i did not find the movie such good,i expected it to be better
-
Naughty-God — 16 years ago(July 17, 2009 02:37 PM)
i did not find the movie such good,i expected it to be better
Well, that's a subjective statement and since I don't put a measurable expectation on a film I haven't seen yet I can't relate to this comment. My reaction to a film "after" I have seen it relates to what I saw, not what I expected to see.
firstly,the scenario is kinda unbelievable,generally it was not boring but in some parts the movie was pushed too farthe directing was not so "electrifying" for a thriller/horror movie
What scenario are you speaking of? Did you mean "plot"? If so, I don't see how you can find it unbelievable since your subsequent comment about "The Devil's Advocate" leaving you more "convinced" of the story when both movies depend on the supernatural (ie - suspension of disbelief).
i gave the movie a 6/10(maybe i would rate it for 5,5 or smt)
Well, good for you, but I don't rate movies on IMDB nor do I use them as measuring sticks when determining what I want to watch.
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.
LOL, I've always commented that The Devil's Advocate was a poorman's Angel Heart. If you found Al Pacino's CGI-driven comical performance as he self-referenced his own caricature throughout the film as being superior to De Niro's subtle and un-CGI'ed Louis Cyphre (no those yellow cat eyes in the end were colored in manually in post-production) then I've got a Condo in Death Valley to sell to you. I won't even comment on why you felt that the casting choice of Keanu Reeves and his performance as a hot shot defense attorney from rural Florida was exceptional.
anyway.its just my oponion,and i wanted to share it with you,cause yesterday when i finished the movie i just kinda felt un-satisfied.
JOHN
Yeah, well I cared enough to respond to your opinion because I think you aren't very good at criticism and should have been more articulate in your reasoning. Your poor use of diction and spelling errors also made me feel that you aren't well spoken for as well.
Hi, I'm God. Can I touch You? -
nickmuller22 — 16 years ago(August 15, 2009 12:11 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
-
kconrad-2 — 16 years ago(August 28, 2009 08:32 PM)
Angel Heart is incredible, the cinema photography is amazing, you must have been watching it on a 12 inch B&W, Mickey Rourke is phenomenal, De Niro is unbelievably good (as usual) those two together were just incredible., did not seem forced nor acted. They could do anything together and it would be good.the story is goodthe sound track is awesome, it is a very good movie.
I liked Skeleton Key as well, not as intense as Angel. Devils Advocate was good because of Al Pacino and only because of Al Pacino. Remove him and the movie would be beep
Pacino and De Niro were both awesome devils, either one is tops in my book. -
chickenblood — 16 years ago(October 14, 2009 06:11 PM)
"As I remember, the final scene between De Niro and Rourke should be longer where De Niro was taking out eggs from his own mouth"
I think you were on acid if that is what you saw.
"Your mother's in here with us." -
thewood — 16 years ago(November 09, 2009 10:29 AM)
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
-
filmbuff1974 — 16 years ago(November 13, 2009 01:57 PM)
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! -
koffeenkreame41-1 — 15 years ago(February 03, 2011 09:28 PM)
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.