The Crow: City of Angels | | Cast : | Vincent Perez, Mia Kirshner | | Director : | Tim Pope | | Studio : | Dimension Home Video | | Format : | Color, Widescreen | | Released Date : | August 30, 1996 | | DVD Released Date : | May 03, 2005 | | Language : | English (Dubbed) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 02, 2005 | | Summary | Stop comparing this to the first movie... | Content
 | After he and his son, Danny, are brutally murdered, Ashe Corven is resurrected by the "mystical" crow in order to avenge the slayings. He is transformed into "The Crow" by Sarah, now all grown up and living in L.A. She paints his face to match that of her first Crow, Eric Draven, and sets Ashe on his path to avenge his son and himself and reunite with Danny in death.
I'm one of the many Crow fans who actually liked the second movie. I thought the visuals were amazing. The colors of the city popped when they needed to and faded into the background when they needed to. The soundtrack was a mish-mosh of artists but the styles of all of the artists blended perfectly with the style of the movie.
Vincent Perez was great as the grieving father. Ashe wasn't supposed to be another Eric Draven, he is another character all by himself. Stop comparing him to Eric Draven and Brandon Lee!!!
Mia Kirshner was pretty good as an all grown up Sarah. Sarah had alot of crap happen to her, as we saw in the first movie. My only issue is that sometimes she has an "I'm so goth I'm dead" complex but that's her style of acting (check out the L-word if you don't believe me). If you read the comics it goes a little more into her character, not much, but enough.
This movie is an entirely different entity from the first movie. I love the first movie and hate that Brandon Lee will never know the acclaim he deserves for his last work, but don't hate the second movie out of principle. Watch the movie as if it was the only Crow movie to ever be made and then read the comic and you'll get a better understanding of the story as a whole as well as an appriciation for the hard job it was to create a sequel to a movie with the legacy left by the original. Plus a few plot holes and subplots may get cleared up, like that whole Ashe loves Sarah thing.
Don't listen to reviews of the movie by other people, including my own, watch the movie and make up your own mind. Remember that the movie isn't really a sequel, it's just another story in a franchise. Kind of like the comics.
|
| Rating | | | Date | July 13, 2005 | | Summary | The Worst of The Crow Sequels | Content
| Of course the original Crow is the best,but when it comes to the sequels this is the worst. The only reason I gave it 2 stars not 1 is because it is a Crow Movie. City of Angels should have gone straight to video and Salvation should have gone to theaters. Wicked Prayer is also way better. Watch it if you are a Crow fan though. |
| Rating | | | Date | June 28, 2005 | | Summary | A New Crow Shall Rise... | Content
| After the huge success of "The Crow", no one knew for certain where this possible franchise would go. The tragic death of the original film's star, Brandon Lee, left a gaping hole in the future of this franchise, a hole that if this series was to continue, must be filled. So it was decided that all future Crow films would revolve around a new lead character. Many fans felt this was desecrating the memory of Brandon Lee and his incredible performance in the original film, while me personally, though I believe Brandon Lee has been the best Crow to date, the premise of changing Crow's works perfectly with the original storyline and the way the first film ended really didn't leave much room to maneuver and continue the story of Eric Draven. Thus, the franchise changed direction and in my opinion it was for the better.
The next film in the series, "The Crow: City of Angels" is set in what appears to be Los Angeles, and the character Sarah from the original film (this time played by Mia Kirshner) has moved from the city in the first film and appears to be constantly on the move and is currently residing in L.A. She also seems to be linked to the mystical Crow, that resurrects some victims of vicious crimes to exact vengeance. The new Crow is a man named Ashe (Vincent Perez), whose son and himself were murdered after witnessing a drug-related murder. Ashe returns to life, and Sarah guides him on his quest for vengeance that leads him to the drug kingpin that is flooding the streets with a new drug that is basically destroying the city one life at a time.
"The Crow: City of Angels" continues the legacy of the Crow in a unique way. By changing landscapes and characters you get a fresh perspective for the franchise so as not to get stale even though the basic story is the same. In most films having the same concept for sequels would result in a crappy film, but not this time. Many fans hate this film, because they feel it focuses too much on Sarah and the villains rather than explaining Ashe's character and his motives for returning. When truly if you actually watch the movie and get past the fact that it's not Brandon Lee, this film does an excellent job of showing the viewer exactly why Ashe has returned. In a few flashbacks, a common occurrence in both the movies and the comic books, the audience clearly understands that Ashe loved his son dearly, and were victims of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that is why he has returned to right the wrong of him and his son's murder.
Good story, maybe a little weaker than the original, but still a great sequel to further the legacy of the Crow. Solid performances by the actors and an eerie environment make for a very enjoyable revenge adventure.
"The Crow: City of Angels" is rated R for violence, language, and sexuality/nudity. |
| Rating | | | Date | June 26, 2005 | | Summary | stardustmaiden | Content
| I think that people are a little over critical about this one. I've seen few sequels that are remotely as good as the first. If you take this one as a stand alone project, you might have a different interpretation. It is a little darker and heavier than the first. So you really have to be in to this sort of thing to watch it. Vincent Perez, who is a wonderful actor, pulls off the role rather nicely. However, I will have to agree with some of the other reviews about his character not being real sure of where he's going or what his role is. I loved the way it was shot and the color pallette that was used. It really stuck to the original in that respect. However, the big bad was pretty lame. But overall, I have to say that I enjoyed the different view and the story that was being told. So if that means that there is something wrong with me, then so be it. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 30, 2005 | | Summary | worst movie ever made | Content
| How bad is this movie? Let me put it this way: I demanded a refund when I rented this so-called movie.
It is a cross between a random collection of unrelated things that clueless marketing "experts" think need to be included to "sell" a "franchise", and trite soft-core gay fantasies that hack directors mistakenly believe are "artistic".
This movie is so horrible that even bad-movie aficionados will find nothing in it to enjoy.
Don't even think of wasting money on this; instead run away as fast as you can.
I'd award this one negative stars if I could. |
|
