You people are pathetic


This movie is the best sequel in The Crow series. It is just as good, if not better than the first one. It's rating here on IMDB is completely undeserved. You morons can keep obsessing over Brandon Lee, but don't take it out on this movie.

Truthfully, I do not know how anybody could hate City of Angels. The atmosphere is amazing, the acting is decent enough and the plot is indeed better than the first one.

I guess you imbeciles only wanted a clone of the first Crow film, which you got with Salvation. You complain about the series being in the sh!tter when you were the ones who made it so.

I've noticed EVERY single user comment with less than four stars is never more than five lines long. Why is this? Because the people writing them are idiots with baseless arguments. They cannot come up with a reason why this movie is bad because there isn't one--it's all just "ZOMG HoLlyWOod Mad a SeQuaAl to teh CroOw!! But dat wAas BraAnDon Lee's r0ole!!!!!!!1!!!1one"

reply

I know! Truth is, the film has a awesome atmosphere, a great soundtrack. Perez played his character well.

reply

Yes the score was even better in this movie then the first, but movie wise I felt it was horrible. The Crow COA is actually a love story between Sarah and Ashe which the film sadly did not show. This movie is actually an insult compared to the original script and novelization. In the end I thought Sarah was more snuffed out, then being the heroine that she really was-- other then that find the Chet Williamson novelization of this film. And believe me, I liked this movie before I read the book. But once I read it I was like, Wow this makes the movie look like complete crap.

reply

Nearly everything mentioned in the novelization, and everything mentioned in the shooting script was filmed but cut by Miramax. But back to the topic: I love this movie and feel it is the best of the series.

http://widescreen.org/examples.shtml

reply

Yeah, i agree with you. The score of the movie was better, plus it looked darker. But, if Miramax hadn't *beep* up the movie, it would have had higher regard from movie fans.

reply

[deleted]

I am aware of City of Angels's original cut. And? It still was its own thing, no matter how much they wanted it to emulate the first movie. Not much of an argument.

"As for the whole "obsession over Brandon Lee and the original movie"-arguement:

"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109506/board/thread/129549620?d=129549620#129549620";

This is your thread, correct?"

And? I'm talking about a remake of the first Crow movie. When in my thread did I mention Brandon Lee? Again, not much of an argument at all.

"Troll."

No, not quite. I take it you haven't actually encountered a 'real' internet troll before. But truthfully, I could care less how you think of me.

Come back when you actually have a point to make.

reply

I agree with you, I loved this movie when I first saw it at 16.
I still love it now at 25.
In MY oppinion, COA is better than the first movie.

I found the original to be so....generic....

ok ok, before the fans try to lynch me, think of this...

Take The Wraith starring Charlie Sheen, and The Crow starring Brandon Lee...
its like...the same movie.

oh, and bad guy getting impaled? come on...seen it.

now, bad guy getting devoured by huge flock of undead crows! ...I just wished they kept it gorier.

COA wasnt a perfect movie, but it was the cooler movie, with a cooler lead, and a really cute lead actress.

and! Iggy Pop!

If there be a god...than hide from him our most evil enterprise!

reply

I really loved this movie, and would have loved to have seen more of the love story. The Judah character was just really weak IMO though,

Come with me if you want to live.

reply

I agree: City of Angels, even in its release form (I am still trying to get my hands on the fan-edit), ain't a bad movie - actually I think it's pretty good - cinematography and art direction are great, and so is the music. The mood also is very cool - it almost looks like it has a post-apocalyptic setting.

Visually, it predates a lot of the stuff we've seen in the last 10 or so years.

The story has its weak points and is a tad too straight-forward at times, yet I must say even the original, while a tad better, didn't have a great script either (it's a great cult movie of course, with cool scenes, mood and music - but let's face it, the story is quiet simplicist). Instead of bashing Pope's work, people should praise it as he did something quiet different that could even stand on its own legs (too bad it was butchered by the studio).



reply

[deleted]

i mean it's based on James O'Barr orignal comic and story about Eric Draven


The film was a very loose adaptation of the graphic novel, and the surname "Draven" wasn't even included there. So much for that argument.

To those who say City of Angels had a better score LOL!! COA re-used tracks from Graham Revells score from the first film, talk about original lol


Another baseless argument. There is only one track in the ENTIRE City of Angels (which was also composed by Revell, in case you didn't know) score which includes exactly 25 seconds of material similar to the "Believe in Angels" track from the first movie. The score in City of Angels as a whole is indeed better-composed, more heartfelt and effective than the score in the first movie with the exeption of "Pain and Retribution," which in my opinion is the best musical piece in the series.

