MovieChat Forums > Angel Heart (1987) Discussion > this is a mediocre movie...who agrees wi...

this is a mediocre movie...who agrees with me?

posted 18 years ago by johngotsis
135 replies | jump to latest

i did not find the movie such good,i expected it to be better...

firstly,the scenario is kinda unbelievable,generally it was not boring but in some parts the movie was pushed too far...the directing was not so "electrifying" for a thriller/horror movie...

i gave the movie a 6/10...(maybe i would rate it for 5,5 or smt)

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....

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

[–] The_Moviegeek 18 years ago

"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long"-Blade Runner

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pazuzuu 18 years ago

devils advocate is entertaning but no were near angel heart, and a movie like skeleton key was predictable because of angel heart.

[–] davidlovesx 18 years ago

Devil's Advocate vs Angel Heart
Hm.... Let's see, Keanu Reeves can't act his way out of a wet paper sack might be one factor.
D

[–] richcapo 14 years ago

And Pacino has all the range of a chainsaw -- he just screams and overacts, and has been for a long, long time, in my opinion. He really has become a terrible actor, as far as I'm concerned. Better than I could ever be, yes, but that's not saying anything.

_Richard

[–] TheGunman 14 years ago

Anyone who says Pacino was over the top for the whole movie is an idiot and clearly based their opinions on the one final scene where he yells. In fact he yells for about one sentence.

[–] cuttingedgenyc 18 years ago

My thoughts exactly. This movie was slightly better than mediocre for me but I liked the Devil's Advocate much, much better. And in fact I had the same thought after finishing Angel Heart just today.

Same thoughts here about Pacino as the devil vs. Deniro. I think Deniro also did a great job but the director didn't really do a very good job showcasing just how "evil" Cypher (and the whole situation) was. I know, the movie wanted to be "subtle" - but I am not sure a movie like this should rightfully BE subtle. It was so scary and gross and frightening leading up to the end that I was very let down by the non-explosiveness of the ending itself.

[–] doubleohlinsey 18 years ago

That's interesting. I really felt like the whole romantic situation (i.e. the explicitness of the "love" scene) vs real situation (you've seen it so I won't spoil it for others) between Angel and Epiphany worked really well as displaying Cypher's evil without needing him to be present. For myself, didn't need more than that, but we're all different folks so I can see your point.

I thought both films had fascinating demonic characters, but A.H. more of a tinker-at-the-start-and-watch-it-grow evil vs D.A. is more of a devil-with-his-fingers-in-everything evil. I liked both in different ways.

[–] DarkRealityX 18 years ago

I personally love this film, but I don't put it up on a pedestal, and I do see some of its faults. It's really all about the ending - once you see the ending, you really ought to see it again, within the next week or so, to make everything really fall into place. But up until the ending, the pace of the film could have been a lot better. I liked the start of it, but once he got to New Orleans, it just slowed down. I felt uninterested in Angel finding Favourite. Overall, the film dragged. But once you get to the ending, and once you understand it, it becomes a lot better.

"The Devils Advocate" wasn't as good as "Angel Heart" - not by a longshot. It had a lot going for it, and I did like it a lot. But though the two are similar, I found myself liking them for different reasons, and it's hard for me to compare them. One fault I had with Devils Advocate was the confrontation between Reeves and Pacino - I dunno, either it was too long or otherwise didn't go over well.

- Dark Reality

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wolfman_rory 18 years ago

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.

[–] pepepeter 18 years ago

Angel Heart is one of the most unique, fascinating and horrifing films i ever saw.

[–] BERGDORF 18 years ago

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"

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sborges 17 years ago

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 advocate...just another piece of *beep* by mr. reeves.

[–] barbarossa4188 14 years ago

Loved Angel Heart. Saw it at least 10 times.

"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."

[–] Africanist 16 years ago

Be careful.

That's what I thought about "Blade Runner" too. By the third or fourth time, I realized it was a little deeper than I had thought.

[–] m-slovak79 17 years ago

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.

[–] johnlogan2312 17 years ago

BAD BAD BAD BAD

[–] cadgemeister 17 years ago

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 14 years ago

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 15 years ago

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.

[–] BatPopsicle 10 years ago

Agree with you 100%.

[–] thjollymon 18 years ago

that's because you're an idiot, john...PLEASE.

[–] keria1979 18 years ago

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 18 years ago

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 18 years ago

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] savard-guy-1 15 years ago

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 15 years ago

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*

[–] keria1979 15 years ago

dude you misunderstood ,,,the first lines in my previous comment was from the other user,,,
i said that this movie was GREAT,,, so read with more attention next time

[–] eduardo-70 18 years ago

nobody agrees with you

[–] fanaticita 18 years ago

I loved this film, but then I have a thing for Mickey Rourke, and this was one of his best earlier films, imho that is.

[–] guiheffes 18 years ago

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)

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Thomas_S 17 years ago

People who like Forrest Gump should have their TV sets taken away and be banned from cinemas and movie websites. It's one of the dumbest films I've ever seen, but maybe that's the point with it.