What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

I kind of liked it, kind of not, and it's a undecided one for me. I knew the twist beforehand, but I feel like it may have been foreshadowed too much, and maybe they should have revealed the twist sooner, cause I think a lot of the audiences would have seen it coming, so might as well have it be an earlier twist, and have it be more surprising, rather than revealing it so late.

I also feel that the movie suffers from having characters, who act so crazy that they cannot say what they mean, so the main character is unable to figure out what is going on, cause the characters fail to get out a proper sentence. The Charlize Theron wife and Mother character do this, and talk in riddles, for the main character to ponder, instead of just giving him a straight answer, which got kind of annoying, but I guess that's all part of wanting to delay the twist further.

I also did not understand the ending. In the end, the main character kills himself, and this somehow time travels him to the beginning of the movie. But why? In terms of Biblical religion, if you kill yourself, your going to hell and there is no redemption after that, if I understand that correctly, and the movie is referencing the Bible all the time. So why does killing himself, causes him to be able to time travel and save the day?

I just didn't understand that, as an ending, unless I missed something. I also feel that the nude scenes may have been forced, to just have nudity as in it didn't really seem to make the story any different if they were not there, maybe?

The movie still though, has a lot of good moments throughout it, and some of the build up, although maybe forced to cause delays, there is also other good build up as well, with some of the other subplots. And I still like the overall premise.

So what do you think?

Eh, pretty hard to judge how predictable a twist actually is if you know it already. Unless you mean the thing about Pacino being the Devil? If so, that wasn't really even meant as a twist, it was basically obvious from the trailers at the time. Maybe it was meant to be surprising in the screenplay, but it's one of those things that was basically totally upfront in the actual promotion.

To be clear, that's not a Biblical claim. That's a claim specific to Catholicism, I believe. It's not universal to Christianity, at least.

In this case the killing isn't done out of despair or rejection of the value of his life, but specifically so that he cannot be used by the Devil. That makes it more like sacrificing yourself, which is why it's presented as noble. I dunno what I think of that, but that's kinda the idea.

It's a weird movie that is never as good as it should be, even though some of the individual elements are really interesting. Pacino's big anti-God speech at the end is really good, in part because it makes a genuine effort to map out what rejecting God might look like even coming from someone who knows God is real. There's some thoughtful stuff in there, even if it's mixed in with some schlock.

I thought it was worth seeing for Connie Nielsen :devil:.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

My only problem with it is it's a little too long. If it was cut down by about 30 minutes, it would be perfect.
As is, it's got a 2 hour and 24 minute run time.

Devil's Advocate offers an attentively constructed atmosphere including rich sets laden with visual icons of vanity, yet an air of melancholy. The moving wall sculpture was particularly a nice touch, though if I recall correctly, an artist sued them for copying his original wall sculpture. I don't recall if he won or not.

It goes without saying Pacino chews up the scenes, but Keanu, Neilson, and Tunie gave decent performances. After Pacino, Theron was the second best scene stealer, imo, portraying a woman spiraling into delirium. I found Keanu's southern accent rather weak though.

It was not received well by professional critics, and while there's no shortage of flaws, in some ways I think it is underrated. The director manages to present this thriller/horror story without relying on cheap jump scares, employed CGI moderately, and Bartkowiak delivers solid cinematography.

Rather than jump scares, the story itself and dialogue is where fear and dread grab the audience. While there were many negative reviews, there were very few reviews that criticized the script and/or dialogue.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

Possibly related trivia: there is a Twilight Zone episode called "Printer's Devil" where Burgess Meredith plays the Devil. (This was his fourth appearance on the series!)

He's got some particular mannerisms in the role which seem somewhat similar to Pacino's. Meredith's Devil has a habit of occasionally protruding his tongue to lick his lips, but this may just be because his character smokes thin cigars throughout the episode. (It was said that Meredith had given up smoking in the 40's, but in his role as the Penguin on Batman he turned his cough from the cigarettes his character smoked into the Penguin's squawk!)

Pacino's Devil also did the creepy lip licking and I can't help but notice how similar these mannerisms are. Could Pacino have taken a few cues for his Devil from Meredith?

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

I liked it, then loved it after Entombed (influential death 'n roll band I worked for for a few years) used it as inspiration for the lyrics of Chief Rebel Angel. :lol:

****yeeeeeah!

Yeah I meant the twist about him being the devil. I feel that this could have been a REAL twist, and maybe it should have been a surprise, but the movie foreshadows it too much and the trailer gives it away. Calling the movie The Devil's Advocate of course doesn't help keep it a surprise either.

