# Talk:Angel Heart

Horrible Article
It describes the ending indepth in the plot overview, for chrissakes. It tells you about how Cyphre is Satan in one of the beginning paragraphs... I wonder how many people have had the film ruined for them by reading this criminal article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.193.240 (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 

Gotta love anon ips who talk about how bad Wikipedia is but never establish accounts or contribute to articles. -OberRanks (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on folks.  what kind of encyclopedia is this?  the plot/summary/spoiler section DOES not describe the ending.  it merely says "bla bla bla there's a TWIST ENDING."  is this supposeds to be promotional material, or is this an encyclopedia?  somebody, please, please, please put the ending information in.  (don't worry about spoiling it:  anybody who comes here will have already seen the movie most likely, and besides that, there's a huge "SPOILER" warning in the article text.)  i don't know what the ending is, so i can't do it.   somebody:  get on the job.  bravo, thanks, good work. 128.119.236.162 06:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at a variety of other "twist ending" films -- Sixth Sense, The Crying Game, etc. -- I'm not seeing the entire plot spelled out. It's unclear if this encyclopedia needs to give a complete plot synopsis for every film. -- Metahacker 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Did anybody else notice the similarities between the ending of this movie and the ending of The Devil's Advocate?  Actor playing the devil in human form, lawyers involved, incest, the devil revealing his true nature and that of the film's protagonist while playing a phonograph?  Moe Aboulkheir
Unfortunately the ending is given:

...Angel must finally face the fact that he is Johnny Favorite himself...
And there is no spoiler warning.  I would fix it but I'm sure someone will just undo it. Kwyjibear 04:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

On http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092563/ it refers always to "Louis Cyphre", and not "Louis Cyphere". I'm going to change that in the article.-Zingazin 18:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also an anime titled "Angel Heart" - 68.97.135.143 05:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Chickens and Fans are repeated motifs in the film should this be stated somewhere? The themes section perhaps?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.246.235 (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 
Well, the fan part was put down, but I'm also wondering what the chicken part means. It probably has to do with the egg scene when louis cphyre compares it to consuming souls, so maybe the chickens have to do with the eggs being souls. 
Hope that answers your question. --Steinfeld7 (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Chickens are a big part of voodoo rituals in the film. I think Harry feels uncomfortable around chicken because the animal is a constant subconscious throwback to Favorite's past as a dark magic practitioner. (And the scene with Toots Sweet and the chicken leg suggest, chickens seem to be used as a tool for curses/spells so no wonder Favorite is a bit scared of this animal)  
And as for repeated motifs in the film, there is also the heart beating each time there is a murder or supernatural event.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:101:4200:C36:AF62:6A3A:F0CB (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC) 

This paragraph was inserted into the main article, it should probabaly go onto the talk page.  I have moved it here. -OberRanks (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Another edited exclusive version of "Angel Heart"- The "Flashback" sequences of Harry Angel in the film was seen with different scenes and footages, from ITV channel in UK during the 90s. Why this version never made into VHS; LD; DVDs of "Angel Heart" is unknown. Question is, is that the only alternate version of "Angel Heart" Anyone?

The info about the service number in the film is cited from Army records and is notable for the reason that no Army officer ever had that number.  I've come across numerous questions over the years, both in person and on net chat rooms, from people who have asked who's number that really was.  The answer being, it was made up.  For this reason, its a good bit of information for the article.  Unless it breaks Wikipedia policy to have it in there, there really is no reason why it should be removed. -OberRanks (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not notable information. It's a piece of trivia. License plate numbers, telephone numbers, addresses, etc. are made up in thousands of other movies but sections like this do not exist in those articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
We can put the info on the talk page if you would like until we get more opinions.  I found it notable due to the questions raised about it over the years.  Most military people, when they see that number, often wonder if its a real service number.  A similar thing can be found in Jacob's Ladder. -OberRanks (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Most people wonder if telephone numbers or addresses are real places seen in other movies. That doesn't warrant an entire section in other movie articles and the argument about military personnel caters to a very specific audience. I'm sure movies like Full Metal Jacket and Platoon contain many references that may pique the interest of servicemen but neither article contains trivial comments or sections like the one above. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, neither of those films reference service numbers.  In fact, in all my research, I have only found four movies that actually give reference to a character holding a United States military service number and, of those, only two which actually show a correct one (this film and Jacob's Ladder).  And this is a somewhat different matter from the "555" telephone numbers or license plates which appear in films (are those not real plate numbers used on cars owned by the studios?)  Not saying it cant be removed, just asking the info be posted on the talk page if we choose to do so in order for other editors can give their views. -OberRanks (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW-In response to this (valid) concern, I renamed the section from trivia to providing information about the film's production and props and requested it be expanded.  If there is no real expansion within the next few days or weeks, then by all means we can axe it out. -OberRanks (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


