|Page 1 of 16:||          |
|Index||158 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain 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,
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...
Many people who claim to be crowfans say that this film isn't what the
is all about but they don't bother to explain why. Many of those people
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
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.
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.
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
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 universe....so, 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.
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.
*** This review may contain 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
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.
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.
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 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.
*** This review may contain 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.
|Page 1 of 16:||          |
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|