The Crow: City of Angels (1996) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
166 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A misunderstood film that deserves more credit
dexshirts3 October 2002
Warning: Spoilers
After reading most of the comments users have written about this film I'm quite disappointed. I am an insane follower of the first Crow film and had to see the second. I knew full well it wouldn't be as good as the first, but then again, what could?

The Crow 2 is a very sad and ironic story based on the first films boundaries. Notice how Sarah in the Crow has to sacrifice herself for another version of him in the second. Crow 2 is a film of what happened to Eric Draven in the first and is simply a story of someone else.

Just like in the first film a man has his loved one(s) taken from him in a terrible way and then killed, again in a horrible way. For the second time, "A Crow" guides this tormented man back to the land of the living to claim revenge on those who killed him.

Ironically, he meets up with Sarah, a now grown woman from the first who feels for the Crow and sacrifices her life so that he can live and avenge his and his son's death.

A very sad and apocolyptic film that depicts the grimy, evil way that humans are steering towards themselves to in the future to come but also keeps the powerful love factor from the first.

If you were an obsessive Crow fan, see this film. If not, you may find it hard to understand and will not enjoy it as much...
30 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
countessmenula6 June 2005
Do not let anyone tell you this is a poor remake of the original. The film is absolutely beautiful, but if you're one of those closed-minded fans who only like The Crow because of Brandon Lee, you will never give this sequel a chance to prove its self that it could be just as good as the original.

The storyline is a good one. Revenging your son's death rather than your girlfriend's is a lot more deep. Sarah is gorgeous and has a dark sense of style. Vincent Perez was also a fine choice to play Ashe.

There are some very beautiful quotes in the film too.

There really is nothing wrong with this film. I don't have the slightest clue why people hate it.

22 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not as commercial as many have thought...
Zophael97911 March 2001
Many people who claim to be crowfans say that this film isn't what the Crow is all about but they don't bother to explain why. Many of those people only like the first film and nothing else. While the first movie is my favorite film, it's sequel is certainly worthy of the Crow title and upholds the mythology set by the first film.

This movie could have been better than it was, however. 1/4 of the movie was left on the cutting room floor. Alternate dialogue. Alternate endings. The very good fight/death scene of Kali was actually a great scene beforehand. She doesn't die as soon as she is thrown out the window, but there is some additionally dialogue that expands both her character and the character of Ashe.

When a powerless Ashe falls from grace at the end of the film, rather than Danny's ghost telling his father that "if you stop now, we can never be together", Danny tells Ashe that "it's time to go" but Ashe refuses because he can't leave Sarah to die. With that, Danny turns his back on his father and we don't see him for the rest of the film. This scene solifies Ashe's internal conflict in a very tragic, heart-breaking manor.

What internal conflict you ask? Ashe was torn on whether or not he should complete his mission and join his son in the afterlife or stay with Sarah in the world of the living. You weren't aware of this in the film? It was really only hinted at in the current version. So it all ends happily right? Ashe, Sarah, and Danny are cross into the land of the dead and we have one big happy family, right? Wrong. In the original version, Ashe doesn't go back because his crow is too...well, dead to carry his soul back to the land of the dead. So he is forced to walk the earth separated from those he really loves.

COA was originally a more depressing take on the themes of the first film. There was less similarity in story. Saldy, many scenes were cut for no reason and the ending was changed to make the film more hollywood. What could have been a great film with a great story turned out to be a visually impressive film with vague bits and pieces of a story. It didn't have the deep emotional story of the first because it didn't try to. It was a rather depressing drama of a hero who succeeds and fails at the same time. A different take on the Crow.

But the complaints of the story being too similar does ring true here. Mostly because the stuff that made it different was cut. The makers were probably afraid of fan backlash. Ironic, huh? Vincent Perez was AWESOME as Ashe. I like Brandon Lee better, but Perez manages to give a good performance of a man who contemplates what exactly to do with the second chance he's been given. He also has the insanity thing going well for him. He's different from Brandon Lee/Eric Draven. Standouts from the supporting cast are Iggy Pop and Thomas Jane. Jane's strip club scene was hilarious and Iggy gives a badly written role more energy than it deserved. His scenes with Vincent were great.

