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

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

posted 19 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

[–] RugGuy 18 years ago

I'm inclined tomagree with you.
I read the book it was based about 79 or 80 and loved it. I was excited about the movie. The cast looked good. Mickey Rourke was considered good back then. But I was diasappointed when I saw the movie. The ending came quickly and didn't follow any logic. I re-read the book and saw they left about about seven chapters in sequqnce; that explained the ending. I also didn't like how they changed the epihnay character from an NYC business woman to a stereotypical poor Southern black.

Still the movie has a lot to offer.

[–] civilwar1-1 18 years ago

(SPOILERSspoilersSPOILERS)

People didnt like this movie because they found the ending predictable, and so did i. The whole "When he was searching for the killer he was actually searching for himself!" is such a tired concept in movies (Secret Window?) That it has gotten contrived and boring. However, this movie came out before that ending was cliche-it, in a way, created that ending. So, gotta give props there. However, I really didnt like this movie because there were so many other cliches and flaws that it was just hard to brush off. Among them the hard-boiled gumshoe with a haunted past, the obvious reference to the devil early on with DeNiro's character (you knew from the start that there was a bigger reason why Mickey Rourke's character was picked to find Johnny Favorite), the cheesy 80's saxaphone, the incongruous shots of elevators going up and down, or all these dark, brooding shots that are made simply because they are dark and brooding and for no other reason. However, i probly need to see it again, simply because there might have been something i missed.

"Why does everything have to be a *beep* travesty with you, man?"-The Dude

[–] mbutton-1 18 years ago

Why doesn't anyone "get" the elevators? Obviously they symbolize the trip to Hell that Johnny Favourite is now experiencing...One of the ALL-TIME GREAT movies, top 5 on my list...

Blade Runner
Pulp Fiction
Sin City
Terminator
Angel Heart

But that IS just my opinion...

[–] Thomas_S 18 years ago

The elevator going to Hell is so obvious that it's screaming in your face. How can anyone miss that?

[–] m-slovak79 17 years ago

@ mbutton-1 ... you listed 5 films there...

Blade Runner
Pulp Fiction
Sin City
Terminator
Angel Heart

i think all are pretty good besides Angel Heart which basically sucked.

basically out of the ones you listed i would choose...

1.Terminator (9/10, only reason i did not go 10/10 is cause Terminator 2 was better, which i gave a 10/10 ;) )
2.Pulp Fiction (9/10 (but if i had to choose a 8 or 10 i would say 10)) (close call between this and my #1 choice Terminator... cause this is one of Quentin Tarantino's best films along with 'Reservoir Dogs' and the 'Kill Bill Vol1&2' films)
3-4.Blade Runner + Sin City (both are 8/10... but i barely gave blade runner a 8/10... all-in-all it's a close pick between these two films)

5. Angel Heart (this is only film i do not like out of the ones you listed.. this is a distant 5th... 4/10. (5/10 TOPS))

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jimmykebab 18 years ago

this film is effing brilliant. easily the best horror film ever. along with the thing.

Even the most primitive society has an inate respect for the insane

[–] JuddWack 18 years ago

I don't think a lot of fake blood thrown about the walls makes a movie a horror movie, but besides this I do agree with the original poster.

In fact I thought this was a really funny movie and was making it's way to be a great dark comedy until about 2/3 of the way through when it seemed to completely eliminate the humorous moments. Also I thought the soundtrack pulled it down a bit.

[–] yoyodamoose3 18 years ago

I thought the film was very good I havent seen devils advocate so I can't say which is better

[–] chandler-47 18 years ago

I think this one of the best movies of the eighties (a time period were not many good movies were made). The acting is brilliant (mainly by Rourke who gave his best performance ever) and the atmosphere of the movie is also very good.

---------------------------
They don't give you the leads, they don't give you the support, they don't give you dick. (Dave Moss)

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Yasushige 17 years ago

Not to be mean but that is a very 'dick' thing to say (I should know, I'm a dick). The reason people post these things is for what we're doing now - discussion. Yeah they gave their opinion but they did more than that, they opened it to everyone else. 'Who agrees with me' is in this situation the same as saying 'what do you think of this movie'. Now everyone can chime in on what they liked or didn't like about the film. I'm sure they're going to keep their opinion about the film but they're willing to hear what others thought. I hope this helps.

anyway...

I felt the movie was mediocre, definitely better than Devil' Advocate. I still have trouble seeing this as a horror film.

[–] ClawnShark 17 years ago

You're not being mean. I knew it was 'dick' thing to say and that's why I acknowledged that it was. Yes, people post on message boards to open up discussions; hence "message boards". The 'open for discussion' part is a given, of course. Simply stating "this is a mediocre movie" inherently invites this open discussion.

The distinction here, however, is the need for validation by adding the "who agrees with me?" question. The OP would certainly know that there will be responses both in favor of or in disagreement of his opinion - even without the awkward question of who is in agreement. Again, this is the nature of a message board.

The fact that the question is even presented screams need for validation. As I said, if you have an opinion, just state it and stand by it. By asking, it is reminiscent of the type of folks that give discomfort to everyday goings on by asking and looking for that validation. e.g.:

Scott: "Jim and I went to Coney Island. We had fun... Huh, jim? Didn't we, Jim? We had fun, huh?"

Jim: "Uh, yeah, Scott... We sure did." <awkwardly shuffles feet>

It's just unnecessary to even ask. But then again, we've already established that I'm a dick.