### Disputed section
Added the removed section in case other users wish to comment -OberRanks (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"A set of dog tags bearing the Army service number "O-168042" can be seen in the film as the service number of Harry Angel.   According to U.S. Army records, no officer was ever actually issued this number; the only person who ever held this service number was an enlisted soldier named John W. Cunyus who served during the First World War.(ref)United States Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Freedom of Information Act Inquiry, February 2009(/ref)"
The information is not pertinent to the film article.  A "Production" section for this article should have key details about the development, writing, filming, and editing process. Erik (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This information still has no applicable reference to the topic of the article. Additionally, a Google search turns up results containing references to this in other trivia sections, and in the two applicable results with links still in tact this reference is repeated verbatim to what you have above.(1)(2). The article for 867-5309/Jenny has a detailed section about the use of the telephone number after the song was published because that number is directly related to the content of the article. What you're proposing including is akin to a reference of "123 Anystreet USA is an address seen in the film. John Doe once lived there." Sottolacqua (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Just clarification about the Google links you found.  They appear to be copies of this article on Wikipedia, not the other way around.  I wasn't sure if your suggestion was that I had copied the material from another website - I didn't, I did the original research with the Army that located the material to begin with. -OberRanks (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, that anecdote in Jacob's Ladder (film) you referenced above is there because you added it. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't disputing its removal, I was simply recording the removed information here in case others wished to comment upon it.  I also never denied I was the original contributor.  I am actually quite proud of the Service number (United States) article that led me to discover this material. -OberRanks (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The article contains a question as to Bonet's departure from Cosby:
"Some[who?] blamed the controversial sex scene for Bonet's departure from The Cosby Show, which resulted in her starring on the Cosby-produced program spin-off, A Different World which premiered in 1987."
I don't have a resource to back this up, but I do remember it.  Being pre-internet, I probably saw it on Entertainment Tonight, or a similar show.  I'm pretty sure the Cosby people never said anything official, but it was at least pondered by the media.  Someone may be able to find a reference:  I challenge you!  72.219.62.17 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Angel Heart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok I will take a look, make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

As he wrote the script, Parker made several changes from the novel Falling Angel. - you've already mentioned the novel name so it is unnecessary here.
He titled his script Angel Heart, as he wanted "to give the film an identity of its own, separate from its literary beginnings" - can be rewritten to not use a direct quote. Direct quote marks are often jarring to read, so using them only in places where they are really distinctive and add something is prudent....
The "identity of its own" sounds schmoozy like from an advertising brochure...but I can't think of an alternative so  not a deal-breaker at this point....
Parker sought to make Harry Angel a "sympathetic" character. - sounds odd, also be good to de-quote. You mean it to be "Parker sought to make Harry Angel a character that evokes sympathy." (?)
it took extensive convincing for him to actually commit to the role - any elaboration from source here would be good...
to "defuse the tension" of the scene  - can be rewritten to not use a direct quote.
What I meant was to change the wording as well to distance from source paraphrasing-wise, so maybe something like, "to make the actors more comfortable while shooting" or something like it.
Thanks for reviewing the article, Casliber. I have gone through the article and made the changes you brought up thus far, including De Niro's commitment to the role. FrankRizzo (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The De Niro stuff is really cool - any color like this is great - anything about (for instance) casting..any other alternate actors..etc.
Thanks for your replies. I've taken your comments into consideration.
I've expanded on details involving the casting.
I've changed to "defuse the tension" of the scene to your suggestion of "to make the actors more comfortable while shooting".
I've also removed the "identity of its own" comment in the Writing column. "Parker made several changes from the novel, and titled his script Angel Heart." If possible, I could change this to "Parker titled his script Angel Heart as he wanted to distance his film adaptation from the source material." FrankRizzo (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Casliber, are you still reviewing the article? FrankRizzo (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, yes I like your suggestion above to change to  "Parker titled his script Angel Heart as he wanted to distance his film adaptation from the source material."  Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Casliber, for reviewing and passing the article! FrankRizzo (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality:  - just waiting on last tweak above.  all good
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:  (NB: fals positive with earwig's copyvio detector due to quotes - clear)
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  (on FU image of film poster)
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  - just final couple of things - looking good otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC) all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Angel Heart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303080029/http://www.youngartistawards.org/pastnoms9.htm to http://www.youngartistawards.org/pastnoms9.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This film both stars Michael Rourke and features the Devil as a character.  Coincidentally, Rourke himself also played the Devil in the 2023 film Not Another Church Movie.  Is this trivial information? The Film Creator (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

~~~~ Hi folks. Just to say, as per the request, i have gone in and added two citations. One to back up the amount the film made at the Box Office and one to back up the claim that the film is now considered a classic of 80s horror. Hope this helps.  Ceecee040 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

There are uncited statements, including the entire "TV adaption" section and the "Additional citations needed" orange banner in the "Deleted scenes" section (which could perhaps be removed).
Unreliable sources are used in the article, including Blue-ray.com, medium.com, and reddit. These should be replaced with reliable sources.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)