 | |
List Price: $19.99 | | Label: Walt Disney Video
Salesrank: 78284
Released: February 4, 1998 |
| Our Price: $8.99 |
| Used Price: $3.13 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
Because of his tragic death on the set of The Crow, we'll never know if Brandon Lee would have turned one successful film into a popular series. But one look at this tepid sequel suggests that not even the charismatic Lee could have rescued The Crow movies from the burden of a lackluster screenplay. Based on the popular comic books by James O'Barr, this sequel finds Vincent Pérez as a man named Ashe, who is murdered along with his young son by a gang of drug-running thugs under the employ of slimy kingpin Judah Earl (Richard Brooks). Ashe is resurrected with the help of a tattoo artist named Sarah (Mia Kirschner), whereupon he begins a campaign of revenge against his killers. More a rehash than a sequel, the film repeats the grungy, dark look of urban decay from The Crow, but its combination of violence, heavy-handed symbolism, and tacky sentiment make this a film strictly for nihilistic teens. Then again, no movie in which veteran punkster Iggy Pop plays a sleazeball can be considered a total loss. --Jeff Shannon
The Crow: City of Angels Reviews:
Dosent live up to the legacy 
2009-10-05 - The first crow was an amazing film.haunting and beautiful. This one had so much potential but ultimatly falls a bit short, the main character ash is not as interesting as eric from the first one and at times ash sounds like he barly knows english.i think they shound has founded the same template as the first film and the tow that followed this one by having the crow avatar come back to avenge the murder of him and his girlfriend not his son like this one.to me it didnt seem as powerful or moving.it get three stars because the music was good and it is a crow movie afetr all and i love the crow mythos and the idea that true love lives forever.watch if your a fan and are curious but dont expect the power or emotion of the first crow film.
LJ
2009-08-04 - This film is okay. It gives you a different atmosphere and feeling of the second coming. But Perez lacks Brandon Lee's magnetism
A slap in the face to O'Barr, and all involved with the original film 
2009-07-06 - 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.
Pretty much torpedoed the Crow franchise, but it's really not that bad
2009-04-12 - As a fan of Eric Proyas "The Crow" (1994) and James O'Barr's graphic novel I was somewhat hesitant to view the follow-up, especially since it received such poor reviews. I didn't want my enjoyment of the first film to be tarnished by a mediocre sequel, but I figured, "what the heck" and went ahead and rented it. While at first I considered Tim Pope's "The Crow: City of Angels" (1996) to be a huge disappointment, especially when one compares it to the original, in all honesty, it's not that bad of a film and it has its redeeming qualities.
The cinematography is somewhat of a mixed-bag. While the original film was dark and bleak, it was done with elegance and style, "City of Angels," by contrast with its intrusive soundtrack and heavy-handed glumness, can come across as cartoonish--like a B horror movie or a Marilyn Manson/Rob Zombie video. Still, the post-apocalyptic vision of the future with its barren, hopeless, filthy landscape is captivating.
While the plot is essentially just a rehash of the first movie, except a father/son are the murdered victims instead of a couple, the father's devotion is touching. The gang of bad guys (with the exception of Iggy Pop) are mostly mostly faceless, although the chief bad guy, (some bald dude) with his narcissistic, psychopathic personality is kind of interesting. The ending is somewhat confusing and disappointing, with the main villain taking away all of the Crow's power only to be overtaken by a flock of crows? Huh? Although the last scene, with the Crow and his son going to "a better place" is good way to conclude the film.
As for the character of the Crow himself , while Brandon Lee's character was funny, savage and human, Vincent Perez (as Ash) in this film comes across as a soap opera actor, a good lucking guy with a wooden delivery going through the motions. Mia Kirshner, the Crow's love interest, serves no real purpose to the storyline and her death at the end is entirely pointless to the narrative.
"City of Angles" best character is Iggy Pop, as the vile thug "Curve" and is easily as good as "Tin Tin" or "Funboy" from the original movie. I also enjoyed the scenes of the Crow (the actual bird, not Perez) in flight--some very cool cinematography there.
A commercial and critical failure, "The Crow: City of Angels" pretty much torpedoed the Crow franchise, with next few movies going straight-to-video. Still, this film isn't bad and while obviously not the original, is worth renting if you liked the fist movie.
Crow 2- much of the same 
2008-11-23 - This movie is really good. However, it tries to hard to be like the original Crow. The similarities make it feel more like a remake than a sequel. For an interesting twist and a good solid sequel you should buy; "The Crow; Salvation". But if you are like me and you want the whole collection it is still a good watch.
