IMDb > City of Angels (1998) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
City of Angels
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
City of Angels More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 7 of 32: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [Next]
Index 314 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Bad

1/10
Author: anca maria ciubotariu from Romania
30 January 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So, I just saw the movie now in 2014. My opinion? Was really bad. Maybe I would have felt different if I saw it in 1998. Who knows? First of all why all the angels are a bunch of 40 years old man dressed in black? Seems so wrong. The general idea about angels: androgynous looking characters and young. I understand that they wanted a new idea from the general notion of angels but still...Cage with a huge amount of chest hair is not a credible angel. Sorry. Also I don' t want to see some funny looking people like Ryan and Cage making love on screen. Too gross! The angels were supposed to be much more specialized on different areas. What kind of angel was he, the guardian angel, the angel that helped people who just died? Why all the angels were loitering in the library, what logic is in that?

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

City of Somnambulance...

2/10
Author: Howlin Wolf from Oldham, Gtr Manchester, England.
31 March 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I want to make it clear that I'm not against representing the concept of angels in movies... It's just laughable the way it's done in this instance - Cage walking around, perma-brooding, dressed all in black, acting stoned to convey his 'otherworldliness' and constantly speaking in hushed tones... and then, to contrast, you cast Dennis Franz as the 'happy' angel who's crossed over into human existence (See? He must be happy because of his ruddy complexion and physique... so we'll make sure that he's eating when the viewer sees him, just so we can hammer home the point... )

The crisis that provokes the climax of the movie is utterly ridiculous, in the way that it's shown. I mean, what do you expect when you're riding the bike with your eyes closed, and a "Look ma, no hands!" expression?! ... and why would you do this? Joy is not an excuse for stupidity.

When you've seen movies such as "The Seventh Seal", which contemplates the realities of human existence, then movies like "City of Angels" just seem manipulative, you know? I have yet to see it, but I have no doubt that "Wings of Desire" (of which this is apparently a pandering remake) will bear this out, too.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Terrible, terrible movie *contains minor spoilers*

2/10
Author: thejeenius
19 March 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Oh, look! It's one of those typical Hollywood remakes that no one actually cares about! Who would've thought? To sum it up: your time will be better spent doing something else. This movie reeks of tear-jerking, prototypical love scenes and particularly cheesy effects. Even when Nicholas (that stupid angel) takes off his shoes at the beach you can tell something's not right. You really have to wonder if anyone's supposed to take this seriously with all the flaws that it has. Also, if you're not in on the whole "angel" thing this movie won't do for you. There's really nothing else to say here. It's the epitome of blandness.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A small comment from an unconditional fan of meg Ryan.

10/10
Author: noritaka01 from Vietnam
31 May 2011

The movie is not the best however through my subjective eyes, I got to say that meg Ryan is wonderful as always... :-) However, the movie miss a bit of dynamism and the discover of feelings and of the new world for cage should have been a bit more complex as I guess it would be really complex to got all of that after years without feeling anything! The storyline is not really interesting and should have been more deep, dealing with more the concept of death and life. But it is still a love story fresh and simple.

To summarize I love meg Ryan. but beside the whole love story I rather see a deeper perspective on life and death and I think that we can still find this kind of thought even though it is a love story.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Oh deary me, what a waste of time.

2/10
Author: michael thompson from United Kingdom
13 April 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really really really really, wanted to like this film, but I didn't.

I do like fantasy films, but watching this film was like watching paint dry.

I thought Dennis Franz, Meg Ryan, and Nicholas Cage were all miscast.

The story of Angels appearing on earth was a good one, but it was played half hearted, I felt the acting was awful, I felt that the whole thing was a complete waste of time and effort.

I wanted more than a love story between Meg Ryan, and Nicholas Cage.

I wanted more than Meg Ryan getting killed in a road accident, and Nicholas Cage finding he was able to feel things as a human, something he was denied as an Angel.

Basically I didn't think that either Nicholas Cage, Meg Ryan, or even Dennis Franz, took their roles seriously.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Ordinary and Heavily Flawed....

4/10
Author: haider ejaz (hyder_sagg2003) from Pakistan
15 December 2010

I had the DVD for a long time but today I finally decided to watch it. I was not hoping for something very good but my hopes were not bad either. The movie was pretty much bad, looked completely unauthentic, Characters were not well defined(performances were very better).

A few scenes caught in slow motion were catchy but overall the movie had poor content.Direction was poor, so was the screenplay and story. I like both Meg Ryan and Nicolas Cage but not in this movie.

It was supposed to be a love story b/w a human and a Angle but I must say, it had a poor story and a lot of flaws.I didn't like it.

The only good thing in it was Meg and Nicolas Cage.