That's a good point about killing yourself to not be used by the devil, but I still don't get how doing that, equates to being time traveled back to a particular court case though.

I also felt it was a bit long, I feel that there are subplots that perhaps didn't really have an effect on the overall story, such as the black defendant on trial for killing the goat. If you remove that, would it really effect the rest of the movie?

Or the Justice Department investigator, investigating the firm and then being killed. If he wasn't in there, would it have really made a difference, since the main character is already motivated by two strange deaths already to take action?

This is what Roger Ebert said as well, that the movie has really good sets and atmosphere, but aside from Al Pacino's character's office set, the rest of the movie I thought looked just like regular ordinary New York, and didn't think it was big on rich other than the one.

That's very interesting to know. Thinking about it there are similarities between Meredith and Pacino as actors anyway :). Al Pacino does seem very teeth and mouth orientated in that part – I do recall being aware of that.

Also I've just been pleasantly reminded of Patrick Troughton clearing his throat between dialogue so he could remember his lines.

Yeah, as I recall (I'm just old enough to remember the trailers on TV at the time, even), it wasn't hidden even a little. I imagine reading the screenplay it was probably surprising.

I don't think it's time travel. More that none of that was exactly happening, and he was being tested. But who knows. We're obviously being asked to accept that the devil has a lot of metaphysical power. Probably works better without the little post-suicide twist, for sure.

Similar to the continuity jumps in the final act of The Last Temptation of Christ where what Jesus thought was happening after he came down off the cross may not have actually been happening, but he was indeed being tested!

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

Oh okay, so like in The Last Temptation of Christ, Kevin Lomax going to New York to work for the devil was all in his head, and it never happened, and it was just a test then, rather than it actually happening, and him actually time traveling back?

The mechanics of it is up for interpretation as I think Yoda was suggesting.

The Devil has powers - perhaps he can just make Kevin (or Jesus for that matter) hallucinate a potential future timeline and feel as if they are living it, OR can actually create such a timeline and take them there to experience it, but if they pass the test (don't give into the temptation) they can essentially go back to the pivotal moment where they made a wrong turn down a darker path, allowing them to make a different choice that will take them in a different direction that doesn't involve them being in league with Satan or falling for his temptations.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

I don't think there's a clear answer to whether it happened and was reset, or whether it never really happened. Not sure it matters. Only takeaway is that temptations are never finished, and being good is a constant struggle.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

I love thismovie

But why would the devil allow a person to just leave if they don't pass the test though? Wouldn't the devil, being the embodiment of pure evil want to kill anyone who refuses to join him?

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

I like it a lot, and it s spooky as hell, that scene when charlize goes to the kitchen has given me a nightmare, connie nielsen gave me a hard on, and al pacino is always amazing in any film, keanu reeves felt a bit out of place here with this role but still a very original film

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

Do you think that maybe the devil is just not evil enough maybe for Satan, or no?

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

To answer your question, Ironpony, the movie is part of a literary tradition, including the story "The Devil and Daniel Webster," in which the Devil's goal is to claim souls through temptation. It's implied that because his targeted human willingly gives in to temptation, God will allow the Devil to claim that soul (though there's always an out for the Devil's victim when he/she sees the error of his/her ways). Under that premise, there's nothing for the Devil to gain by killing a good person (even a repentent one), because that soul would go to Heaven.

I agree with Yoda's assessment of the film, though.

As @average joe pointed out... all these rules about the devil are part of a literary & religious tradition.

The Devil, with his backstory as a fallen angel, is subject to certain limitations or rules he has to follow in regards to his interference with humans - i.e. he's not omnipotent and he's not in charge of the universe - he doesn't have authority to take life.

It seems he can do or cause almost anything, but when it comes to getting humans to turn evil (and thus ally with him, give in to him, or come under his command) he is subject to free will - the Devil can only lay out the temptation while the humans must choose to take the bait or not. If they don't choose to give in to temptation, the Devil has no power over them - that's the supposed "lesson" anyway.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

The obvious comparison to me always seemed to be Angel Heart and I think that helps to highlight the relative weakness of this film. Compared to Parker's film this is a much more straight forward supernatural thriller, doesn't have the same kind of visual style nore performances on the same level, Pacino is fun going wall to wall but Bobby was much better IMHO.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

For me, The Devil's Advocate is a masterpiece.

It's funny you say that cause I too, thought of comparing it to Angel Heart after watching it. I would say that The Devil's Advocate does get caught up in subplots, which I don't know add up to much in the end, where as Angel Heart is a much more straightforward plot, but it does get repetitive, since the main characters finds a dead body, finds, another, finds another etc.