I liked Perez he was ok, and to say Perez is a amazing actor comon he done a ok job no better than Brandon.


Actually, Brandon was one of the weak links in the original movie (and I mean no disrespect to him by saying this). He was generic and most of his lines were stilted and badly delivered. It was a "decent" performance, not a good one. Perez was better by a mile, despite the horrid, cheesy lines that the script forced him to say. I do not mean to thrash Brandon, but he was completely overshadowed by the rest of the actors -- particularly Michael Wincott, Tony Todd, Ernie Hudson, and even Bai Ling who normally gives subpar performance in her films.

Eric Draven was a success in the sense that he was an "everyman" type of character -- a "blank slate" so to speak. There are only a few close-ups of his face (possibly due to his death) throughout the movie and his development is vague AT BEST. He can only be seen as one-dimensional. This works to an extent because it helps the audience members paste themselves into the character, allowing for some degree of empathy. Of course, the movie added the whole "rockstar" personna to Eric, which was not included in the graphic novel and only introduced once he came back from the dead -- what, with the make-up and all. But that whole angle of making Eric "Draven" into a rockstar in life was simply a ploy to pull the angry Grunge/Industrial crowds of the nineties to see the movie, and it worked.

I hate to say it, but Brandon Lee did not give a stellar performance in The Crow. To say Perez was just as good, if not better than him, really isn't all that blasphemous, since his competition was not particularly great in the first place.

Both movies are flawed, but both are equally good and highly enjoyable. I'll leave it at that.

reply

Dude...the first movie sucked.

The only reason there are so many fans of it is because most of the "fans" have either never seen any other Crow movie, or they're a moron.

The Crow was a generic story. and the music is so dated....
grunge sucked back in the 90s and REALLY sucks now.

If there be a god...than hide from him our most evil enterprise!

reply

[deleted]

I like this one well enough, but it saddens me that it could have been so much better. The script by Goyer was absolutely amazing. Tim Pope and the Weinsteins kind of ruined what could have been an amazing film that could have been right up there with the original (my absolute favorite film).

Salvation is more of a return to the original, with a few new ideas. But avoid Wicked Prayer. At all costs. It's just... wrong.

"It can't rain all the time."- Eric Draven

reply

That's what happens when you let a music video maker direct a movie: it comes out as garbage (usually). Apparently the script was solid, which I believe since Goyer is a good writer.

However the final product here is literally unwatchable. Watched the 1st with a friend and liked it enough to check this out, only to turn it off within 30-40 minutes. Everything about it was bad, and neither of us cared about any of it. The acting, the writing, the directing, the wanna-be scenes from the 1st, the pacing, the directing, the lighting, literally everything about this movie sucked.

Avoid this flick, it's not even worth turning on. You're just going to have to look for the remote to turn it off later, and it's not worth that kind of effort for this movie...

"Layered. Like Nachos. Exponential growth yo." - Jesse 'Jackson' Pinkman

reply

Well I do respect your opinion that you liked this movie better then the first one, but to call people morons for not liking this movie as much is uncalled for.

I myself loved the first movie, and not just because I'm a Brandon Lee Fan. I loved the story line, the way he killed the bad guys, and how he was able to defeat the main bad guy in the end. I also enjoyed the dark comic moments in the movie.

This movie is not really bad but I just didn't feel as good about it as I did the first one. I think the actor did really well for the character he played I just was not as impressed with the character. The main focus I had in the movie was more of Sarah's actions then the actual Crow's. I wasn't as impressed as how he killed the bad guys as I was with the first one. It may simply be different tastes and likes in this type of movies.

It may also be that I can connect more with loosing a loved spouse then a child even though both are awful things to happen.

In the first one the Crow had to deal with breaking the heart of a little girl that needed a friend, also he helped clean up the mothers drug addiction to be an actual mother to this girl. In the second one this girl grows up and is attracted to this crow. He rejects her because of what he has to do. This is an interesting side story but I felt more touched by the first movie.

Best line "mother is the name for God on the lips and hearts of all children". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi_nAFEniSE

I do think this movie is better then the ones that followed it, and the series seemed like The Crow on medication.

A man can change his stars

reply