Angel Heart (1987)

Stars	User	Rating
5	Barthalen	68 _48th
Atmospheric but unsurprising. Was hoping for a more interesting twist than the one that became obvious within the first five minutes. Still, Rourke and De Niro are fun to watch, the music is moody and there are a few succesfully creepy scenes.
4	BillyShears	85 _86th
Mickey Rourke's buttshots outnumbered the entire tit shot ratio in the span of 30 seconds. Guh.
4	ribcage	75 _68th
if Jacobs Ladder(same producer)was more noir than surreal with a less cerebral ending but sharing the sense of paranoid psychological horror. very little horrific is happening (til the end)but a sense of "somethings not right" pervades the entire movie.music is used expertly, sometimes SCARY HORROR music sometimes more subdued but still adding to the tension.like any good noir its FULL of atmosphere an oppressive(in a good way)one.Excellent period recreation. Rourke is super likeable as the lead
3	djross	35 _19th
Over-praised and very silly modern noirishness.
3	caiman	72 _42nd
Whoa, Mickey Rourke used to look like a human being? Cool. He was really good here. And so was Deniro in his very small role. The atmosphere of this movie could be described as gothic noir. Its look is dark, grimy and sweaty. I don't really have a ton to say about this, other than I enjoyed the story and the style. And the ending was pretty satisfying. But overall I don't think this would be one I'd ever revisit.
3	medium123	95 _97th
mickey rourke was hot, i would love to have a date with that guy
3	chemical404	68 _78th
Southern occult horror mixed with film noir. Very atmospheric. It has very distinguishable score, and the lightning is very well done. Rourke used to be a proper actor, and he is really good in this. The only big minus I found about this film is the last act - a bit too straight forward for my taste.
3	guy piranha	65 _53rd
De niro is quite convincing as satan, but mickey rourke is a pretty decent bruce willis, too.
2	joseywales	79 _84th
Great cinematography, great performances and an excellent mood held throughout the run-time really complement this film. Saw the ending coming a mile away however.
2	Mentaculus	79 _70th
The movie works really well in its more stylistic or experimental moments (De Niro made eating an egg really frightening); what works against it is the ending you already saw coming (reminds me of that one Chan-wook Park film...). It's still a great film for what it is, with a fantastic premise that stays with you.
2	tinysausage	81 _86th
A great brooding atmosphere (and soundtrack), wonderful set design and Mickey Rourke has never been better. Still holds up very well.
2	Jerky	55 _59th
Can I say that a film is predictable almost 30 years after it's release? I'm pretty sure Mickey Rourke just got into acting to bang actresses on camera. Did you see him go to town on Lisa Bonet's nips? Like a newborn piglet searching for milk.
2	afx237vi	80 _84th
Stylish neo-noir from back in the day when Mickey Rourke still looked like a human being. Kinda like a cross between Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby. It's a little cheesy at times, especially towards the end, and the plot requires a few large pinches of salt, but on the whole it's very atmospheric and I had fun watching it. De Niro is very memorable in his small role.
2	KramYessev	70 _56th
It's interesting to see Mickey Rourke before he started melting.
2	Paxton	72 _71st
A conga line of people with buckets of red liquid all being dumped onto Mickey Rourke's lily white ass as he writhes atop a Cosby Show daughter with hairy armpits.
1	Filligan	70 _21st
Angel Heart is a film I've been telling myself to watch for fifteen years, and I probably would've liked it more fifteen years ago, back when I was wide-eyed, back when I followed the thin plot threads and didn't try to see the plot's gears. But I called the ending within the first ten minutes and I guess I'm a little annoyed that it still went there. What this needed was more misdirection. Parker's stylish direction is still fun, and Rourke is surprisingly excellent.
1	Pickpocket	4 _35th
Slow moving and overpraised movie. The only thing worth watching was De Niro but he was only in it for like 10 minutes. Shame. Also features some of the worst editing I've ever seen.
1	Carpetgiant	86 _69th
Wait, Mickey Rourke was in this? Where was he?
1	dunbar	75 _61st
It's not brilliant by any means, but watchable. A few scenes do some good things, but I couldn't feel it develop a satisfactory flow. Since it was going in a pretty obvious direction, getting the journey right felt pretty important. Oh well.
1	hellboy76	68 _65th
Devilish noir? Maybe Rourke's most serviceable role of the 80's and Lisa Bonet is sexy.
1	glumpy_99	94 _88th
Brilliant hybrid of supernatural horror and film noir, stunningy directed by Parker (with an especially creative use of sound design) and showcasing Rourke in an excellent, Bogart-like performance (though several degrees seedier). De Niro is wickedly amusing in a sinister supporting role, and the film cheerfully wallows in depravity, but balances it all with an unexpected vein of black humour.
1	senolatnap	60 _40th
Could Cyphre's identity be the most heavily-telegraphed twist in film history? The novel is actually even more heavy-handed, with Angel and Cyphre's initial meeting taking place at...666 5th Avenue, I shit you not. Angel Heart gets by, barely, on credible performances and a whole lot of mood and atmosphere while we wait for Angel to figure out what we already know.
1	JonnyHalftab	88 _80th
Parker's preoccupation with Deep South black culture is... interesting. Rourke is phenomenal, and the moody, haunting sax score is my favorite ever. Having listened to the final theme over a hundred times, I realized that during flashes of foreshadowing, dysphoric alterations of the song are played. A lot of people criticize this for the somewhat predictable ending, but the overwhelmingly foreboding atmosphere is the focus for me. S my D this is a fucking masterpiece

Average Percentile 58.56% from 2207 Ratings