The cinematography in Angel Heart was better in my opinion. As to compare which actor played The Devil better, it's a tough call but apples and oranges, since they both played it different for different types of stories. I'm kind of biased towards Pacino, but only cause I am more of a Pacino fan probably. I need to watch Angel Heart again now.

Again comes back to my point that I think Devil's Advocate is a less ambitious film, not a bad one but its more a standard thriller that looks to work via its plot compared to Angel Heart that's more focused on character and atmosphere.

The same with the performance of the devil, Pacino is in full "who ha" mode playing it as a camp villain, De Nero is playing it with more of a quiet menace.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

Oh okay, I didn't think of The Devil's Advocate as being a less ambitious film. The plot is more complicated so I thought maybe they were going for a bigger, more epic story perhaps. As for the comparison of performances, I like Pacino just slightly better, but it's personal preference, and they are both good.

I think I like The Devil's Advocate slightly better, but Angel Heart is the better made movie in terms of cinematography, atmosphere, music, etc.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

That may be, but Ripley actually went back for her cat. Pretty sure the stunt double had a thing for him in Willow.

I've never seen The Devil's Advocate before, don't know why... But after reading all your opinions about this cinematographic masterpiece, I will do it right tonight and get stunned like you all ;)

Well I watched it again, and it seems that the devil is able to kill people when he feels like it, like how he does with a couple of characters. So if he is able to intervene and cause harm without people being tempted, than why does he need temptation?

But I guess maybe he didn't really kill those people since in the end, it was all a dream done to Kevin by the devil more so?

I don't remember all the details... except for Eddie Barzoon (if I spelled it right)!

My only guess is Eddie was depicted as such a scumbag that he was already corrupted in his soul - maybe he didn't sign an official contract with the Devil, but was already in so deep with corruption and sin that it gave the Devil authority over his life without an official agreement (the agreement was implicit based on Eddie's own hatred and lifestyle).

Maybe only souls on the fence (that can go either way toward redemption & salvation or corruption) require an official agreement for the Devil to "claim" them while others are freely given because they've embraced evil in every way as to be irredeemable.

Just a speculation anyway.

It was obvious the Devil had the power to try to torment some people almost to death (like Kevin's wife).

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

Oh okay. It's just the devil seemed not evil enough for Satan in this movie, unless his powers are limited and it was only that. For example, he is shown having sex with women, but I can't see the devil caring about consensual sex, and only see him raping and that's it. I just dont' see him getting off on being a 'ladies man',

I don't know... there are several of stories about the Devil seducing and mating with human females (this isn't the first).

I always made this connection with the Devil and vampires - supposedly a vampire cannot simply enter a dwelling, he has to be invited in. This seems somewhat of a metaphor for the Devil, he's always around, but has to be invited into the human heart (mind, body or soul) in order to exert his power upon or through someone. (Just an aside thought.)

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

From what I remember of it years ago, I liked the film. Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino are always good. This reminds me I still need to watch Angel Heart.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

I think maybe Angel Heart is the better looking and sounding movie, atmosphere wise, but perhaps The Devil's Advocate, might have a slightly better story.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

I love that flick.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

There's something about the atmosphere/vibe in this film, can't put to words what exactly it is. A very good film anyhow.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

I personally loved All Pacino talking to the subway guys. LOL.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

To me, that "time travel" reset made perfect sense because the entire plan to entice him into creating the Antichrist was the devil's machinations from the beginning. Thus the devil could wipe that same entire plan clean from the beginning. Seems to fit as far as I can see.

What really doesn't fit IMHO opinion is the devil having sex with his wife. The devil worked too hard to establish himself as a mentor of sorts. To pit himself against Reeves would only work against his plans.

Unless perhaps the whole point was too remove Maryanne from his life and leave him nothing else to live for?

By the way, did you notice the family resemblance at the very end between the winged Lucifer and Reeves?

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

I had forgotten about Angel Heart. That is one disturbing film.

Unlike TDA, Angel Heart had me uneasy the entire friggen film. Kind of a very well crafted creepiness.

I really enjoyed The Devil's Advocate...Al Pacino really appears to be enjoying himself in the starring role and this was also the film where I first sat up and took notice of Charlize Theron.

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

Al pacino was known for over acting, infact here he goes way over the top hehehhe

Re: What do you think of The Devil's Advocate (1997)?
 

I think it was the first time I didn't had an erection with charlize theron. She's like a good wine.

In historical literature, Satan isn't exactly a soft spoken individual. Pacino was playing the part right IMO.