I thought it was okay. Not bad just good/okay. Definitely a spooky film and I enjoy the spooky detective atmosphere but Jesus Mother Fucking Christ it scared the **** out of me when I saw it

If you are want flash and explosionsstay away from this movie. If you want a slow burn, like good acting and direction, perhaps some existentialismthis may be your kind of flick.

"mediocre" is too good for it. Maybe it would've made a decent -hour Twolight Zone episode.

I found the movie to be a pretensive load of crap.
Dang,if I had to hear him scream "whos the boy" with that horrible over acting.
Anyway, it is just to bad to even break down all horrible things about.

Agree. This movie aims higher than Devil's Advocate, but misses, and in the end falls lower. Devil's Advocate aims to entertain and produces a flawed but really enjoyable melodrama. Angel Heart aims at something higher, but lacks the subtlety or wit to achieve its goals. I wanted to love this movie A slow burn psychological occult film noir set in New York and New Orleans? Yes! But I watched it twice, paying especially close attention the second time, and while Rourke and Bonet in particular deliver excellent performances, De Niro seems terribly uninspired (can't blame him), and the script is clumsy (Angel's bad, fake old-timey dialogue; "I'm from Brooklyn!"; "We ain't all Baptists down here";
"Louis Cyphre"
). The twist surprised me when I figured it out about halfway through, and I hoped for an interesting development, but the heavy-handed exposition by Krusemark and Louis toward the end let me down and bored me. Krusemark's flabbergasted description of A Spooky Ritual made me laugh. Really, even though Angel Heart clearly aimed at a more intellectually subtle story than Devil's Advocate did, Devil's Advocate actually deploys its satanic figure with greater finesse: Pacino's devil acts (mostly) not by overt supernatural intervention, but just by tempting Lomax, and profiting from his human weaknesses.

This message has been deleted.

It's good imo but not worth a rewatch since it's not very entertaining, unless if I wanted to see the scenes with De Niro who I thought was excellent. On the other hand I'll probably rewatch Devil's Advocate sometime. 6.0 from me as well.

If only the people who agree with this guy replied to his post (as the post's title clearly asks for), he would have maybe 5 or 6 replies, tops. Mine would not be in them, of course.

This message has been deleted.

The difference for me is that before watching Devils Advocate I knew that Pacino was the Devil and had a pretty decent idea what was going to happen in it just by seeing 1 ad. It was probably going to be watchable but it wasn't going to have me thinking about it the next day or strongly recommending it to mates.
Was only a kid when Angel Heart came out and seen it maybe 93. I had no idea the Devil would make an appearance and was drawn into the complex story and characters thinking it was a regular detective type show. Since then I have watched it many times and bought the original book, something I have never did in that order. I get an automated email reply every now and again, pop back on here and still manage to learn something new.
Was it obvious at the time of release that DeNiro was playing the Devil? It obviously was a massive plus not knowing.
Either way I must disagree and think AH is head and shoulders over DA and can some it up with a quote from the Devil in each film, a hint each time to the lead character as to who he really is.
"You know, some religions think that the egg is the symbol of the soul, did you know that?"
verses
"Speak of the Devil, HA HA HA!"

yeh, I thought the movie was pretty boring and not scary at all too. The Story and acting was ok though, but watching the movie itself bores the hell out of me. (no pun intended)
4/10

I think its better than just mediocre, but certainly not the kinda masterpiece some are making it out to be as the fusion of noir and supernatural horror often feels rather uneasy & artificial. Its nothing particularly original either despite Parkers efforts to play the conclusion as if it were some earth shattering revelation and have Rourke resort to some rather unconvincing overacting. A lot of the time one cant help getting the impression the films more concerned with the decorative element, the period stylistics, than he was with the story that was told against these expressionistic lanscapes (although, one must admit, the overkill didnt nearly reach the ludicrous heights of Shutter Island - a film to which Angel Heart bears a close resemblence. It is, however, no less heavy handed than the Scorseses piece of muck when it comes to dropping clues about the "actual" situation at hand). Also, a lot of the shock tactics come across as sensationalistic more than anything else.
But of course it IS pretty to look at - albeit a bit in the kitschy kind of way - and the suspense never really slackens throughout; as old hat the film may seem, one cant deny its outstandingly crafted. De Niro as The Devil was fairly amusing, too, although nowhere near as riotously entertaining as Pacinos version of The Horned One in (the otherwise awful) Devils Advocate. I guess it can be taken semi-seriously at least. 7-7,5/10.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

I quot ANY moron who even suggest that ANGEL HEART is mediorce needs to banned from watching movies

to the threadstarter:
STFU

The Devil's Advocate wasn't a dream. There were alternate realities. Apparently all with the same result?

