Harry Angel (Mickey Rourke) has a new case, to find a man called Johnny Favourite. Except things aren't quite that simple...
First of all, I am used to seeing Mickey Rourke as a deformed mutant humanoid beast. So, as much as I should be embarrassed to admit it, I cannot even recognize him when he looks like a normal and handsome younger man. He is also a good lead actor (though I suppose we know that by now with "The Wrestler").
I think of this film as a cross between "Chinatown" and "The Serpent and the Rainbow". It has the detective angle of "Chinatown", with people turning up dead, questionable connections and a private dick who may have to hide from the cops himself (well, that could be "Maltese Falcon", too, I suppose). "Serpent"? Well, just the voodoo aspect, and both films came out about the same time -- this being the better of the two (sorry Wes Craven).
I have seen reviews calling this the creepiest performance of Robert DeNiro's career. I will not agree or disagree, but accept it as possible. I mean, I do not normally think of him as a creeper, so what do I compare this to -- "Cape Fear", I guess. Or "Little Fockers".
Roger Ebert says director "Parker's films are always made with great gusto, as if he were in up to his elbows and taking no hostages" -- he uses "The Wall" as an example, which is nothing like this film, but they both do have an intensity that any moviegoer ought to appreciate. Ultimately, Ebert calls the film "an exuberant exercise in style" and gives it a bold three and a half stars... I am hesitant to match that, leaning more towards a solid three. But yes, this is that rare good movie that gets overlooked by the target audience.
First of all, I am used to seeing Mickey Rourke as a deformed mutant humanoid beast. So, as much as I should be embarrassed to admit it, I cannot even recognize him when he looks like a normal and handsome younger man. He is also a good lead actor (though I suppose we know that by now with "The Wrestler").
I think of this film as a cross between "Chinatown" and "The Serpent and the Rainbow". It has the detective angle of "Chinatown", with people turning up dead, questionable connections and a private dick who may have to hide from the cops himself (well, that could be "Maltese Falcon", too, I suppose). "Serpent"? Well, just the voodoo aspect, and both films came out about the same time -- this being the better of the two (sorry Wes Craven).
I have seen reviews calling this the creepiest performance of Robert DeNiro's career. I will not agree or disagree, but accept it as possible. I mean, I do not normally think of him as a creeper, so what do I compare this to -- "Cape Fear", I guess. Or "Little Fockers".
Roger Ebert says director "Parker's films are always made with great gusto, as if he were in up to his elbows and taking no hostages" -- he uses "The Wall" as an example, which is nothing like this film, but they both do have an intensity that any moviegoer ought to appreciate. Ultimately, Ebert calls the film "an exuberant exercise in style" and gives it a bold three and a half stars... I am hesitant to match that, leaning more towards a solid three. But yes, this is that rare good movie that gets overlooked by the target audience.