Lisa Bonet, cast only for sensationalism
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Angel Heart
rascal67 — 11 years ago(November 16, 2014 08:55 PM)
The Cosby Show was popular and having Bonet in the film, gave it publicity and of course goody goodys an opportunity to get on their high horse and give the film more free publicityhow could she??? This may have been a shrewd move by the producers, but that said, Bonet was a crud actress and had no charisma or screen presence. The lady bathing her varicose veins at Coney Island, made more of an impact in her small role.
While visually arresting, the film is too flawed to be considered an 80's classic and casting Bonet only adds to them. -
Edward_de_Vere — 11 years ago(November 17, 2014 10:26 AM)
Bonet was a crud actress and had no charisma or screen presence. The lady bathing her varicose veins at Coney Island, made more of an impact in her small role.
While visually arresting, the film is too flawed to be considered an 80's classic and casting Bonet only adds to them.
She was rather bland in the film, and it's obvious that she's remembered for the sex scene rather than for the quality of her acting, but I wouldn't say that Bonet was so bad that she ruined the film. Epiphany's role was rather minor, and her acting was boring rather than bad.
You are right, however, in how casting people for their fame rather than talent can ruin otherwise promising movies. It's especially obvious when you cast the celebrity non-actor next to people with real talent, e.g. Bonet opposite powerhouses like Rourke and DeNiro, or (far worse) the casting of Jennifer Lopez opposite Jack Nicholson, Judy Davis, and Michael Caine in
Blood and Wine
. -
rascal67 — 11 years ago(November 18, 2014 01:43 AM)
She was rather bland in the film, and it's obvious that she's remembered for the sex scene rather than for the quality of her acting Epiphany's role was rather minor, and her acting was boring rather than bad.
Bonet had a couple of intense scenes, that involved strong sexuality and she wasn't up to task for the dramatic scenes, that hemmed them in. I wouldn't say Epiphany had a minor role, as she featured pretty much in it, for most of the second half. That is why they needed someone who could bring a bit of substance and layers\nuance to the role, since she was supposed to represent the darker aspect of voodoo rituals and an incestuous connection with Harry, via her mother; which should have been sultry and erotic and not surface sensuality.
This is part of the issue I have with the film, that it's impact was lessened, by a curious lack of tension and suspense, for the sake of a style, which didn't really mirror the substance that was on offer. The visual symbolism, appears a bit hollow to me and the film was aloof. Rourke was fine; but leading up to the revelation, there should have been something that would make me want to connect with his character, or at least give me a little something to make me care. I realize that he was evil; but we weren't supposed to know this, until near the end. -
Drooch — 9 years ago(November 06, 2016 06:01 PM)
Err, what? Bonet was
unbelievably
sexy in the film, and not in a cheap way - she was confident, intelligent and sultry yet with a soft voice and slight frame. She embodied female power, and you can see why Harry Angel was completely floored by her.
Can't believe Cosby got on his high horse and gave her sht for doing this great film, all the while he was busy being a serial rapist! He just couldn't handle Rourke getting a piece of his pudding pop.