IMDb > The Devil's Own (1997) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Devil's Own
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Devil's Own More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 11:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 105 reviews in total 

86 out of 115 people found the following review useful:

Why must Hollywood meddle in things it doesn't understand?

6/10
Author: Howlin Wolf from Oldham, Gtr Manchester, England.
14 May 2001

I say this making no pretense at completely understanding the Irish conflict myself (you'd have to ask someone with experience of Belfast for a more authentic take on the situation), but the irresponsible way the troubles were used here as a backdrop to what is supposed entertainment staggers me. It isn't as if it needed this detail; the terrorist could have been from any unspecified organisation. In the incompetent handling of sensitive issues that the makers really have no idea of, the production team involved in this really have let themselves down. Brad Pitt realised this too late and henceforth disowned the film, a fact which made me admire and respect him even more.

For this I wanted to hate the film, and yet found myself unable to. Beneath the misbegotten attempts at 'political comment', there is a decent little thriller struggling to get out. Pitt is great as the terrorist (dodgy accent aside) and Ford is as reliable as ever in the role of the honest cop. Director Pakula keeps the story moving at all times and stages the action well. Despite all these pluses, I constantly felt uncomfortable at the ways in which the script tried to manipulate my sympathies. While it's not quite enough to make me downgrade the film on an enjoyment level, it loses big points from an ethical perspective. Shame on you Tinseltown.



Was the above review useful to you?

79 out of 116 people found the following review useful:

Inaccurate

Author: Glenn Walsh from Belfast
1 March 2003

This film is just a second-rate thriller which uses Northern Ireland as a convenient backdrop to add colour. Unfortunately, the portrayal of Belfast and the terrorists and intelligence community is stereotypical, romanticised and hugely inaccurate. The gun battle at the beginning is just ludicrous and from then on the film becomes a showcase for nauseating Irish-American 'culture,' all blarney and dreaming of the 'oul country. The acting doesn't help as Ford sleepwalks and Pitt can't maintain the accent. It is possible to make good thrillers set in Northern Ireland which do not dodge the politics and have sensitivity, but none of them have been made by US production companies. 'Harry's Game' is by far the best example, devastatingly accurate closely followed by 'The Children of The North' and the black comedy 'Divorcing Jack' more recently. See these and give this Hollywood rubbish a miss.

Was the above review useful to you?

63 out of 99 people found the following review useful:

One Sorry Mess

Author: Allie-18 from Dublin, Ireland
11 June 1999

There seems to be a certain template for making "Oirish" movies in Hollywood. Add some or all of the following ingredients to your movie script - Aran Sweaters, a sub-Deliverance rural setting, comely maidens with red hair, a village idiot (teeth optional), impromptu céilís and dancing at the crossroads, priests, drunken violence and the obligatory "Ooh arr, begorrah" accents and you have an Irish film. And if you want some controversy, why not try to tackle the situation in Northern Ireland by adding in some IRA men for good measure. Unfortunately, the Devil's Own has quite a few of the aforementioned clichés in abundance.

It is a great shame that with a cast and director of this calibre, they couldn't have come up with something better. There have been very few, if any, decent films ever made about Northern Ireland and perhaps it's time Hollywood stopped trying to put forward its own take on it, especially when it is as cack-handed as The Devil's Own. Not only is the whole movie grossly offensive to Irish people, and anyone else with a brain, but it is a dangerous message to be sending out to gullible Irish Americans. It's time film-makers stopped buying into the idea that the IRA are noble warriors when in fact they and others of their ilk are terrorists, pure and simple.

Avoid this like the plague. Brad Pitt's accent is the least of the problems in this film. He just isn't convincing as the cold-blooded killer he is supposed to be - he's far too nice. Harrison Ford is his usual reliable self but too much of the movie is taken up with a largely irrelevant sub-plot featuring himself and Ruben Blades as his police partner. At times, The Devil's Own seems like an IRA film mixed up with NYPD Blue.

Was the above review useful to you?

52 out of 86 people found the following review useful:

Better if you do not expect an action (and especially not a thriller) film

8/10
Author: Brandt Sponseller from New York City
16 January 2005

As a child in Ireland, Frankie McGuire (Brad Pitt) sees his dad gunned down for his involvement with the Irish Republican Army (IRA). As an adult, McGuire has followed in his dad's footsteps. When the IRA decides it needs more firepower, they hatch a plan that involves McGuire going to the United States to pick up a shipment of Stinger missiles. Through American IRA contacts, McGuire adopts a false identity and housing is arranged with a non-involved Irish family headed by New York City cop Tom O'Meara (Harrison Ford).

