This is a very mediocre movie, and a bad sign-off for Alan J. Pakula (who died a year later in 1998 from a car crash). Listen to Brad Pitt's awful accent for a few moments and you'll get a clear idea that this film is going nowhere.
It caused some controversy on release because of its simplified view of the IRA/Britain terrorism and some people (particularly Europeans I suppose) took offense to the fact that Brad Pitt's character is given a "motive" for what he does... and the film seems to sympathy with him.
Brad Pitt hated the film and Harrison Ford and him battled on set over who would become the focus of the film itself (apparently Pitt became upset because the script was re-written and his character was given less screen time).
I only recommend it to people who haven't seen many movies. Why? Because then the recycled dialogue, characters, plot, and performances may seem fresh.
But as it stands, "The Devil's Own" is a poor example of mediocre film-making. Or is that a "good" example of mediocre film-making? Whatever it is, the film is not anything special, and certainly not anything that hasn't been done before.
It caused some controversy on release because of its simplified view of the IRA/Britain terrorism and some people (particularly Europeans I suppose) took offense to the fact that Brad Pitt's character is given a "motive" for what he does... and the film seems to sympathy with him.
Brad Pitt hated the film and Harrison Ford and him battled on set over who would become the focus of the film itself (apparently Pitt became upset because the script was re-written and his character was given less screen time).
I only recommend it to people who haven't seen many movies. Why? Because then the recycled dialogue, characters, plot, and performances may seem fresh.
But as it stands, "The Devil's Own" is a poor example of mediocre film-making. Or is that a "good" example of mediocre film-making? Whatever it is, the film is not anything special, and certainly not anything that hasn't been done before.