jfcampinell I applaud the writers of Heartless on their interesting ideas about the function of demons in our world and also about the way in which deals with human beings are made. While they do not stick to the ideas of the more typical demon myths, they came up with some very interesting methods. However, it must also be noted that this film is for the most part, completely nonsensical. In many ways, it was difficult to follow and by the end of the film, little was ever fully explained. The script to this "artistic" film reads like the incoherent ramblings of a first year film student.

sajpratt-82-265277 I really do not understand all the negative comments toward this movie and Philip Ridley, but judging from most of them, I'd be tempted to say that those people wanted some sort of Exorcist re-hash with a brainless plot and lots of gore, guns and action--forget any sort of metaphoric nuance, pace or subtlety.Although Heartless doesn't quite come up to the level of Ridley's weirdly beautiful, often brilliant 'Reflecting Skin'--a film I enjoyed immensely--it nonetheless has it's moments, providing us with that surreal feeling of being in someone else's skin rather than just part of an audience.Even so, there is nothing so complicated about the plot that you can't understand what is happening toward the end, when delusion fails and reality is ultimately revealed--there is nothing more horrific than the torture one's mind can inflict upon oneself and, again, from what seems like Ridley's desire to place us firmly in the shoes of his protagonists, we are left feeling exposed and vulnerable, yet somehow whole--message delivered.To me, that 'message' seems meant to be like a slap in the face--a wake- up call. In effect, Heartless is a sinuously-delivered character study of the extremes which many humans may actually suffer in real life, which is, to me, far more chilling than trying to evoke absurd myth and superstition.I give it a "7" because I'd like to help encourage more such exploration from Ridley--he is definitely on to something, and with so many films these days lacking any sort of originality or creative desire beyond Box-Office dictates, such directors are treasure. Though I don't really think this movie suffered due to budget issues, and could only find one actor I felt didn't quite deliver in what was a very minor role, I believe if given a larger budget Ridley has the potential to blow our minds.If you are on the fence about seeing this, then I would suggest seeing Ridley's stunning 'Reflecting Skin' first, then see 'Heartless'. No I am not Philip Ridley--get a life--though I would no doubt take it as a compliment if so accused.

fedor8 This is one of those muddled scripts that is usually written by an over-ambitious greenhorn who thinks that he can cram all his personal obsessions into his first movie, by force if need be. Sort of like packing up for a trip, having only one small bag to carry, and then you cram stuff into it, sit on it, etc. The fact that an experienced writer, not a novice, came up with this crap is all the more embarrassing.A horror film with a social message? Not again. You certainly don't have to be a young writer to have idiotic intentions like that; just take a look at George Romero and some of his daft socio-political zombie films (the recent ones): the more "meaningful messages" he tries to stuff inside them, the dumber these movies turn out.A young man (Morgan), with large birthmarks all over his face and body, witnesses a gang of demons one night. Soon people in London are being randomly murdered by them. And soon enough, they kill his mother. He is invited to meet their leader, who looks like a Russian mobster with a taste for heroine, but is in actual fact Satan or something or other. Satan gives him some goofy theory on how random violence improves mankind, and then tells him that his mother was killed "so that we could get you to enlist". I kid you not. No, I don't understand the logic of this either. It does get dumber, however.Satan offers Morgan a new face, no more debilitating birthmarks, in return for committing evil acts. Couldn't he have just ASKED him? Morgan was desperate as it is to have a new face. Killing his mother could have only prevented recruiting him, not helped. But it gets better: Morgan actually agrees, making a deal with the individual who had his mother brutally burnt to death in front of his own eyes! Sure makes sense, doesn't it.The demon has a young Indian girl, dressed in full traditional Indian regalia, acting as his… helper? Good-luck charm? Daughter? Assistant? Who the hell knows, but the girl adds much-needed unintentional comedy into this bleak mess of a film. Her behaviour is so over-the-top absurd and self-contradicting that any attempt to figure out what the director/writer wanted to achieve with this character is a complete and utter waste of time. All I can see is her being constantly abused as a silly plot-device so that all sorts of nonsense can happen later on.Morgan is visited by the "weapons guy", a cliché character right out of a Guy Ritchie comedy-caper. But it's just another bizarre, idiotic turn out of many in this shamelessly pointless movie.At this point things get a little predictable – and even more ridiculous. Obviously, it will not suffice for Morgan to just draw "God is a moron" graffiti as he'd been falsely instructed to do (such a transparent gimmick), in order to fulfill his end of the Faustian bargain, in return for getting a new face. He has to commit murder. Surprise. Who didn't see that one coming. Yawn. Morgan is not only a weak-willed pushover, he must be an utter idiot too. (The way he fails to realize that the Indian girl is just toying with him, manipulating everything, is amazing. A cretin would have figured it out.)His first victim is a male prostitute right out of a bloody silly comedy; a totally unrealistic character, suitably exaggerated (dumb and over-the-top) just so Morgan could kill him with ease. What person – especially a male prostitute who must be aware of the dangers of going to the homes of unknown men (especially someone behaving as strangely as Morgan) – lets themselves be rolled up in tape, mummy-wise, around the entire body by a complete stranger? To cut a dumb, long story short, one murder wasn't enough, and he has to kill again – his own girlfriend this time, played by Clemence Poesy - that awful nepotistic actress that appeared in one of the many dumb Harry Potter flicks. Using a hopelessly botched accent, and looking rather ugly, she is suddenly Morgan's love-interest. He has a new face, and straight away he hooks up with the first female he meets. Ts, ts, ts; typical nerd.The last half-hour is a complete mess. Predictable plot-twists, moronic plot-twists, and then an utterly daft, "philosophical" vision-of-daddy ending that doesn't tie into anything in any way, let alone neatly. "Heartless" is brainless, aimed at God-know-which demographic group. This piece of crap wouldn't develop a cult following if it were to play five thousand weeks in a row in a seedy cinema near you. Avoid this garbage at all cost.

L-Powell-1994 Philip Ridley is primarily a play write, and this is without doubt presented in Heartless. You can almost see in every moment of dialogue the preachy speeches, the moral values defended by Nikita Mistry's character - Belle, almost acting like a chorus. I liked this, but it grew tiresome for me because I like reality within film. For those who don't know, this is briefly based around Marlow's Doctor Faustus, or the German Faust folklore. It is the idea of a polymath, a renaissance all rounder who wants to transcend earthly limitations by selling is soul to Lucifer for 24 years of a life of necromancy. Visually, considering the budget, it's a masterpiece that I admire for being bold and exceeding my expectations, however, it was hard to see past this considering the 'hit and miss' aspect of the story. I'm almost at a loss for words so I can only call it 'corny.' It tries to be a horror, yet there is an underlining dreadful moral aspect that would be okay, but it's far too forward, and far too off putting to enjoy. My main criticism is the pace of the story, paired with the severe lack of ability to empathise or sympathise with the lead character, or any of the other characters. Yes, it's meant to represent the downfall of a man, brought upon by himself, but who is to say we can't admire the character, enjoy the road they take us on, and enjoy their ability to realise their wrong doings. I respect that some people did enjoy it, some didn't, because it truly shows the diversity of the audience and how some people can see what is meant to be seen, and some can't, almost like a reflection of the main character, he see's what he wants to see.