There is an impression that The Devil's Own is an action film. The Internet Movie Database has it listed as "Action/Drama/Thriller". Although there are some action elements in the film, this is really a tragic drama, almost in a classical sense, and it's best to approach the film with only that genre in mind. The plot is fairly complex and the film tends to move slowly--much more slowly than a typical actioner or thriller.

The heart of the story is McGuire's relationship with O'Meara and his family. All of the other material--the IRA stuff, the mob and terrorist stuff, the New York City cop stuff, and so on, are not the focus. Those elements are present to help establish characterization, to build the relationship and understanding between McGuire and O'Meara, and to provide a justification for the developments in the film, and particularly the conclusion, which all have poignant things to say about the decisions that we make and why we make them.

The film largely succeeds if seen from this dramatic perspective. It's not quite a 10, however, as it always seems slightly distanced from the viewer. It's an 8 out of 10 for me.

(This comment was originally posted on January 16, 2005 and ended with the above. The following was added much later after reading through some other user comments:) We should not forget that even though it takes elements from the real world to construct its story, The Devil's Own is NOT intended to be journalistic or a documentary. There is no claim that it is giving an accurate portrayal of political situations, and it's not intended to campaign for one side or another in a real-world political situation. This is fiction, folks, and should be judged _as fiction_. For that, you should forget about what you know of the real world, and assess the story, images and sounds you experience from your television. Does the story work as a self-contained entity? Are the performances good? Is it visually attractive/rewarding? Those are the kinds of things we should be judging.

For me, The Devil's Own succeeded as a drama about relationships, with its poignancy arrived at primarily by making two people from very different worlds, with very different outlooks, learn to see things from different perspectives.

That's great if you're very knowledgeable about Northern Ireland in the real world and if you have strong opinions about terrorism. However, your knowledge and opinions on that stuff have nothing to do with this film.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Attempts to work on several different levels, and works on none of them

4/10
Author: James Hitchcock from Tunbridge Wells, England
18 September 2009

"The Devil's Own" is one of Hollywood's periodical ventures into the murky world of Irish politics. Harrison Ford, who stars here, had five years earlier starred in another such film, "Patriot Games". There is, however, a difference between the two films. "Patriot Games" is an action thriller which simply uses the Northern Ireland situation to provide a motivation for the bad guys; they happen to be Irish Republican terrorists, but they could equally well have been Islamic militants, or Russian spies, or Mafia hit-men, and it would have made little difference to the film. "The Devil's Own", by contrast, aims for something more ambitious.

The two main characters are Frankie McGuire, a member of the Provisional IRA on a mission to New York to purchase weapons, and his landlord Tom O'Meara, an Irish-American police officer. For about two thirds of the film Tom does not know that his lodger is an IRA man; indeed, he does not even know the young man's real name as Frankie is using the alias Rory Devaney. Tom is only enlightened towards the end of the film when he discovers in "Rory's" bedroom a bag containing millions of dollars. (Are the IRA so amateurish that they would entrust the money for their arms deals to a man who then leaves it under the bed in someone else's house?)

His discovery of the truth puts Tom in a difficult position. On the on e hand he disapproves of violence so cannot allow Frankie to go ahead with his plan to buy missiles for the IRA. On the other hand, he does not want any harm to come to the young man, so tries to protect him from the FBI and MI5 agents who are on his tail. (It is quite possible that the British security forces might set up hit squads to hunt down IRA men, but it seems highly unlikely that such squads would be permitted to operate on American soil with the full knowledge and cooperation of the US authorities).

There is also a sub-plot involving Tom's attempts to cover up for his partner Eddie, who has shot dead a criminal who was running from him. Tom tells his superiors that the man was armed, although he had already thrown away his gun before being shot.

