Angel Heart

Such an impressive movie, if like me you're a fan of noir, or neo noir, then you will absolutely love this movie.

The first thing you will be struck by is the appearance of the film, it is a visual masterpiece, the attention to detail is flawless, you could actually turn the colour off, and imagine this being made in 1955.

Secondly, the atmosphere, smoke filled rooms, the clothes, music, accents, just awesome to behold, they got the tone spot on.

It's a great story, it takes a few moments for you to know what's happening, and get the direction, but you will.

Finally the acting, Rourke is at his absolute best, one of the best films I've seen him in, he is tremendous, it's so nice to see him in his handsome pre surgery years. De Niro, what can you say, he's just incredible.

Captivating, 9/10.

P.I Harry Angel has a new case, to find a man called Johnny Favourite, only it isn't a straight forward missing person's case. Prefect, grounded, Alan's Parker's voodoo-laden, hard-boiled film is the ultimate mystery film.

This is without a doubt Mickey Rourke's finest role. The supporting cast deliver some of the most interesting and story driven performances which include Robert De Niro, Lisa Bonet and Charlotte Rampling to name a few.

You can feel 1955's New Orleans warm rain, hear the jazz, taste the grit of 1950's Brooklyn, Michael Seresin's cinematography is amazing. The films realism captures the time wholly, Trevor Jones mystery music builds up the tension as murders increase and Harry Angel is drawn into eventful dangerous meetings. The dialogue is flawless and the ending has a mind-blowing twist that has been imitated but never surpassed. The Johnny Favourite theme tune will linger with you long after the end credits.

A timeless, eerie and realistic atmospheric classic. Perfect.

I'm glad I caught this because what was seen by many as a poor film in 1987 can only be seen as great film in 2007. Angel Heart is one of those films that matures with age and grows on audiences and film connoisseurs alike. A psychological horror/thriller is one of the hardest genres for a director to prosper in but if you were to mix in spiritual and religious elements along with a heap of film noir, a touch of romance and a smidgen of jazz then you would set yourself a near impossible task, nevertheless it would be a task in which Alan Parker would succeed.

The direction of this film is masterful as Parker engages us through a meticulous atmosphere littered with mysterious allegories, gut rendering paranoia and an unmatched sense of place. This unmatched sense of place is a symptom of his stark imagery and sombre lighting which is played out through an amalgamation of film noir and the focal iconography of 50s and 60s French New Wave (the use of elevators, ceiling fans, staircases etc).

For many of these reasons and more Angel Heart is a very influential film and its inspirations can be seen in many of the psychological thrillers/horrors released in the past 20 years, it is thought provoking and at times a lot more disturbing than any of its genre equivalents. The multi-faceted love scene in the film is one such example, it plays very well as it is cleverly interspersed with a host demonic echelons which (given its style and narrative position) I believe to be unparallelled, even in contemporary cinema.

Overall Angel Heart is a very well paced and well acted film – although initially I felt that having Mickey Rourke in the lead role was a poor choice (based on his more recent work) but clearly he was at his acting best in his younger days almost Oscar-worthy, Robert De Niro is also on form as is the young Lisa Bonet – but these performances combined with everything else make Angel Heart a film that will stick with you, not as much as Midnight Express or Mississippi Burning (dir. Alan Parker), but enough to make you ponder why this film wasn't so successful upon its initial release and enough to curse why he didn't spend more time dabbling in the psychological/horror genre.

I'm not in the least surprised that other reviewers either love this or hate it to bits - I also bet that it's the younger users to whom the nature of the visual narrative of the film - the way it's all told to us, the viewer - may seem a bit dated. And to a point, they're right - "Angel Heart" is totally an eighties film, a film of the decade in which the movie world was discovering a new visual language in video and playfully indulged in experimenting with its new toy. It was literally speaking to a generation straight out of MTV classrooms and workshops and is in that sense very similar to stuff like "Betty Blue". And true enough, there is a lot to remark on what can today be seen as a slightly poseur-ish "one too many revolving fans, angularly lit staircases and heartbeat sounds in the soundtrack" kind of thing. However, "Angel Heart" does carry a tremendous amount of energy thanks to its imagery, which will stick to the viewer's mind in exactly the same way a sweaty shirt sticks to the body in sticky weather. Besides, the impeccably drawn cast led by Rourke does a truly remarkable job - that's beyond question - the sets are great, production design and cinematography are very evocative, the soundtrack is memorable and the story is one of the crucial ones. I personally love it.

Give it a go by all means.

I was stunned at what this film did to me. An absolutely brilliant display of psychological horror. Alan Parker made the scariest film of the eighties, maybe the scariest film of the second half of the century with this picture. The hell with "Psycho", "Angel Heart" is where it's at if you want horror.

I don't know how Parker hasn't become the Hitchcock of his generation after this film. I know some of his other work - "Evita" and Mississippi Burning" are two films of his that I happen to think are pretty good. But they're nothing like this. What Parker does so well here, what he seems to get better than any other director I've noticed since this film was made, is how atmosphere makes a movie. He has a real sense of place and time that's a key component to making the terror of this movie real.

Aside from Parker's talents, there are three performances without which the movie just wouldn't work.

Robert de Niro gives the second best performance of his career here, right next to "Raging Bull", and even that's pretty close. I'm not even normally a huge fan of de Niro's - I mean, don't get me wrong, he's a legend, but I find most of the time that I'm less impressed with him than most people are. Not here. In this movie, de Niro makes the simple act of eating an egg into a treatise on mortal dread. He should have received the Oscar for this performance, no question about it.

Lisa Bonet - what happened to her? Every couple of years I'll see her in something like this or "High Fidelity", and she's got all this charisma - she really is a superb actress. What she does here is really interesting because you can see that it's very underdone, a lot of subtlety. Which is a strange way to go if you're playing a voodoo priestess. But she's very vulnerable here. I think it's a shame she didn't become the star she could have. I'd love to see more work from her.

Mickey Rourke is another resident of the "Where are they now?" file. I've heard more from him recently though. He's been making a comeback of sorts. He's actually the primary reason I rented this movie, because I saw him in Sean Penn's "The Pledge" and wanted to see more of his stuff. He's the third performance that makes this movie complete, and he's the one who really has the hardest job, who has to strap it to his back and get it across the finish line. His is also the most important job, because he needs to instill the terror in you. It's through his eyes that you witness these bizarre events, and it's his reaction that makes it all the more terrifying.

Again, brilliant. Can't say enough about it. The last thirty seconds or so kind of sucks (those of you who've seen it know what I'm referring to), but I can just turn it off before that. Oddly, it doesn't ruin what's come before.