There were downsides besides the ones I just mentioned. The movie lacked the good action sequences of the first film. There were a few stand outs but that's it. I was displeased that they never showed Ashe's wounds heal up. The final confrontation between Ashe and Judah should've been longer. The CGI in the movie was terrible. Judah should have been savagely picked apart when he was attacked by the crows, not disappear into nothing. The girl who played Sarah could get extremely annoying at times and the early scenes that focus on her are quite boring. It takes a bit too long for Ashe to get painted up and start on his mission. Why some of the crap scenes were left in and some of the good parts were cut out is a mystery.

Oh and for those who complain about this movie disrespecting Brandon Lee, how do you figure that? Really, I'd like to know. I've heard that this movie was done for money...all movies are done for money. Yes, even the first Crow.

All in all, COA does have serious problems and an annoying plothole or two, but it is far from one of the worst movies ever. See it if you liked the first film and you're looking for an alternative story with the same themes.

Current Version-6 If the original footage was left intact-8.5 or 9
24 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Though Hated by Fans, This Film is a Compelling and Unique Take on the Crow Legend
tonymurphylee10 June 2006
The first Crow film was a brilliant and Gothic re-visioning of a graphic Novel. Eric Draven was played by Brandon Lee who notoriously died during the making of the film. But even though he died, his work as the main protagonist was very memorable and chilling, and yet sympathetic and beautiful. It would be hard to top something like his performance. This sequel to THE CROW, entitled THE CROW: CITY OF ANGELS, takes place in a warped version of L.A. Death and filth litter the streets and the whole city is cast in an ugly and disturbing color of grotesque characters and dust. The lighting to this film is ugly and dark, not unlike CITY OF LOST CHILDREN or NOSFORATU, only more natural feeling. The main character of this film automatically achieves a more personal edge to why he would murder thugs because instead of his girlfriend being raped and murdered like in the first one, this time it is his son. So the loss of an innocent soul feels more justified by murder of the people who did it. Ashe is pulled out from a watery grave as a walking corpse sent to avenge his son. Unfortunitely there is indeed more to this than what seemed possible because the drug lord Judah has a connection to voodoo powers that could possibly disarm Ashe in his fight to avenge his own flesh and blood. Judah has connections to other worldly forces via a blind woman who he has used to gain power of the city. This film employs negative energy very well and the films setting feels lifeless. This way, the film allows us to feel more sorry for the people who live in it by giving us no limits of which the depravity can go. The musical score, while it is true it is not as effective as the first one, casts just the right amount of a somber spirit and hopelessness. This film is excessively gross and violent but doesn't become a distraction since the whole city is full of gross and violent tone. Fans of the Crow hated this film and I can see why. But I felt that this film's lifelessness worked well due to the constant feeling of depression and hate. Vincent Perez plays Ashe with the perfect amount of sympathy and the viewer can feel sorry for him. However, we cannot be scared of him because all of the barely human characters that surround him and much more frightening. When he kills his prey, we are delighted and happy that he got his revenge. The first film was a good combination of extremely violent content and gore mixed with morals and feeling. Nobody in this film has much emotion and feeling except for Ashe, who truly has more than enough. He is shown as a victim and continues to be a victim throughout because the city is so full of them. He cannot gain anything and he is understandably sad. When it comes right down to it, its hard to really compare the two films because the first film is so perfect and so beautiful and the second film, when compared to the first, feels so flawed and ugly. It is really all up to the viewer to decide. I thought this sequel was great and would gladly watch it again. I'd say anyone interested in the set design process of film making should definitely watch this along with the first film.
26 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very Good! I Really Enjoyed It
terminator69031 December 2004
Stop criticising this movie! Surly it's no match for the first Crow movie, but in the long run it's a totally different movie to the first. The Characters are different, The actors are different, the villains are different and technically the story is different, for in the first movie, It's Eric Draven's Fiancée that gets murdered and the "sequel", It's Ashe's SON that get's murdered.

O.K. maybe i'm wrong, it more likely is a sequel. But it's not a sequel to the first crow film, it does not follow the same story, it's about a completely different person.

The message I'm trying to get through to you is: "Stop thinking of it as a sequel. Think of it as it's own movie, THEN you'll enjoy it better." Walk down to a video store near you, and rent it out. Just give the damn movie a chance.
51 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nothing really original, but still enjoyable
aaronzombie8 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
The Crow II: City of Angels is pretty much a rehash of the original except for the fact that this "Crow" has a different reason for his revenge. However, that doesn't mean it's a completely worthless film. It's actually pretty enjoyable and like the original, has great visuals.