I felt, however, that this sub-plot was never properly integrated into the main film. I was not surprised to discover that the film went through several rewrites after the original script was discarded, as it had the feel of a film written by a committee. Each member of the committee, moreover, appears to have had his or her own agenda. One member wanted to make an action thriller, a second wanted to make a political commentary on the Northern Ireland situation and a third wanted to make a character-driven psychological drama exploring Tom's ethical dilemma in having to choose between the demands of friendship and his obligation as a police officer to uphold the law. Eventually the chairman, who had the casting vote, ruled that the film would be a mixture of all three approaches.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with a film which attempts to work on several different levels. The trouble with "The Devil's Own" is that it doesn't really work on any of them. As an action thriller it is too slow moving, with most of the action crammed into the opening and the ending. As political commentary it is too obviously slanted towards a pro-IRA position with a misguided attempt to make Frankie a sympathetic figure. (That is perhaps only to be expected from Hollywood, particularly in its pre-9/11 period. Americans who approve of this should ask themselves how they would react to a British film which tried to glamorise Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber). As a psychological drama it is dull and the Eddie subplot is never successfully integrated with the main action.

The film was turning out so badly that one of its main stars, Brad Pitt, wanted to leave the set and was only restrained from doing so by the threat of an injunction. Rather surprisingly, therefore, Pitt's performance is one of the better things about this movie. (His Irish accent, too, is quite convincing). He is certainly better than his co-star Harrison Ford who actually described this film as one of his favourites. Although Tom O'Meara is a role of the sort in which Ford normally excels- a decent, solid family man confronted with a crisis- his performance here is a dull, stodgy one, and not one of his best.

Overall, the film is a disappointment, despite its two major-league stars and its major-league director. This was the last film to be made by Alan J. Pakula before his tragic death a year later in a road accident. Pakula was responsible for some excellent films, notably "Sophie's Choice", so it is a shame that his career did not end on a higher note. 4/10

Was the above review useful to you?

37 out of 58 people found the following review useful:

It's not an American stoory, it's an Oirish oon!

Author: (meisterpuck@yahoo.com) from detroit, michigan
20 July 2000

A large part of Brad Pitt's genius as a movie star is his ability to pick scripts. "The Devil's Own" certainly indicates a lapse in judgment, but to a Hollywood tough guy, an IRA role is irresistible. You get a leather jacket, a ski mask, a machine gun and a cool accent. The Ulster accent is, as every movie star knows, very easy to master: just randomly scramble your vowel sounds, say "fook's seek" frequently--and you're Oirish!

But far more laughable than the accents are the action scenes, which are so badly choreographed and edited, it's hard to believe the film is a Hollywood product. First there is Sean and Frankie's shootout with "half the fookin' army," which they win. Then they escape because the British forget to watch the back door. Also, there is the mysterious appearance of a vast forest in the middle of downtown Belfast, into which IRA terrorists can easily escape when cornered. Next there is the shootout with Billy Burke, in which Frankie somehow manages to fire three rounds from a double-barrelled shotgun (taking out a sniper who, oddly enough, falls forward from the impact of a shot in the chest), retrieves his pistol and fires the same shot twice--hitting Billy Burke, who for some reason counted to ten before lunging for his own gun.

The biggest mistake was in casting Harrison Ford, a lead man who commands $20,000,000 per film, and putting him in a supporting role, which of course had to be rewritten and elevated to a co-lead. The result: instead of a film about an IRA terrorist who comes to the States to buy munitions (which is a good precept), we get a film about a New York cop who's got an IRA terrorist living in his basement. Anyone who initially proposed such a story to the studio would have been turned down, and that would have been fortunate for all involved.

In fairness to Pitt, he did try to walk away from the project, and in order to save face, ridiculed the movie before it hit the theaters, which suggests that he had more sense than anyone else on the set.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Good Performances, But It Seems A Bit Dated And Too Sympathetic To The IRA

4/10
Author: sddavis63 (revsdd@gmail.com) from Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada
28 March 2010

Considering that the era of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland has largely come to an end, and the IRA is rarely heard from anymore (the fight over Northern Ireland's status having been successfully moved by the peace process into the political realm) this movie has a somewhat dated feel even though it's not even 15 years old yet, dealing as it does with a young IRA operative (Brad Pitt) who comes to America to buy weapons for use back home. On his arrival, a sympathetic Irish-American judge arranges to have him stay with a local Irish-American police officer (Harrison Ford), who isn't aware of of the IRA connections. Eventually, the arrangement comes to endanger the lives of the officer's entire family.

