this is a mediocre movie…who agrees with me?
-
wolfman_rory — 20 years ago(February 15, 2006 11:20 AM)
This was better than the devil advocate, hands down. Keanu Reeves is a terrible actor, only thing I watched in which he had any personality was Bill & Ted (WILD STALLIONS!)
This whole movie creeped me out from start to finish, and it didn't need to employ any special effects to do so, hell with a big enough budget I could make a few creepy faces and scary eyes, it'd be just as scary as in DA.
As for DeNiro's character I thought he was pretty good, the scene with the egg is about as evil as he gets but I still think he kicked ass. He made a more convincing baddie than Pacino, remaining mysterious and pretty sinister throughout the film. The thing with his name kicks ass too. -
BERGDORF — 20 years ago(February 20, 2006 11:40 AM)
ANY moron who even suggest that ANGEL HEART is mediorce needs to banned from watching movies altogether! ANGEL HEART is and always will be the most intelligent, intriguing, macabre and sensual horror movies EVER made!
True evil is in everyone and for those who go looking for it they WILL find it.in their own soul. So the scary part is that anybody could have sold there soul to the devil and realize it only after it is too late!
"WE DON'T LIVE IN THAT KIND OF A WORLD THELMA" -
sborges — 19 years ago(April 01, 2007 05:20 PM)
Keanu Reeves - ?!?!?! Up against Rorke & DeNiro in their prime - this must be a joke, right? This movie is exceptional, brilliant - one of the best films to come out of the 80s - as for the devil's advocatejust another piece of beep by mr. reeves.
-
m-slovak79 — 19 years ago(March 10, 2007 01:34 AM)
i just seen this movie it was pretty bad to be honest devils advocate is FAR FAR FAR FAR better than angel heart angel heart it just flat out booring to sum it up. i cant believe people can say this is better than devils advocate, theres no comparison!
i give angel heart a 4/10 (5 TOPS) devils advocate is MUCH MUCH MUCH better, i give devils advocate a 9/10. i dont understand how this movie can get a 7.1/10 , dont make sense to me.
considering deniro was in this movie it was pretty bad and he's barely in it to top it off. i was not going into the movie expecting to much but it turned out worse than i was expecting i was going into the movie expecting to rate it around a 6/10 area but i was wrong.
p.s. those who think keanu reeves cant act i dont even get that crap cause he obviously can even if you dont consider em a top level actor he's still pretty good in devils advocate. -
cadgemeister — 19 years ago(March 16, 2007 10:07 AM)
Everyone's got thier own opinions, but I personally loved it. I loved how the atmosphereic film that Parker managed to create (especially in the beginning) which was heightened by a brilliant score, I also thought De Niro was spot on playing "Louis Chyphre". Rourque and the rest of the cast were really good as well, but for me De Niro stole it.
That said, I am also a huge fan of the Devil's Advocate, Pacino was superb as the devil and the only real problem I had with the film was the bit near the end where all the jazz music started playing, that was a bit cheesy. -
FollicleMan — 15 years ago(September 02, 2010 12:52 AM)
Jazz music? You mean "Paint it Black" by the Rolling Stones?
While I enjoyed Devil's Advocate alright, it never for an instant impacted me on the level of Angel Heart. I mean, talk about tension and atmosphere. Also, I thought DA was really condescending to the viewers. Backstage they must have been thinking, "Okay, how can we remove all ambiguity and mystery and make this movie as obvious as possible so the idiot test audiences will get it?" -
d_killa_b — 16 years ago(September 24, 2009 04:35 AM)
lol some people just don't get subtlety.it eludes them.they need everything to be over-the-top hit-with-a-hammer to get it.that is why hollywood is for you and good films are for people who can grasp nuance.
-
keria1979 — 20 years ago(February 25, 2006 07:14 PM)
and i was convinced much more from "devils advocate" which had more suspense and seemed to be much more interesting.and pacino scared me much more than de niro as the devil.
dude,,devil advocate was 1997 year,,and this movie 1987!!
why are you compaire,,like this?
the movie was realy goodfor 1987! -
guiheffes — 20 years ago(March 02, 2006 09:03 PM)
this movie sucked, it has no sense. The only good thing is Robert De Niro's acting.
I think it's stupid to say: "this movie was really good for 1987" a movie is a movie in 1987 or 1997, it doesn't matter the year in which it was made when you're trying to decide either the movie was good or bad. -
keria1979 — 20 years ago(March 03, 2006 01:54 PM)
NOT AGREE WITH YOU,,,,AND WATCH YOUR MOUTH,,,HOW YOU SPEAK TO ME!!OK?
YES THERE IS A DIFERENT IN AGES!!IF YOU HAD SEEN TODAY,,FOR THE FIRST TIME KING KONG PREVIOUS,,,,YOURE REACTION WILL BE LIKE "WHAT CRAP IS THIS?"
I AM SURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
savard-guy-1 — 16 years ago(July 16, 2009 04:25 PM)
I totally disagree. It is not a movie for mainstream audience who half of the time watch crappy movies with no imagination or originality. It demands a certain intellectual effort to like it, or i should say, love it!