The Crow: City of Angels (1996)

nTitle: The Crow: City of Angels (1996)

nDirector: Tim Pope

nCast: Vincent Perez, Mia Kirshner, Richard Brooks, Iggy Pop,nThomas Jane

nReview:

nWhen I first saw Alex Proyas’s The Crow (1994) in theaters,nI remember the film became an instant favorite of mine. I saw it a few times innthe theater, and when it was released on VHS, I showed it to as many people asnI could and I made it my own. Why? Well, it was a comic book movie, it wasndark, gothic, and had that undeniable rock and roll feel to it. I liked thenlook of the film, the attitude that it emanated and the fact that it was sonpoetic and violent at the same time. Then of course, there was Brandon Lee’snpowerhouse performance as Eric Draven, the titular Crow. Had he not mysteriouslyndied while shooting The Crow, this would have been the film that would’ve catapultednhim to stardom, no doubts about it. But alas, The Crow was to be Brandon Lee’snswang song, but hey, what a swan song! The first film was a complete success,nso many elements helped make that film memorable. Of course, a sequel was a nonbrainer, so Miramax issued a second take on The Crow. Expectations were highnfor me with this sequel, how did it fare when compared to the masterfulnoriginal?

nWell, to be honest, when compared to the original, The Crow:nCity of Angels does fall short, mainly in its last half, but I can’t reallynbring myself to say that this is a bad film, because it isn’t. The film doesnhave a flaw here and there, but I think the film has more pros than cons goingnfor it. I guess the best way to enjoy City of Angels is not to compare it tonthe original, though you will find this difficult since this films major flawnis its lack of originality. Though this is not entirely the filmmakers fault,nTim Pope the film’s director and David S. Goyer, the films writer, wanted tonmake a film that distinguished itself both visually and story wise from thenoriginal and to an extent I would say the succeeded in this. But Miramax wantedna Xerox copy of the original and so they took the film away from the director andnre-edited the thing to make it resemble the first film. Miramax is famous fornmessing with filmmakers visions, if you want to read a nightmarish tale of hownMiramax treats filmmakers, look into the production of Rob Zombie’s Halloween 2n(2009). Miramax has famously mistreated filmmakers to the point where they nevernwant to make another film again! Rob Zombie has stated he never wants to worknwith them again, and Tim Pope the director behind The Crow: City of Angelsnnever made another feature film again. Could it have something to do with thenway Miramax treated his vision? Probably. Both director and writer disowned thenfilm!

nStill, even through all these production woes, a watchablenfilm remains. The Crow: City of Angels, is not a total disaster in my book, itnhad enough redeeming qualities to keep me interested all the way through. Sonlet’s go through the positive points shall we? First off, I enjoyed the filmsnlook, which is very obviously a different color palette then the original film,nwhich was shrouded in darkness. At times, the original The Crow looks like anblack and white film. In contrast, The Crow: City of Angels is a colorful film.nIt still retains the grime and filth and the almost post-apocalyptic look, butnthe visuals are drenched in yellows, reds and purples, loved that about it. I guess some directors think comic-book films always equal lots of primary colors.

nAnother way in which this sequel differs to the original is innits setting. This film takes place entirely in Los Angeles, though it feelsnlike a run down, post apocalyptic, maybe even futuristic version of Los Angeles?nI don’t know how to describe it really, but it certainly isn’t the real LosnAngeles, rather, it’s a fantasy version of Los Angeles where everyonencelebrates the “Day of the Dead” as if it was Mardi Gras or something; anneternal festival where everyone is always walking around with skull masks,neating sugar candy. It kind of feels like you turned on a corner and ended upnin John Carpenter’s Escape from New York, this in my book adds to thenuniqueness of this sequel.

nIggy Pop plays ‘Curve’none of the films villains. Here he’s every bit as rebellious and loud as he isnin real life. Thomas Jane is practically unrecognizable as Nemo, one of thengoons who helps murder Ash Corven. He gets slaughtered by The Crow as he masturbates!nActing wise, the best one in the film is Vincent Perez as Ash Corven, thisnfilms vengeful zombie. Perez does a great job as The Crow in my book, he’s gotnthe look for the part and the acting chops too. He successfully conveys anguishnand despair over the brutal murder of his son. The weakest part of the film isnthe Crow’s antagonist, the villain Judah. The final clash between hero andnvillain is a complete letdown, nothing as epic and dramatic as Eric Draven vs.nTop Dollar fighting on top of a gothic church in the middle of a lightningnstorm. So we get a cool cast, but a weak villain.

nThe biggest detriment to the film is that it’s essentially anstep by step remake of the original. Sure this is a different crow, but same asnEric Draven, Ash Corven is killed in a fit of rage and out of that rage henreturns to avenge what was done to him. After his resurrection, same as thenoriginal, the film turns into The Crow killing each of the goons that wereninvolved in the murder. And just like in the first film, the films main villainnis a drug dealer who lives in a building, secluded from the rest of society. Henis also accompanied at all times by a clairvoyant, same as Top Dollar in thenoriginal The Crow. So as you can see, this film merely follows a formula, thisncould have something to do with Miramax meddling with the film, or thenfilmmakers unintentionally following the footsteps of the original, all I knownis the end result is too similar to the first film to ignore, which is probablynwhat got this one such bad reviews.

nThe thing with these Crow films is that none of them havenbeen able to top the classic original. All they’ve done is duplicate thenformula of revenge, but they’ve never really tweaked it, they’ve never takennthe ideas further than the original concept. Still, City of Angels isn’t antotal disaster, it’s got an interesting look to it, and its soundtrack ìs fillednwith lots of cool, grungy, 90’s tunes. We get bands like Bush, Filter, WhitenZombie, Korn, P.J. Harvey and Deftones; who by the way cameo in one scene. We alsonget a catchy tune by Hole entitled ‘Gold Dust Woman’ which by the way was usednto promote the film, I’ve always loved that song. This is the kind of film thatnhas rock tunes popping up through out the whole thing, which is something theynused to do a lot in the 80’s and 90’s in order to sell you that soundtrack,nstill, cheap gimmicks aside, the soundtrack for this film rocks and is a majornplus in my book. It’ll definitely take you back to the 90’s alternative scene. Thisnfilm was followed by The Crow: Salvation (2000) which has the same quality of not beingnhorrible, but not being memorable either. It was the terrible fourth filmednentitled The Crow: Wicked Prayer (2005) that brought the series to an end, nownthat one is truly atrocious there’s no denying that! I hear there’s a reboot innthe works for this franchise, here’s hoping they can recapture the gothicngrandeur of the original.

n
n

nRating 3: out of 5