!!!POSSIBLE SPOILERS!!!A father and son are murdered and thrown into a nearby river. The father is resurrected and with the help of the Sarah from the first film, now grown up, gets revenge on those responsible.

A pretty well written script(Even if it isn't original), good acting, and effects. *** out of *****. And then there was 3.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"Wrong place, at the wrong time"
lost-in-limbo4 May 2008
I adore the original film that starred Brandon Lee as the avenging angel brought back from the dead. Now a sequel was probably inevitable, and I remember being largely disappointed by it with its wearily cut-up story, dour performances and diluted action. Well nothing has changed the second time around. Again I can't knock that killer hard-rock / industrial sounding soundtrack, haunting score and the dark, Gothic embellishment creating an atmospherically catastrophe post-apocalyptic Los Angeles. It's dirty, smoggy and jarringly bleak. Jean Yves Escoffier's cinematography lenses it with the right free-spirited. However there's nothing overly memorable, or even powerfully gripping to draw any real emotion and interest form the suffocatingly drab and unimaginative narrative. By following the same patterns of the original's tragedy, it doesn't lay any new groundwork. It was a tediously repetitive mess that seemed more fantasy-based and conjures up a script that's weakly penned. Vincent Perez's avenging soul is unconvincingly void in a tortured performance, which doesn't create much heart-ache or grace. There's no imprint, or witty charisma that Lee evoked. Honestly I didn't feel anything. Richard Brooks flimsily strolls by with no impressionable stance as the head villain. Mia Kirshner gives a sound performance and Iggy Pop delightfully chews up the scenery to spit it out. Director Tim Pope can formulate some flourishing visuals and lasting poses, but when it came to setting everything in motion. Flat and unexciting comes to mind. His action set-pieces lacked zest and seemed to plod like they're sliced up music video clips. Never did it infuse any real sense of energy, thrills and urgency. In the end it feels just like a cheap, quick and empty rehash.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The evidence is right in front of you....
Akuma-513 December 2002
I could go on a more-than-1000-word rant on the underrated good elemtsn of this movie versus the horrible ones....what misfired, and what should've been brought to light...and I was about to a few minutes ago. However, it was in the middle of this rant that i decided to check out the alternate versions section of this movie's info....And apparently, we've all seen a raped movie.

The scenes detailed there are PRECISELY what this movie required to make it work the way it should have. Of particular interest is the alternate ending, in which Ashe eventually chooses to stay on earth with Sarah than return to the afterlife, and is apparently punished forhis sentiments with eternity on earth. Even though I am one of the few who believes the ending is actually one of the film's strong points(except for the barrage of crows thing...unexplained in the film, but, according to the alternate versions section, has an explanation), this ending is a much more suitable one to The Crow's, the question raised is "Why?"

A biggert question raised is "Where can I see this?"