4.5/10. Won't recommend unless you like the cast.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Predictable even by the weakest of Hollywood standards

3/10
Author: OutOfTimeMan from Sweden
21 August 2010

The lack of quality in this film is unbelievable. People rarely expect anything from huge Hollywood blockbusters, but in general, the amount of money invested makes for a picture that is acceptable if you can get past the clichés that have to be thrown in there to please everybody. But this one IS a huge cliché from start to finish. As far as Hollywood dramas are concerned, this is the worst film I've ever seen.

I did have a bad feeling from the start. Films with "interesting idea" for a plot are usually extremely poor in everything besides this "idea", which in this case is the whole angel bit thing. Ooh there are angels all around dressed in black jackets. He falls in love with a girl and now wants to be human. But if you're smart enough, you know that this is just a very shallow way of making a film.

Anyway, even with the lack of expectations after this, I was amazed at how extremely boring and predictable it was. No humor whatsoever and even the acting sucks, but I guess there wasn't much to work on with a script like this.

Whoever made this should be ashamed

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A singular achievement

1/10
Author: winopaul from United States
15 May 2010

The singular achievement of this film is inspiring the forth great comment I have ever read. That comment is: "It's as if Ed Wood were given a $50 million budget." That comment was left by the trenchant fubared1. This complements the three previous great comments I have read on IMDb. The first and perhaps greatest is: "This is what happens when your mother owns a production company" left regarding the horrid Dungeons and Dragons. The second great comment was about the second sequel, The Bourne Ultimatum. A woman rightly noted, "Get a tripod and some lights." The third great comment was "We get it!" observed about the heavy-handed treatment in Snow Falling on Cedars.

After reading the Ed Wood comment about this film, I promptly downloaded the Johnny Depp flik, "Ed Wood". With that as background I watched Plan 9 from Outer Space and then the much more lyrical and subtext-laden Glen or Glenda. I had to disagree with the comment. I think Ed Wood could have made a much better movie than this with 50,000 dollars. I noted that the sound and music in both Ed Wood films was far superior to this film. No, lets not insult Ed Wood by comparing this film to his milieu.

I expect Hollywood movies to be scientifically implausible, heck this one is about imaginary beings called angels. But this movie is also technically implausible, socially implausible, and dramatically implausible. It just reeks badness from every pore. I did like that Sarah McLachlan song, Angel. Indeed, after hearing it on that PBS commercial for the ASPCA, I found her, then the whole song on YouTube, and then finally was led to this movie. I should have stopped while I was ahead.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

He will give up forever to touch her.

2/10
Author: Jerique (kris.hopson@hotmail.com) from Canada
22 July 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Fans of Meg Ryan will flock to see the Queen of Romance in yet another role where she wins not only your heart, but the heart of the world and a fan favourite Nicolas Cage.

While the story in City Of Angels is romantic and completely pulls you in with interest, leaves you with inspiration and tears in your eyes, the film will ultimately be a let-down for most people.

City Of Angels takes you on a warm fairy-tale like story to meet an angel named, Seth (Cage) fall so in love with a doctor named Maggie (Ryan) that he will give up being an angel to become a human and be with her.

It follows the cliché Hollywood movie guideline where the audience is tricked (doesn't work anymore does it?) into thinking Seth and Maggie won't be together. However, just when you think this movie will end with a Hollywood, happily ever after ending, you're shocked to your very core when they rip it all away.

Not trying to knock this masterpiece of a story, but the movie ended on the wrong path. It's realistic, but it makes you feel like asking "what was the point of investing the last ninety minutes into this?" Don't second guess yourself, movies are built around story and characters and when it doesn't end with either of them continuing, it's just down right an error in film making. Maggie's sudden death would make you- if you were Seth -regret deciding to become human.

On the other hand, Seth had to feel how humans feel when we lose someone who means the world to us. In that aspect, the movie is still a masterpiece and still good enough to be a seven out of ten.

Seth and the other angels constantly asked humans (once they died) what their favourite part of life was. With Maggie not being around for the last fifty-sixty years of Seth's life, what would be his favourite part of life?

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Ending of the movie

2/10
Author: ankur-a-agarwal from United States
20 July 2006

The ending of the movie broke my heart. I wish Maggie and Seth were able to live happily ever after. How very sad. I can only wish ... life stopped being so disappointing at times. Anyways, I guess Life's really crass, beyond comprehension and control and ruthless ( but its good too :-))!! But it goes on ... and time never stops no matter what happens. Everything and everyone of us is just a puppet in the hands of time ... going through different moods of life towards the ultimate reality of death and destruction. After watching this movie I felt as if I have lived my full life and known and experienced everything that was worth knowing: love, sacrifice, friendship, pain, heartbreak and death !

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 7 of 32: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history