this is a mediocre movie…who agrees with me?
-
kungming7 — 20 years ago(March 10, 2006 09:52 PM)
Ok there are going to be SPOILERS in here
I haven't seen this movie in a long time but watching movies about revenge and movies with unreliable narrators has made me appreciate this one more over time I'll admit I liked it but wasn't overwhelmed or anything. I think this movie has a good twist and I think it plays by the rules. The eye thing is a little silly. The sex scene may have gone over the top. These are my vague memories of some weaknesses Also, the name of Deniro's character may be a little too obvious
What I think is great about this movie is the atmospherethe shoe-tapping, the fans, the damp and the darkbut especially that the Devil takes revenge on not only the protagonist but all who helped him through his own hand I need to re-watch this to catch some hints that might make me appreciate it more I guess that's my biggest gripe if it's validthat we aren't given enough hints as to what's really happening
Again, I don't think it's some masterpiece I think you have to respect what it does, thoughespecially considering its time To elaborate on that since it seems to be something worth arguing in this threadI think twist endings are getting out of hand. When it's viewer's assumptions that make for certain expectations they can be great When a director bends the rules in terms of narrative perspectives, for example, that's another thing altogether -
Sempai1 — 20 years ago(March 14, 2006 06:23 PM)
Ok, I just saw the movie for the first time (just finished it to be accurate) and I think it was great.
Not great in the "Jerry-Bruckheimer"-way that leaves you just entertained and happy.
Angel Heart left me with a cold feeling because it is a very dark and sinister movie. And since I'm not at all into horror-movies (if you can call Angel Heart a horror-movie) I was very surpirsed at how much it absorbed me into the story.
The only mistake I made was watch the interview with Alan Parker at first, since he reveals there that Cyphre is the Devil.
But I still loved it and think that both Rorke and DeNiro were fantastic!
To all the comparisons to Devil's Advocate I have to say that Angel Heart is much much better. The only thing that kept me interested in Advocate was Al Pacino who clearly wasn't at his best!
And even though I still qoute Advocate from time to time ("Vanity, my favorite sin) I think that Angel Heart had a much greater effect since it achieves more in terms of atmosphere and story with just subtle things than Advocate does with it's bag of tricks. -
Victorias_Secret — 20 years ago(March 14, 2006 06:49 PM)
I think this is comparing apples and oranges. They are both excellent films. Devil's Advocate is about temptation and Angel Heart is about someone's past catching up with him.
Terry
Your soul and your body are your own, and yours to do with as you wish. -
Mgliognv — 19 years ago(May 29, 2006 12:32 PM)
You shouldnt compare both of them all the time.
They are both pretty good, with both excellent performances from De niro and Pacino.
But one thing is for sure, this was better than the average movie. Not mediocre at all. I never saw Mickey Rourke acting like this and De niro was great in his part. I liked the entire story and the plot was very good. So saying that this is a mediocre movie is really not fair, it is better than that. -
JDK2003 — 19 years ago(June 06, 2006 06:38 PM)
"The Devil's Advocate" is not a film without its strengths but it is clearly a studio picture aimed at the masses.
"Angel Heart" is more of an art film. It features two great performances (Rourke and De Niro) while "The Devil's Advocate" has one great performance (Pacino) and two bad ones in pivotal leading roles. (Reeves and Theron)
There are surprises in "Angel Heart."
In "The Devil's Advocate," we know who's who and what role they play all along. -
mattbcoach — 19 years ago(June 08, 2006 09:09 AM)
"The Devil's Advocate" is not a film without its strengths but it is clearly a studio picture aimed at the masses.
"Angel Heart" is more of an art film. It features two great performances (Rourke and De Niro) while "The Devil's Advocate" has one great performance (Pacino) and two bad ones in pivotal leading roles. (Reeves and Theron)
There are surprises in "Angel Heart."
In "The Devil's Advocate," we know who's who and what role they play all along. >>>>>
Perfect explanation, JDK2003.
I enjoyed "The Devils Advocate" but it was clearly not as good a picture as Angel Heart. -
umma-ohz — 19 years ago(June 08, 2006 01:49 PM)
I find it hard to take anyone seriously when they tell me that 'The Devils Advocate' is better than 'Angel Heart'. 'Angel Heart' is an fantastic film in so many ways, acting, script, setting, and the cinematography is gorgeous. 'The Devils Advocate' is like a watered down version of 'Angel Heart' and without Pacino it would be largey (with the exception of a few elements) a pretty weak film.
Now, a question of etiquette - as I pass, do I give you the ass or the crotch?