This was an awesome movie!! To Hel with the narrow minded people and critics who panned it. It's a truly marvelous production and WAY better than the first in my opinion. TRY this! It's a great movie that's unfortunately become a lost diamond. Just give it a chance!!
shareThis was a decent movie but its in no way better then the original, and I know I just got done watching them back to back on Netflix.
The Crow has a huge cast of very talented people including Brandon Lee, Michael Wincot, and Ernie Hudson just to name a few.
The Crow: City of Angels was a money grab sequel, thats why the studios spent so little on it, then took the project from the director and rushed it through post so they could ship it to theaters and make some money on it.
If they had given the director time to finish it properly they would have made a much better movie that flowed better and likely would have made them more money then they had.
Im not saying it was horrible but its rushed edit wasted sooooo much potantial to develop story and characters better. Good movie despite its faults with amazing performances from Vincent and Iggy.
When men stop seeing movies because theres a "hot chick", movies will focus once again on story.
I agree. I liked the first one when I was younger but it has not aged well.
I realized that Brandon Lee was a pretty *beep* actor.
And the story was cliched.
But The Crow City of Angels is a wonderful movie. So moody, and atmospheric.
I love all the colorful characters. Its just a good movie overall.
Perfect? no.....it has a rushed feel to it.
But after reading up on the movies history, I understand why that is.
If there be a god...than hide from him our most evil enterprise!
I strongly disagree, the second film has a nice visual style, and some scenes that where beautifully shot, but aside from that, the villians felt like they belonged in a power rangers film, over the top all the way through, Sarah suddenly falling in love with the crow, and I hate to say it, but I feel that both the films ending and the planned ending were inconsistent with the first film, and ultimately not very good. it was an attempt to take the series in a different direction, but it failed.
shareThe first is the best no doubts about it, but this one should stand out by itself as a good flick.
I liked the atmosphere of the movie, it's very dark and eerie, like a horror movie, and it's way colorful than the first. The other two sequels have tried to match it but never came close. The music was great, Graeme Revell did an epic job like in the first, and the series seriously lacked the epic feel that he brought to the first two. Vincent Perez, the kid who played Danny, and Iggy Pop did an excellent job with what they had to do.
Now for the negatives: The movie was rushed by those idiots at Miramax because of their greed and stupidity and it cost them due to negative word of mouth. It's a shame it ended up that way because the publicity for the film outweighed the actual movie. Some of the actors were miscast and did not perform well like Mia Kirschner and Richard Brooks. Mia acted like she had no idea what to do and had the same stupid look on her face through the whole movie. Brooks on the other hand acted obnoxiously through the whole film and got annoying after a while. Mirmax should have spent some more money on getting better lead actors. The movie soundtrack was also sub par compared to the original's.
Still even with the negatives I think this is a good flick and I watch the director's cut at least once a year because that would have been a great film if Pope had the chance to finish it in time. AMC showed the theatrical cut this morning and I watched it and wondered at what could have been. I don't guess we will ever know who good of a movie the original shooting script could have been, I think it would have done well. Miramax released it a month too early as well, it would have been a major hit in October.
[deleted]