I'd continue, but i dont think any more should be said until someone sees this print in motion.
16 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Crow With Broken Wings.
CROW – CITY OF ANGELS is the inevitable follow up to the classic 1994 gothic thriller THE CROW. The laws that state all sequels must be inferior to their predecessors are faithfully obeyed here and the result is a rather mundane and disappointing motion picture that flat lines the whole franchise. Here Vincent Perez (badly miscast) gives a weak performance as the doting single father returning from his watery grave to wreak bloody vengeance upon the gang who killed him and his son. He is aided, in his quest by Sarah; a doe-eyed tattoo artist who fans of the series will note is actually the little girl who was befriended by the central character in the original movie. The film manages to be watchable; the apocalyptic cityscapes work quite well, however a maker of music videos directs CROW – CITY OF ANGELS and it shows in every frame. The film totally lacks the edge of raw emotion and inner pain that made the original movie so effective. All you are left with in the end is a gothic re-working of the DEATH WISH movies with nothing to redeem it once you get tired of the garish purple, yellow and green colour schemes. The main merit of this poor film is the raw performance of legendary rocker Iggy Pop as a cocaine-snorting villain. My rating – 5 out of 10.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Beautiful Story
iris_sheffield23 February 2005
If anyone tells you that Crow: The city of Angels is just a poor shadow of The Crow, don't listen! The City of Angels is not just a dark and gripping story of pain and revenge. It's much much more. It complements the first movie perfectly, without messing up the whole point. Ash (perez) is wonderful as the main character, not letting you forget for a moment what drives him in his revenge. But what amazed me most is that, as Ash goes through his victims one by one, his ways of dealing with them is not just fearsome, but...beautiful. I mean, some of those scenes really catch your aesthetic eye. And just a look into the girl's eyes takes you into a whole new perspective on things.The Crow: City of Angels makes a dark movie beautiful. And what else do you expect from part II?
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I always loved this film. Give a chance.
carmelahayslett28 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a long-time fan of this film but I won't go off and say that I don't understand why people trash it. Like any film, The Crow: City of Angels isn't for everyone. Believe it or not, the first Crow film wasn't for everyone either. I will say that I did not like this film the first time I saw it. I am a major fan of the first and it's hard to enter the sequel with an open mind and clear perception. The second time I saw this film is when I fell in love with it and was able to by viewing it as it's own film. If you're going to sit there and compare it to the original, chances are you will never be happy with it. If you compared many movies to the first crow film you would never be happy with them either. I love this film completely separate from it's original counterpart. Though Miramax tried to make this a mirror image of the first film do not expect to see what you saw in the first film. This is a different place, a different man, and a different story. In my opinion it is the best of the sequels. Now, the third and forth crow films... whether I compare them to the first or not I just don't like them. They did not interest me in the slightest and I'm sorry I ever watched them.

First off, there are throwbacks to the original film. Sarah is grown up and living as a goth tattoo artist in a grungy, post-apocalyptic Los Angeles. Sarah still wears Shelly's ring and has taken care of their cat Gabriel. She is also a painter. She's working on a painting of Eric and Shelly in which it's imagery comes full circle at the end of the movie. However, unlike the original crow film and its other sequels we're not watching the same story. This is what pisses me off about Salvation and Wicked Prayer: They recycle the man and his girlfriend gets killed scenario. Eric Draven already did that. There's no need for multiple, watered down versions of this story. In The Crow: City of Angels, Ashe Corven (Vincent Perez) and his young son Danny are killed by a drug cartel when they witness something they shouldn't have. Killing anyone is crossing the line but killing a child crosses multiple. For anyone who has been a parent this story will evoke your fear of losing a child. That story in it's own right is very terrifying.

The bad guys are an interesting bunch. We have a Pre-punisher Thomas Jane as the perverted Nemo, the energetic and comical bad guy, Spider-monkey, Iggy Pop as Curve, along with Thuy Trang who was the original Yellow Ranger in the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. We also have Richard Brooks as the guy in charge, Judah. He's no Top Dollar but let me tell you, Brooks prevails in making you hate him throughout this film. This band of criminals aren't quite as interesting as T-bird's gang was in the original movie. That's okay. I don't want them to be because they're the bad guys and I'm supposed to hate them. In this film, you don't explore their personalities until they are about to die but we do spend a significant amount of time with Curve (Iggy Pop). Iggy brought just the right amount of energy into the film because the rest of the villains are overly calm and collected.

I understand Vincent Perez's performance throws some people off. I happen to love and admire Vincent Perez as an actor mainly because of this film and his role in Queen of the Damned. I even admire the fact that he used subtle crow-like movements throughout the film. My perception is that we're supposed to believe the crow and the man are one entity divided. I truly felt that in Perez's performance. There's even a scene in the original cut of the film where the crow morphs into Ashe viewed from a shadow on the wall. You can actually still find it in the original trailer. That along with other things was left to die on the editing room floor, I guess. Perez did a great job in securing all the different emotions of the character. He's killing his killers but even when he does he's not becoming them.

What I love most about this film is that on the technical end it was executed almost flawlessly from cinematography, lighting, coloration, production design and wardrobe. This film had everything I wanted to see in a movie. It had all the elements that Hollywood blockbusters are supposed to have. Highly stylized, strikingly visual, and mesmerizing.

