this is a mediocre movie…who agrees with me?
-
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!
-
nickmuller22 — 16 years ago(August 15, 2009 12:06 PM)
this is one of the best movies of all time and devils advocate was a joke. everyone is saying they didnt like it because it was too slow, and thats probly why u like that beep devils advocate. this movie takes its time and doesnt rush itself and relies on its scenery and imagery and plot and acting, and if you enjoy good movies, your willing to wait. and it pays off huge. devils advocate is exactly like every other movie ive forgotten like end of days and stigmata that has nothing original to it and entertains people with short attention spans who like michael bay type beep dont compare a classic to beep
-
guiheffes — 20 years ago(March 10, 2006 12:32 AM)
i don't like boy bands because i don't know what that is. mtv hate it
All i was saying is that you're watching the movie now. I can't understand how a person could think this way: well, i like this two movies, but i think one of them is better because it is an old one. That's the way i think.
dedicated to evicius these are some of my favorite movies:
The Shawshank Redemption
Forrest Gump
American History X
Pulp Fiction
Reservoir Dogs
Sin City
A clockwork orange
The Shining
The Godfather (Trilogy)
Lock stock and two smoking barrels
Snatch
Seven
LA Confidential
The Usual Suspects
American Beauty
Scarface
Star Wars (all of them except episode I)
Goodfellas
JFK
Platoon
Natural Born Killers
Indiana Jones (Trilogy)
The Rock
Braveheart
Fight Club
Adaptation
Schindler's List
El hijo de la novia (The son of the bride)
Caballos Salvajes (Wild Horses)
Nueve Reinas (Nine Queens) -
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?