wayne film is a smarter choice than remaking his famous ones. It also says the gentle, romance-focused remake will be a welcome change for western fans. Screen RantN “Sometimes, though, there is a chance to bring a lesser known or appreciated John Wayne movie back to the screen, which feels like a smarter choice.”“will be a welcome change for diehard Western fans.” Read at Screen Rant ↗ Centre · 1Screen Rant calls Levi's casting 'a smart choice' because his screen persona is so unlike Wayne's. It concedes that the film 'has some obvious limits in its production'. Screen RantN “his casting is a smart choice”“Angel’s version has some obvious limits in its production” Read at Screen Rant ↗
Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.
Left1 outlet
- Framing
- Variety runs a critical review that measures the remake against the 1947 original and finds it pious and short on excitement.
- Emphasis
- Jones's performance, Levi's tonal inconsistency, the lack of western texture, and the film's 'values-based' branding.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Says little about the original's wider legacy or the cast beyond the leads.
- Charged language
- “sanctimony”“piousness”
Centre1 outlet
- Framing
- Screen Rant treats the release as a nostalgic celebration of a forgotten Wayne film and a tribute to the original.
- Emphasis
- The original's significance and legacy, the DC connections of the cast, and the film's gentle tone.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Gives no real assessment of the new film's quality beyond casting and a brief nod to production limits. It leaves out Variety's criticisms of sanctimony and weak chemistry.
- Charged language
- “bravely steps into John Wayne’s shoes”“Forgotten John Wayne Classic”
- For example
-
“Shazam’s Zachary Levi, who bravely steps into John Wayne’s shoes as Quirt Evans” — Screen Rant
“it’s just great to see another Wayne story celebrated” — Screen Rant
Right0 outlets
No right outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.
What every side reports
- The remake of 'Angel and the Badman' is directed by Julio Quintana and stars Zachary Levi and Tommy Lee Jones.
- Meg Fraser plays Penny in the remake, and the Quaker family of the 1947 original becomes a generically Christian one.
- The 1947 original starred John Wayne and Gail Russell and was directed by James Edward Grant.
Where accounts differ
-
Overall merit of the remake and of Levi's casting
- Left
- Variety calls it fitfully diverting but sanctimonious and spark-less, and says Levi cannot reconcile the tonal swings.
- Centre
- Screen Rant calls Levi's casting a smart choice and the gentle tone a welcome change, while noting production limits.
Zachary Levi person
Variety sees Levi as proficient but tonally uneven; Screen Rant says he is a smart choice who avoids direct comparison with Wayne.
“Levi can’t reconcile the tonal swings, but he’s proficient” — Variety
“his casting is a smart choice” — Screen Rant
Angel Studios organisation
Angel Studios is described as pursuing 'values-based' stories, and in Screen Rant's account as updating the classic for modern audiences while keeping its gentle core.
““values-based” stories (per the website language)” — Variety
“updates Wayne’s underrated classic for modern audiences while seeking to maintain its gentle core” — Screen Rant
Left1 article
-
VarietyLC · · Opinion
Critical A review that finds the remake modestly engaging but inferior to the 1947 original, with praise reserved for Tommy Lee Jones.

Centre1 article
-
79 Years Later, A Forgotten John Wayne Classic Officially Returns Today With A New Remake
Sympathetic A release-day piece that celebrates the Wayne original and welcomes the remake as a gentle, well-cast tribute.

Right0 articles
No coverage yet.
- 9 Oct 00:56 First VarietyLC ‘Angel and the Badman’ Review: Zachary Levi Leads Angel Studios’ Fitfully Engaging Remake of a John Wayne Vehicle Opinion
- 9 Oct 17:15 +16h 19m Screen RantN 79 Years Later, A Forgotten John Wayne Classic Officially Returns Today With A New Remake
Times are when each article was published, or when we first saw it if the outlet gave no time.