My last statement is that it bothers me that some people act like Brandon Lee is going to put a curse on them if they show any interest in the sequel. It is not disrespectful to Brandon Lee that this film was made. Them trying to remake the original? I find that much more disrespectful than anything. It's like they are trying to erase the original and Brandon Lee's performance in it whereas the sequels were more about trying to capitalize on it. This entire review is my personal opinion. Like I said, The Crow City of Angels wasn't for everyone. Take it or leave it as you please but I'm not afraid to say this has always been one of my favorite films.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
i had reservations--and was pleasantly surprised! what a follow-up!
angarahad24 May 2003
i was really skeptical about how this movie would turn out in comparison to the GREAT original Crow--who could possibly compare to Brandon??? but Vincent Perez totally blew me away--his acting lent such intense emotion to the physicality of his role as the "avenging spirit". i've seen some of his other work (indochine, bride of the wind, queen of the damned) and that is one thing he always beings to every role--very evocative displays of emotion that really bring you into the film. and Mia was a perfect choice for Sarah! what a great little gothgirl she was! i think the "special effects" weren't over the top--and the whole "lighting and smog/fog" effects worked --for me anyway. the only shortcoming was the soundtrack--the first Crow had a perfect selection of songs--especially the Cure's "burn", Nine Inch Nail's "dead souls" and My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult's "after the flesh". on City of Angel's soundtrack, the only song that stood out for me was White Zombie's "i'm your boogieman". so here's one positive vote in favor of The Crow: City of Angels....
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
underrated on all fronts
droogiedim7730 May 2002
this is a surprisingly great movie. in fact, i'd say the crow trilogy is one of the best in the horror/dark action/supernatural genre. all the films are different enough to establish their own personality, but still similar enough in that they follow the exploits of a wronged man trying seeking vengeance. this film does what a sequel should do. while you can't continue the exploits of the eric draven, it brings back sarah from the first movie and continues the story of the crow granting a victim a chance to make things right. the only problem is it suffered from having to follow the legacy of the 1st crow movie. i thoroughly enjoyed the first crow movie, but i must say this is better in just about every aspect. it is shot so much better. in the first one, they try to make the film dark by washing out all the colors. this one achieves to be more twisted and sinister just by using darker hues and washing out most of the bright colors. it also has a deeper sense of foreboding and impending doom, and makes it villains darker and more mysterious by adding a slight touch of mysticism and perversion. vincent perez is fantastic as the crow, playing a more vulnerable ashe to lee's draven. he provides a more frustrated and frantic feel to his vengeance. he also adds more desperation, remembering his final moments when dispatching his enemies. mia kirshner is excellent as sarah and plays the role with just enough emotion to purvey her pain suffering but also an understanding of the crow mythos. the script is better written, making the film darker without resorting to stripping the film of color. the villains are made more sadistic and the crime to spark the crow more tragic. there is also a tighter feel between the characters by having it take place in what appears to be a pretty empty city except for during the climax. i dont want to ruin it, but the setting within the setting helps the story move along so much better to. tim pope does a superb job directing, adding an extra bit of flair to all the visuals from scene to scene while still the more gothic, medieval feel of the film. the soundtrack is also so much better. it isn't as all over the place as the first and maintains the intended feel of the movie with all of its tracks. it is also masterfully peppered throughout the movie, picking just the right song at just the right moment to add the little extra bit of feeling that help completes the scene. this film has just about all the ingredients of an underrated classic. my advice to you is to go out and rent this movie, but when you watch it forget about the legacy surrounding the crow and just try to enjoy it.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A slap in the face to O'Barr, and all involved with the original film
Reef-Shark6 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
As a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000, and the general practice of mocking bad films I can honestly say that there was no redeeming value in 'The Crow: City of Angels.' The film is just downright sloppy, and very unnecessary given the plot of the first film and how it didn't warrant a sequel in ANY way, but you know Hollywood: if one film makes a profit they need to try and repeat that film's formula and cash in again.

This movie was a low-budget film, roughly $18 million in total cost, which doesn't say anything about the quality, because Alex Proyas, with a simple $15 million managed to make the first film- one of the most visually captivating comic-based films of all time. But what the disadvantage this film does have is that director Tim Pope has nowhere near the talent of Proyas. In fact, 95% of this film's visual style is a carbon copy of the original film, only now most of the city is lit by bright, YELLOW lights, and it happens to be situated beside the ocean. Other than this the style of this film is a rip-off and being a rip-off fails to captivate the mind of the audience in the same way as the first film.

Not to rip on Vincent Perez, but his performance as the new Crow was downright despicable- a pale, heartless imitation of Brandon Lee's critically acclaimed character in the first film. This is probably more the fault of the director and scriptwriters, but regardless, this comes across more as a perversion of Brandon Lee than of a new character picking up the mantle of the Gothic anti-hero.

