MovieChat Forums > The Crow: City of Angels (1996) Discussion > I both hate and like this

I both hate and like this

posted 12 years ago by Drenyelle
8 replies | jump to latest

First off: I loathe the very idea of the film. Any sort of sequel to The Crow was just doomed from the start. The plot is lame and laughably bad. That said, there are aspects of this film that I find hauntingly beautiful, and I occasionally find myself watching this drek from time to time. The overall post-apocalyptic look is appealing and surreal; the dilapidated sets are very well done; the costumes are fantastic; Graeme Revell's score is hypnotic and gorgeous yet again; and the soundtrack is pretty damned good (though pales in comparison to the first film).

But at the end of the day, the movie still irritates the *beep* out of me.

[–] Stratman87 12 years ago

Although it's a lousy movie, it did have good ideas that unfortunately couldn't save the movie. I liked the Ashe character and thought it was a worthy successor to Eric Draven, Vincent Perez did alright for the job he was given, he had hard shoes to fill. One thing I don't like about this movie is the cinematography, I missed the subtle theme from the first film.

[–] FourthYear 12 years ago

I just watched this for the first time since it came out. The original is one of my favorite movies, and I remember thinking this was terrible. It's not, but it's not quite good - I'd call it a very average 5. The acting is hit or miss, where some characters (Ashe, Sarah, tattoo shop guy) do great, and others (especially Judah) kind of trounce all over it.

Perez does a good job of what he's working with, and his character's manic behavior is a juxtaposition to the collectiveness of Eric Draven, but the whole film feels rushed and edited poorly. Looking into the film, you learn about the studio BS that helped mar it up... a bummer.

I think the color scheme and sets are kind of cool - in certain scenes, it looks almost like a play (notably the cemetary scene where he buries his son). There's elements of an art flick/ music video in effect here, which would make sense based on the director's history... I dunno. For a movie that's not so awesome, it's also not so bad.

[–] lastironman 12 years ago

I gave this movie a 6/10. It's not nearly as good as the original, but I dont think it deserves all the hate everybody else seems to give it. The original was very goth, which I liked - that movie came out during the height of my "goth phase" when I was a teenager, so it really helped define who I was back then. City of Angels, while not quite as goth as the first, I found to be much more surreal and noirish. My dreams often look like the visuals of this movie!

The ending of this movie absolutely sucked! I read about what it was supposed to be and that sounded very interesting and original. I wish THAT movie got made instead of this one. I might have given it an 8 or 9.

[–] Drenyelle 11 years ago

I gave it a 6/10 as well. I, too, was going through my goth phase when the first film came out --LOL. I actually found myself watching this one again last night. If I just ignore the bad things, or laugh them off, the film holds up in some strange way. I guess I just have a soft spot for the overall surreal look and tone of the movie. Also, Iggy Pop is awesome. Nice to see what his Funboy might have been like.

[–] NatalieTess 11 years ago

I think we all felt like they owed it to Brandon not to do a sequel (or at the very least not so soon) because he put in such an iconic performance and sadly gave his life and unreal potential to do so. With the exception of losing him, the first film is perfect. No matter how much time passes, no one will ever replace him as The Crow. I know Perez was a new character and I commend the film makers for wanting to do something different. I think the studio was too stupid to see any of this and tried to do the same movie again. The one thing I liked here was the original's Detroit was basically just black and white with red tones. While staying with the dumpy no hope vibe for the city, the Los Angeles here seemed tinted in a dingy gold with blue and green tones. It was also smart to change the make-up to a more toned down and chaotic look. But again, it would have been smart to have not even done the film at all. I have the first one a solid 10 and this one a low 7.

[–] oobie-1 11 years ago

It's called, "The First Crow was so good that it had a trickle effect on the next film." Don't trick yourself into thinking this is good, if you look at the other films you really don't care anymore because City of Angels was not that great. After Salvation came "Wicked Prayer" and I never saw that one and believe me, I'm a huge Crow fan being that the first 2 movies were mg childhood movies.

[–] RelpScooby 11 years ago

This movie was just like the OP said. You hate it and like it.

Now I thought it was ooook, but I haven't seen it in a while and do own the dvd. Now if I'm not mistaken, doesn't Vincent Perez have some kind of "accent". It sounds "English", I'm guessing. Whatever it is, when I watched it many times in the past I thought it was 1 of the hugest killers of the legitimacy of the movie.

BTW to all the people who "despise and hate part 3 Salvation", well Salvation was better than this and I don't believe that's an opinion.

[–] lastironman 11 years ago

Overall, I can agree that Salvation was better than City of Angels. Even though the guy in Salvation didn't have long hair. For some reason, I think all "Crow" characters should have long hair... I think City of Angels could have been better if it wasn't for that damn goofy ending.

Salvation seemed to be more based in the real world. Everything there was more contemporary and recognizable. While The original and City of Angels both seemed to take place in a "Hyper-reality" so to speak. Very surreal and noirish. City of Angels had a sort of post-apocalyptic feel that I found interesting. I only saw bits and pieces of Wicked Prayer. And what I saw, I was not impressed with at all. I will always think of Edward Furlong as "that Terminator 2 kid". And the idea of him being the lead in one of these movies just makes me chuckle.

And I absolutely do not agree with this notion that because Brandon Lee died during the filming of the original movie, that no one else should ever play the character again. We heard this same crap when Heath Ledger died before The Dark Knight was released with his portrayal of The Joker. To me, it would be an insult to their memory NOT to do these characters again, be it in a sequel or reboot or whatever.