I'll grant that the two lead performances were pretty good. Pitt as Francis (or Rory, as he called himself in America) and Ford as O'Meara both seemed to capture their characters quite well. The first hour or so of the movie was rather slow-paced, but it picked up once O'Meara put everything together and figured out what Rory was all about. I was somewhat put off by what I thought was an implicit pro-IRA sentiment in this. At the movie's opening, Francis is sitting at the kitchen table at the age of 8 while his father says grace before a meal, only to have presumably unionist gunmen break into their home and shoot him in cold blood. It seemed to me that this was almost a way of justifying Francis/Rory's later actions, and it's even said at one point that "if I had seen my dad shot dead in front of me ..." Sorry, one can't justify those acts. "I'll do this because you did that," which means that a cycle just gets started that's hard to climb out of. Both IRA and unionist gunmen should have been ashamed to call themselves Catholic and Protestant, their actions having nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, whom both Catholics and Protestants claim to follow.

Pro-IRA sentiment aside, I still thought this was a rather weak movie, saved somewhat by Pitt and Ford.

Was the above review useful to you?

37 out of 62 people found the following review useful:

A romanticised view of a merciless foe

Author: tprb (tprb@scotlandmail.com) from Worcester, England
22 October 2000

What is it with American-Irish? Some of their richest and most respectable members have poured millions of Dollars into the IRA, harboured some of their members, idealised the notion of a "fight for freedom". Believe me, as a Scot, with William Wallace et al I've always had a certain affinity for heroes. But the IRA are no heroes. They've become Northern Ireland's drug-dealers, extortioners, gangsters. The people of Ireland as whole have had enough of them and their way of terrorising innocent people. May it be the IRA or the UDP, the notion of a Catholic V Protestant jihad has long ago turned into a simple cycle of self-perpetuating violence. These men and women are no longer anything resembling the oh-so glorious Michael Collins, they are terrorists who don't know when to quit and never knew anything but how to fight. These men aren't the Brad Pitts of the world, nor is the British Army an oppressor anymore (considering that over 90% of the locals support the Army, simply because it provides protection). Yet in 1997 we still got the great toss of this movie, showing us how brave Irishmen fight against an onslaught of British stormtroopers and evil S(I)S men. Somehow it seems that America is hell-bent on keeping up the idea of the stiff upper-lip English villain. May it be The Devil's Own, Braveheart, U-571 or most recently The Patriot, Hollywood seems bent on demonising the US' closest ally, both politically and culturally. I may not be a great fan of the English, but even I know what harm stereotypes can do. Perhaps the writer should have gone out to the streets of Belfast and asked ordinary people what they think of the IRA. Perhaps the writer should have also approached a soldier and asked him what it's like to occupy Northern Ireland. Somehow, I have severe doubts that a movie about the post-WW2 SS-"Werwölfe" guerillas would be quite so romanticised.

And this movie has a Riverdance sequence. Oh please....

Was the above review useful to you?

53 out of 94 people found the following review useful:

Offensive In The Extreme

3/10
Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland
11 July 2002

THE DEVIL'S OWN is an extreme film . Extremely bad that is , and also extremely offensive to anyone to have known the sorrow of the " Troubles " . I'm still trying to work out what the most unlikely bit of the film is , the British MI6 agent who's the baddie or the battle scene at the start of the film . I'll go for the battle scene that leaves several Brits and IRA men dead . I was going to type terrorists instead of IRA men but THE DEVIL'S OWN doesn't really consider the IRA to be terrorists , more like feisty freedom fighters who like to take on the fascist British Army in a toe to toe battle that resembles the battle of Mogadishu. Well if you can be bothered to look up the death toll for September 1992 you'll find that a total of 8 people ( That's eight real people - not Hollywood extras ) died in the troubles that month , all civilians . There's also something disgusting about the fact that we see hunky Brad Pitt - Who cannot do an oirish accent at all - playing another IRA man . Why do Hollywood movies always cast a hunk like Sean Bean or Richard Gere as an IRA man ?

If you're confused by my disgust at THE DEVIL'S OWN well imagine this : A film starring hunky George Clooney as a freedom fighter for Al Quida who's on a mission to buy stinger missiles to shoot down American helicopters in Afghanistan and it's up to a murderous agent from the fascist CIA to stop him by liquidating the gallant freedom fighter . Do you think Hollywood would produce something like that ? I rest my case

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Alan J. Pakula's last film is incredibly disappointing...

5/10
Author: MovieAddict2014 from UK
10 March 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 11:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Newsgroup reviews
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history