The script is one of the cheesiest you'll ever see. There is literally a point where the villain kills and drinks the blood of the crow and then gets the strength of the Crow. This makes absolutely no sense and in no way reflects ANY of the mythos in either the first film or the comic series.

The Crow is just too simple of a story to be made into an effective franchise because the formula runs like so: guy and loved one are brutally murdered, guy kills dudes who murdered him and said loved one, leaving a crow emblem at the crime scene, then when he's done he dies and joins loved one in afterlife. This is all The Crow is. It was good for one movie, but it just cannot be turned into a franchise.

Keep in mind, I was half asleep when this movie was on TV, and even then -the time of day when I'm most acceptable of bad movies- I still managed to hate this movie with a passion, and not because I was a fan of the original, or because I had read bad buzz surrounding the movie (I hadn't even HEARD of it before that fateful night- and for good reason!) , but because I honestly, and truly could not stand ANY aspect of this film.

If you enjoyed the first film and the James O'Barr comic book, don't do as I did: do the smart thing. Avoid 'The Crow: City of Angels' with every ounce of your being.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The movie was decent
HenshinHero17 January 2006
Yep. The movie was great and it's in the third place.

First of all, Vincent Perez did was really great and he did with his best to play as the Crow.

Second, my favorite actress of childhood who used to be as Trini, the original Yellow Ranger in 'Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.' I was very sad that Thuy Trang died in 2001.

Anyways, Thuy did really good job in this film. Keep in mind, she had a very brilliant martial art skills.

Sadly, that was her last film. :(

Rest in peace, Thuy Trang. May the power protect you.

Third, the action scenes were amazing. One of the best part was the Crow chased Curve and apparently, Curve got owned by The Crow. That was great part overall.

Last, overall, this movie is very underrated and I give this film 8 out of 10.

Very underrated.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This Movie is Extraordinary
ravenlandey25 December 2005
I found the movie quite interesting, the history is the typical in the crow saga, the movie is complex and raw, better in some aspect than the original. This is one of my favorites; i haven't seen Vincent Perez and Mia performance until this movie, i think their expressions are strong, they transmit the sadness of his character in a very convincing way, the villain are extravagant but i found Iggy's Pop character the best, I from México, and i particular like the way the director present the dead's altar and the way the woman described how we deal with dead and grieve, Mia looks gorgeous in this movie. I broadly recommend this movie.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
There will be another...
tunaspam27 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
OK, the original Crow was an extremely good movie that is worthy of the pedestal it's placed on.

That being said; it's time to put that thought up for a while and open up our minds to the potential of the second film, The Crow: City of Angels.

I admit, this movie is definitely not as good as the first one, but it's still a great film. The original Crow was geared more towards the action, the vengeance, and the intensity of the unfolding story of Eric Draven's revenge. Brandon Lee was very much an action star who had quite a legacy given to him from his father. He was the perfect candidate for a film like the Crow because they wanted to blow people away with the theatrics of it all. City of Angles does just the opposite. Vincent Perez is a silky smooth, romancer not an action hero (just look at the guy, he has an innocence about him that institutes sympathy for his character, while Lee, being very much an opposite, is a hard edged man with a mission that gets your adrenaline going as you cheer on his character). Also, the whole look and feel of the film is very different from the first. The Crow was very dark and shadowy, it had a sort of cool (as in temperature) feel to it, like the scene where Eric saves Sarah from the car and they talk on the curb for a bit, you could almost feel the coldness of the environment; the film portrayed beauty through a realistic and stark cold darkness. The Crow: City of Angels was lighter and more mesmerizing and dreamlike. The environment feels like something from an elaborate dream, and that's a huge reason why this film does not fail, because its atmosphere is very captivating. It's warm and refreshing. This feel goes great with the second film because it's more of a romantic style, while the first film was more of an action/vengeance movie (which is why it's so awesome).

City of Angels is an atmospheric movie (rather than a thriller) that adds a new flavor to the Crow series by using the same base with a different formula.

The only way to really enjoy this film is to watch it with an absolutely open mind free of any wandering memory of the original film. Vincent Perez is not Brandon Lee, Los Angeles is not Detroit, Sarah is all grown up now, Tim Pope is not Alex Proyas, A son is not a fiancé', and The Crow: City of Angels is not a sequel it's a new chapter in the life of a series.