The book is amazing. I read it years ago and I'm looking for a copy.

This message has been deleted.

Angel Heart & Devil's Advocate are too very different films and both extremely underrated. Pacino & DeNiro were incredible in their roles but to people that think Reeves wasn't good in TDA, must've missed the ENTIRE second half of the film. That scene where he's trying to save Mary Ann and the look on his face as he's wailing and crying uncontrollably. Are you kidding, LOL? That's the BEST I've ever seen from him, besides The Gift. People need to forget Bill & Ted and Johnny Mnenomic, Keanu actually can act, the scene where he yells at Pacino: "Damn it!! WHAT DID YOU DO TO MY WIFE?!" Great performance. For Mickey, his performance was Oscar worthy, it's a damn shame he didn't get one for this. Angel Heart is hands down the absolute best acting I've seen from Rourke, (not counting that cameo in The Pledge)my God, the end scene when he finds out the truth and how DeNiro plays it so calmly and then slowly showing his anger is unbelievable. Also I can't understand how some people think TDA was predictable, did you honestly know beforehand that
Lomax's friend was really Milton the whole time? or that the ENTIRE film was a dream? or that he was going to kill himself at the end? or the thing with Craig T. Nelson,
I mean, these two films were incredibly well done with exceptional acting, both had great endings. I thought Charlize was very good in there, her acting as she starts to lose it was phenomenal, near the end of the film, I was truly afraid for her when Eddie wasn't around. In AH, I was heartbroken for Angel when I saw the ending, I literally couldn't believe it, that was a huge shock, one thing I will say about the both of these films is that there's so many twists in each of their climaxes.
Why do some of you think Pacino was over the top? He was pretty laid back until the ending and even then it was chilling. Also, Stigmata & End of Days weren't bad either, I believe that they were very underrated films as well, probably not as good as AH or TDA but I think EOD is probably best Arnie's best dramatic role because he's not playing an unstoppable cyborg or a commando, he's playing a human that can be hurt, his acting when he sees his daughter's toy or his acting at the end, wow, I didn't expect that from Arnold to be honest with uou. Now that being said EOD is a very underrated film but I think for some reason, films like that, Angel Heart & Devil's Advocate aren't as well known, I guess probably for the obvious biblical overtones, there's great acting in all of them. I don't see why some fans of AH are downing TDA and fans of TDA are putting down AH. They're two very different films, ten years apart but exceptional in their own ways. This is just my opinion but I think these movies are great, I watched them all the time.
Keanu Reeves in Devil's Advocate (0:01-4:14) (warning there are spoilers here)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUACmokzOK8&feature=related
"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna *beep* wit' me!" Hudson in Aliens.

The film was made better than what it was on paper because of its actors.
"I think you and I are destined to do this forever."
Rest In Peace Heath. 1/22/08

It slowed down in the middle. The script could have been fine tuned a little, but I certainly wouldn't call "Angel Heart" a mediocre film!
If you love and support Michael Jackson 100%, copy & paste this into your signature. We love MJ!

amen pastor johnbut i have to say .. harrys threads were extremely cool throughout if a little down-at-heel and angel heart coming as it did right before rourke pulled off a super-sleazy henry chinaski in the barbet shroeder / charles bukowski mayhem of barfly , im sure influenced a lot of young men back then to shuffle a little and favor light-weight suits in summer and 50s overcoats in winter __________________it frequently getstoo -weird- for meRIP HST 1937..2005

This message has been deleted.

dude if you cant tell what a brilliant movie this is i feel sorry for you.
in a nutshell ! __________________it frequently getstoo -weird- for meRIP HST 1937..2005

dude if you cant tell what a brilliant movie this is i feel sorry for you.