[–] guy-gervais 18 years ago

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

Goes to show how little you know...

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pyrocitor 18 years ago

I must confess, I far preferred the Devil's Advocate over Angel Heart, which I found quite disappointing. While there were good elements to it (Rourke, De Niro, the imagery and mood) I just felt like for whatever reason, there didn't seem to be a lot of coherency, and things didn't seem to gel together very well as a film on the whole... so it wasn't a total waste of my time, but overall I was without question left wanting.

While Pacino certainly flirted with going over the top in Devil's Advocate, I thought he essentially needed to to give the role the dramatic intensity it deserved. De Niro seemed the opposite to me; almost as if he wasn't emoting enough. I suppose somewhere in the middle between the two would have been the ideal, but it can't be helped. At any rate, both gave strong performances that proved high points of their respective films.

"Most people will never know anything beyond what they see with their own two eyes."
-Nightcrawler

[–] marveliar 18 years ago

first i gotta say that i didn't go through all the pages, so sorry if i'm repeating someone else...or too many people ^^

i ain't gonna compare it to D.A 'cause i really saw that movie a long time and as it didn't register that much (meaning that i didn't like it that much i guess) there's not enough i remember 'bout it to make comparisons.

basically i just want to say that it's really harsh to say that Angel Heart is mediocre movie.

i mean, there clearly are things that this movie doesn't suffer from. as many noticed, the images are beautiful, the acting is just perfect and of course i don't talk only 'bout De Niro, but 'bout Rourke too of course, though everybody's perfect.

actually, i think there are many ways you can look at this movie and still be content, that's why i find it hard some people might not like it (but hey, i do understand and respect it, the point ain't to change your opinion, but just to explain why i disagree ^^).

the reason why i love this movie is just vey simple: i love it because i just love cinema. i love detective stories, i love "fantastic" movies, i love deep characters, i may love "subtle" movies more than entertaining movies, but i first saw AH when i was kinda young so i took it as an entertaining scary movie, and it worked.
i also love movies with subjects that don't suffer Time.
i love jazz and saxophone. i love when, if the weather is hot in a movie, i can feel the sweat in my skin.
also, i gotta disagree with those who said that the things didn't seem to get all together very well at the end...i'd like to hear more precise elements 'cause i don't really see what your point is ^^

'cause it's probably the movie i've watched the most and, yeah except for that eye effect at the end which of course got old and wasn't necessary, i don't find any weaknesses in the story.

okay, so i know my arguments were pretty weak and i sorta gave personnal reasons but well, the main reasons why we're touched by a movie are always personnal ^^

well, at the end, it just seems to me i sound a little bit silly, sorry 'bout that! it's 5a.m i France and i guess i just wanted to post about a movie i love ^^
hope my english was understandable still, i apologize for my mistakes (and for that long and useless post)

[–] adamjg 18 years ago

No, definitely above mediocre. A slow but methodical build-up of tension that is riveting till the conclusion. A big part of it is watching as Angel/Favorite becomes more desperate and unglued in his quest to get to the truth, along with Cyphre (played by DeNiro) and lots of quotable lines too as a bonus.

[–] Mr Parker 17 years ago

While I like both films and find them both pretty creepy, DeNiro owns Pacino in terms of who gave a better performance as Old Scratch. That's not to say Pacino wasn't good but come on.

"I think a plan is just a list of things that don't happen."
-Parker from "The Way of the Gun"

[–] Panterken 17 years ago

I find De Niro's smirking, grinning,overly relaxed attitude much more frightning than Pacino's intentsity. He's in total controll and the evil shows only in one moment which makes it so much more powerfull, while in the devil's advocate the evil was laid pretty thick on top, if you understand what I'm trying to say.

Both memorable, though De Niro outclassed Pacino on this one.

[–] argentobuff 17 years ago

The difference between the devil's advocate and Angel heart is that De Nero's strength is subtleness. Louis Cyphre takes his time in getting Harry Angel to his final comeuppance like a cat to a mouse where on the far end is Pacino who just goes over the top through out the whole movie doing a Jack Nicholson-shining Deal until the end,and while I love it I'll take Bobby's Satan over Al's.

Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead

[–] jemimakahn 17 years ago

"Angel Heart" mediocre? Hehehhh! The problem with the Academy is that it is uncomfortable with unbridled sensuality and depravity, otherwise Mickey Rourke would have been nominated for his performance in this film. The last scene between Rourke and deNiro (when Rourke realises he is Johnny Favorite) is just stupendous!!! Rourke's voice is hoarse, deNiro's is almost silky - two actors at the peak of their powers! I miss movies like this nowadays. I miss Alan Parker!

[–] RandlePM 17 years ago

Loved everything about it,the atmosphere,the tension,the cutting of scenes back and forward was awesome,like the shot of the outside of the building that in the final scene proved to be the one where the ritual took place,but left you wondering what significance it played before you did actually know.Like someone else the foot tapping and the eerie music all lent a hand in creating a great film that just built up to a creepy as hell finale,i still remember watching this as a teenager and genuinely having shivers run down my spine when the child eyes changed in the final scene.

An intellegant horror that just like Henry portrait of a serial killer,refused to show the actual murders,ok that would obviously give the game away if it did,but it's far more creepy just seeing the aftermath.

All in all,a adult horror movie as opposed to a teenage one like the devils advocate.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]