Best movie ever!

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

The Devil's Advocate (1997)I happily was avoiding those unexplained things until that ending portion came up where Kevin get that it was just a thought and he thought all those just in a second. When that second was over the whole movie just got killed.I liked it till that last scene. I was ready to avoid mistakes like :Mary Ann gets sicker and sicker but why was she actually getting sick? Loneliness? For real? She was not actually that lonely? She had friends next door. making her sick was really a very important part but She gets sick miraculously no one knows the reason.What was Pacino doing in the last scene? he was never real in the whole movie then how he ended up being in reality? It could be a great movie with some changes. They just could have ended the movie where Kevin shot himself. They wanted audience to leave theatre in a good mood. But 4 minutes was not enough to do that.All characters were well developed but not the story. Some changes and it could be a masterpiece. This was a very beautifully acted movie & what a beautiful background score. It's just the story that making me sad.after all I enjoyed it.

The Devil's AdvocateSetting up the plot and characters for more than an hour is too much especially if there isn't any thread to hold on to for the audience after which the movie paces up for its surprising final act but till then it is hard to come back.

Non-need to be interested, in the need to analyse, is need to be interested in the redundancy of analysis.Necessary interest is boring redundancy. The redundancy of analysis is the necessity of freedom.Boring redundancy is boring boredom. The necessity of freedom is boring oppression. Boring oppression is boring boredom. Boring boredom that's boring boredom is insincere boredom that's insincere boredom. Insincere boredom is sincere excitement.Sincere excitement of sincere excitement is the illusion of excitement that's self-created - true boredom that's free.Free true boredom is free free boredomFree free is the experience of freedom.The experience of freedom is the freedom of experience.The freedom of experience is the limitlessness of experience - the experience of limitlessness.An experience of limitlessness that's boring is an experience of limit that's exciting.The experience of limit is the illusion of limit - insincere limitAn insincere limit is a limited insincerity. A limited insincerity is an oppressed deception - a weak deception.A weak deception is a deceptive deception - a deceptive deception is a betrayal of betrayal.A betrayal is not origin. Betrayal is reaction.A reaction to betrayal that's exciting is a non-reaction to origin that's exciting.A non-reaction to origin is a non-reaction to God.A non-reaction is not not. Not not is deceptive.Non-reaction is meant to be nothing. Intended nothing is deceptive intent.The deception of deceptive intent is a betrayal of deceptive intent. A betrayal of deceptive intent is a betrayal of the illusion of deception.The deception of a false illusion is the deception of an intended illusion - the intent of a false illusion.The intent of a false illusion is the mission of a lie that's a lie. A lie that's a lie is a lie that behaves.A lie that behaves is a lie that's alive. A lie that's alive is a truth of no life. Life isn't real, but the illusion has the ability to be a mission. God can create a lie, and then God can intend for the lie to live an identical existence to God despite the lie having none of God's powerGod can create God, and the imitation can be 100% identical despite having no power

OK, full disclosure, I have a thing for Al Pacino. I'll watch just about anything he's in and...if he screams and yells a monologue in it, if he delivers a diatribe of rage....yeah I get flashbacks to him screaming: "I'd take a flame thrower to this place" and roll my eyes back like a shark in a feeding frenzy.Oh, yeah, almost forgot, Keanu is in this one too...but for a good slice of the film he doesn't play the most savory of characters and, really, honestly, he just seems too nice to play a lawyer......but despite that he does a pretty good job of exhibiting the ego that has to come with the law profession...just not the vile evilness. So, I can't totally fault him for miscast as I could for Dracula.Jeffery Jones is in there too and due to recent revelations he totally fits the sleazy lawyer role.But yeah, 1997, the 90s had a way with films that was only really beaten by the 70s and The Devil's Advocate is one of those films that could really only be made in those two decades. Stand alone horror not intended as a franchise piece and one with a twist that asks you to think a little.No way that would be made today and that is a shame.I could tout its glory, but really, honestly, the movie could have stank and I wouldn't care thanks to Pacino screaming "I'm a fan of man!" It's worth the watch.