The Crow and The Crow: City of Angels are two branches from the same tree; they may look similar, they may act similar, but, at heart, they are two separate things.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
P**s-yellow color filter to match the p**s-poor movie
witchy_mac5 December 2000
The first film had reasons for the color filters: red for Eric's painful memories of his fiance, and blue for Albrecht's memories, while the rest of the movie was basically in a black & white mood, to match the mask Eric painted on his face.

Whenever a sequel is made, it is inevitable for people to immediately compare it to its predecessor. Honestly, this movie had more potential in the beginning, with the original story (and before the yellow filter!). At one point, the spirit of Ashe's deceased son (the one whose death he has to avenge) appears before him... in the original idea, the boy says something to the effect of "Dad, you have to stop this now, or else we'll never be together" (presumably in the afterlife/land of the dead), and Ashe replies "No, I have to go save Sarah" (which really makes you feel that the bad guy kinda wins when she dies). But in the final release of the movie, the boy says "Dad, if you stop now, we'll never be together." So basically, we have this little kid saying "Yeah, Dad! Go kill some more people! Woo-hoo!" ...Call me crazy, but I don't think that's as emotional as desired.

Continuity problems between the original movie and City of Angels: * Eric returns one year after his and his fiance's death; Ashe comes back after one day.

* The crow acts as a sort of guide to help Eric along the way in his quest to avenge his and his loved one's deaths; Ashe is just stupid and needs to be told what to do.

* THAT CAT IS STILL ALIVE AFTER HOW MANY YEARS?? It's the same fluffy white cat, Gabriel!

Overall, a failure.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
great film
Rexy098220 November 2005
I give this film max marks man, I'm a massive fan of the original "The Crow" and like the last person said it is best to watch this film as a separate movie.

At first i didn't and i was angry they thought they could rip the hell out the original and then i stopped myself and just gave it a chance, once i realised its about a different character altogether i did see it as a different film altogether and liked it enough to keep watching it and repeat watching it a few times might i add.

This film is very well made, love the acting love the scenes love the style of it, everything, its dark and seductive to watch, you get sucked in to it well once you treat it like a separate film.

brilliant watch, if you haven't seen it, its a must see! go rent it! :)
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Homesick for the Motor City...
Coventry7 January 2006
Considering the tragic death of actor Brandon Lee during an on-set accident didn't stop Hollywood from completing the original Crow film, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that the premise quickly got exploited even further with a couple of (very inferior) sequels. James O'Barr's brilliant comic strip idea revives as a boisterous and 80-minutes-lasting music video that doesn't feature the slightest bit of creativity. As informed by the title, the setting moved from Detroit to Los Angeles and, no matter how hard director Tim Pope and his crew try to reproduce the original's brooding atmosphere, it's just not dark or disturbing enough! The story is pretty much identical, with a resurrected father avenging his own murder and – especially – that of his 5 year old son by a violent gang of drug dealers. The best story elements are simply copied from the original film (such as the big boss' spiritual sidekick and even the entire capture-the-crow finale) and the acting performances all are far below average. Vincent Perez is forgiven though, as I realize it's an ungrateful part to play after Brandon Lee, but particularly main bad guy Richard Brooks comes out really weak. Positive aspects include an exciting, albeit messy, climax sequence and a memorable supportive role for rock star Iggy Pop as the rough biker-gangster.
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Considering what "City of Angels" was up against, it didn't stand a chance
Smells_Like_Cheese18 March 2005
I'm serious, I mean, how could a movie ever be expected to live up to the potential that "The Crow" did? Even though I saw what they were trying to do, I didn't think it was that bad. Continuing for the crow to bring people back to avenge their horrible deaths wasn't a bad idea. What came into this bad idea was that they used the same exact story and fight moves as the first Crow. Bringing Sarah back also wasn't too necessary. She's a sort of depressed loner that just seems to get worse and worse from the first story. You mostly wonder what happened between her and her mother, what does she remember from Erik, and her and Ashe? The love story? It was so not necessary. Again, they used a gang as the killers. Only the first gang from the original "Crow" was more realistic, in fact besides Erik coming back from the dead, the first movie was very realistic. "City of Angels" on the other hand is more magical and fantasy like. The characters also were not well developed like in the first one. This wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't good either. I was in a lot of denial to see this movie. All I could think was "How could they do this to one of the coolest movies of all time?". To me, "City of Angels" didn't exist. But I was curious, and this is what I got.

