I first saw this movie when I was younger, much younger, too young. I was probably 12 or 13 when I rented Angel Heart on video. I liked Robert De Niro, I had heard of this guy Mickey Rourke and I loved horror which Angel Heart apparently was. Also, it was rated R and I would probably get to see a Cosby girl naked. So it was around 1991 when I rented this movie and man did I hate it. It was slow, boring and was seriously lacking in the horror department.
Cut to last night and I just finished Angel Heart for the second time, 21 years later and it was much better than I remembered it. By no means is it a masterpiece and it sits somewhere on the fence of being one of Alan Parker's worst films so far, but it is still a decent picture with an excellent look, a strong sense of foreboding, a lot of mystery, a little horror and a Cosby girl naked.
To start off I will discuss the two bad things about this film. First is the story. While it's not a bad story, or a badly written script, Angel Heart ends up coming off as generic and anticlimactic. The ending you can see coming within 30 minutes of the movie and when it is finally revealed it ends up being less of a shock and more of a 'I knew that was coming' moment. There are random characters and scenes that could of been cut and the story would of played out exactly the same. There is some hot sex featuring a Cosby girl.
The second bad thing is the acting. While most of the leads do a fine job, especially Rourke who comes off perfectly as a mid twentieth century detective, some of the other actors don't come off that well. De Niro does a fine job in his small role, but is outshone by Rourke in every scene they share. One actor in particular who just doesn't pull off the role well is Lisa Bonet. She is the weakest link in the leads and puts a hamper in the believability of the film. I feel like she took this role to break out of her Cosby girl image but instead the audience (men) just relish that they get to see her naked.
The good things about Angel Heart though do out way the bad. The film looks like it was shot in the 1950's and the attention to detail is astounding. The cinematography, as usual in an Alan Parker film, is glorious to behold. The lighting and the framing are as good as it gets and the music keeps the film going and the audience interested. The editing is solid and keeps the picture flowing at a nice pace (if a bit slow for younger audiences). And you get to see a Cosby girl naked!!
Angel Heart is at heart a mystery movie. It has moments of horror (which work now that I am an adult) and moments of eroticism but at it's core it is a hard boiled detective story with a twist. The twist is predictable and can be seen a mile away and the story is a bit muddled here and there with too much exposition and random characters but the top notch cinematography, sets, locations and music and a nice editing job still keep the audience entertained. Plus you get to see a naked Cosby girl.
Parker has made a tight little film that works well and plays well with an audience. It's not his greatest achievement but it also isn't his worst. The acting his hit and miss (depending on the actor) and the story is somewhat generic (at least in 2012 it is--maybe in 1987 it wasn't) and formulaic but Parker is a master craftsman and even through both those faults he is able to piece together a film that is a lot better than it should be. It's bloody, it's intriguing and it's got a cool factor to it. It flies by quicker than it's run time and it sticks in your head for a while after it ends. And did I mention that it's got a Cosby girl naked in it?
In a word: Recommendable.
Film Rating: 74%
Breakdown (How Angel Heart scored 74%):
Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 8 out of 10
Re-playability: 6 out of 10
Originality: 8 out of 10
Costumes: 8 out of 10
Directing: 8 out of 10
Editing: 8 out of 10
Acting: 6 out of 10
Music: 9 out of 10
No comments:
Post a Comment