Charlize Theron acting better than Al Pacino? I never thought I'd see the day...

Rating: 5/10 (11 September 2004)

'The Devil's Advocate' works as neither a supernatural thriller nor a courtroom drama  instead it relies heavily upon excessive content and performances, silly over-the-top concepts and a genuinely unpleasing conclusion, all of which stain an otherwise fairy enjoyable modern-day parable.
The movie rambles on far too long about nothing in particular, always thinking it's much cleverer than it actually is. For example, the identity of a mysterious tycoon in New York City, named John Milton (hint-hint), isn't revealed until about 2/3 of the way through the film  despite the fact that the title of the movie, and all the events therein leading up to this 'revelation,' basically give away the 'secret' from the start. So why in the world didn't anyone realize this during production? Did anyone stop and say, 'I wonder if people will be smart enough to guess who he really is before we expect them to?'
If you don't want to know who Milton is, don't read any further. However, if you have an IQ past that of the guy from Sling Blade, you'll probably already realize that John Milton (played by Al Pacino) is the Devil. Lucifer. Satan. 'I have so many names,' he says to hotshot lawyer Keanu Reeves.
The story is routine at best  Milton hires the Aspiring Young Lawyer from Hicksville, U.S.A. to travel to the Big Apple and take on Important Cases. Soon the Lawyer's Wife (Charlize Theron) turns into the Crazy Character That No One Believes, because she thinks Milton is the devil, and they all laugh at her, and her husband laughs at her. Hmmmaybe everyone on set was consuming laughing gas  this would explain why the film rarely makes sense and Theron turns in the best performance in a film starringAl Pacino? It's almost sad to see him resorting to more yelling and screaming and over-the-top ranting  Pacino's big speech about God has potential, but he says it all so annoyingly that it begins to grate on the nerves. I don't expect Pacino to play Satan as a calm everyman, but at least he could try and make a consistent character out of the role  instead of showing up on set, consuming laughing gas and acting like an idiot. (Forgive me, because I actually am an enormous fan of Pacino's work  but he simply stinks here, and there's no excuse for his poor performance.)
'The Devil's Advocate' bears most relation to the supernatural film-noir hybrid, 'Angel Heart,' released a decade prior. That film co-starred Robert De Niro, who handled the role of Satan much better than Pacino  mainly because although they both acted rather flamboyantly, De Niro had better control. Ever since 'Scent of a Woman' in 1992, Pacino's over-acting has increased to a point of near-nausea  is this the same guy who so expertly played Michael Corleone and Tony Montana? "The Panic in Needle Park" had better acting -- and that was his first major movie!
If you can put up with a movie that is over-the-top and excessive and puts the work of Brian DePalma to shame, then maybe you'll be able to stand'The Devil's Advocate.' If you can put up with a movie that wastes the talents of its main performers and leads nowhere but into an unsatisfying apocalyptic massacre of an ending, you might even enjoy this.
But if you can put up with a movie that proposes Keanu Reeves is a genius lawyer who's 'never lost a single case,' you deserve to die a very painful death. Please go far away and never return.
Just kidding. But seriously  Keanu Reeves? Tom Green has a better chance