8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretty lame
Bogey Man29 June 2002
Crow 2: City of Angels is directed by Tim Pope, pretty unknown name for me. The film is not a sequel as it has totally new story and characters, and only similarity to Alex Proyas' original seems to be the revenging dead guided by a crow. This time Ashe (Vincent Perez) and his son are killed by some hooligans and their sick leader and soon Ashe comes back to life with a crow guiding him. He meets a beautiful girl Sarah (Mia Kirshner) and most likely falls in love with her. He starts to kill the guys who killed him and his son, and he does it with skill, as always. The film is set in some hellish netherworld where evil is everywhere, and also the criminals who killed our hero are very bad and evil, if not too believable all the time.

The atmosphere of the film is occasionally pretty impressing and the presence of evil and feeling of depravity is powerful. Mia Kirshner's character brings some positivism to the story and she is among the few positive characters in this film. There are couple of great visuals and styles like fast editing and impressive cinematography techniques, and there is also dust and colorful smoke everywhere. These create great atmosphere for the film, and that's almost all this film managed to give me.

The bad guys are bad and one is played by Iggy Pop. They should have been little more believable as now they become little irritating and stupid, as usually in these movies. Also, it would've been nice, if the film had had some spirit and message under its surface; now it's just empty revenge story without any point.

The film is also often little slow moving and even boring. In fact, I felt myself almost uncomfortable during the last scene at the street when nothing seemed to happen or happen logically or satisfyingly. The film has too many easy conclusions and that makes the demanding viewer feel stupid and willing to stop the viewing. It is great that there are still those visual elements and angel like Mia that keep the film together and made it possible to watch without falling asleep.

The tone of the film is pretty depressing as this tries to be as rough and violent as possible, but still I think the first film is far more impressive. Crow 2 is also dark, dirty and gritty but not as rough experience as all the adverts said on the DVD cover (not that I believed them, but still). However, I found these mentioned merits from this film and so give this 4/10 and recommend mostly for fans of exploitation/trash/horror cinema; in other words for those who have used to seeing not so great movies and movies that most people cannot even sit through. There are also many great bands in the soundtrack of the film.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What a waste
Oorag22 February 2000
They almost had it. If someone else had had access to some of those sets and visuals, and the Crow franchise, I would bet green money that they could make a decent movie.

This movie is a laundry list of failures. It seems neither the actor nor the director were capable of making proficient action scenes, horribly missing the bar the first movie set. The plot is sluggish and the main character dull and apathetic. They stole a character from the original for use as a cheap plot device and thus tarnish the original. The villains of the movie aren't nearly as compelling, the main lackey looked 60 years old. Then to wrap it all up the film dies on a convulsion of bizarre, pulled-out-the-rear nonsense.

Bad bad bad! For shame!
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Shouldn't had been made.
Walter_Skinner8 August 2011
Although his this a painfully sleep inducing movie this movie shouldn't had been made because it and it's sequels tarnish the image of the first movie. Although this has never stopped Hollywood from making movies before. This movie doesn't even seem like a Crow movie. It seems like a very typical revenge movie (something that the original Crow movie managed to make work for itself) you don't really care about the characters, the movie is obviously put on a lower budget, and it's the kind of movie that you can't help but not get involved in. It really seems like you could go out to eat, watch a different movie, and then come back and you wouldn't had missed anything. The movie also relies far too much on the clichés of the first movie (the following sequels also do that as well though.)
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
There are no words....
canids3 November 2003
Where do I begin? I can't believe I wasted 1 hour of my life to this pitiful excuse for a movie. I know that sequels are never as good as the original, but this is an outstanding example of an attempt at sponging off of the success of a well made movie with a low-budget piece of crap.

Bad acting. Bad direction. Bad lighting. Bad camera angels. Bad special effects. And a story that, though searching for originality, ends up being a copy-cat version of the original "The Crow" movie.

This movie is a stain on Brandon Lee's memory. "The Crow" was his legacy. His greatest role. I will have to watch the original several dozen times to purge my mind of this insulting waste of film.

Watch the original "The Crow." Avoid the sequel at all costs!
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed