User Reviews

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.

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.

This movie I saw pretty close to when I watched the original I believe right after college. I didn't think it was all that great and wasn't thrilled to give this a rewatch. I didn't remember much from it, but I will say there are some pretty solid names in it that I noticed when the credits were rolling. The synopsis here is the spirit of the Crow resurrects another man seeking revenge for the murder of his son.

We start this off with getting an off-color look at what happens to Ashe Corven (Vincent Perez) and his son Danny (Eric Acosta). They're murdered by a group of criminals and then thrown off the pier. Sarah (Mia Kirshner) was having the nightmare of what happened to the two. She's a painter and she's working on one of a man with many faceless people behind him, crouched and holding the body of a woman. Sarah is also a tattoo artist along with Noah (Ian Dury). Sarah also has an interaction with a homeless girl, Grace (Beverly Mitchell), who she offers to get food and coffee for. It should be pointed out that Sarah is the little girl from the original film all grown up.

The criminals that we saw earlier all work for Judah Earl (Richard Brooks). He's having a meeting of his best members where they kill one for not producing like they should. He tries to claim it was a bad batch of drugs and to prove this, they test it on that man. It kills him so they learn he was right. The others though are Curve (Iggy Pop), Nemo (Thomas Jane), Kali (Thuy Trang) and Spider Monkey (Vincent Castellanos). Judah also has a blind woman Sybil (Tracey Ellis) who is an oracle. She tells him prophecies to help keep him alive.

Sarah is brought to the pier where Ashe was killed and he wakes up in the water. She brings him back to her place to help him and informs him that the Crow has returned him to life to seek revenge for what happened to him. She paints his face similar to that of Eric from the original, which is similar to the theater masks from the past. Ashe first seeks out Spider Monkey to learn all those that were involved with what happened to him. Judah is alerted to this though through Sybil and tries to find a way to stop this avenging spirit.

I want to lead this part of here stating that I really like the original film. I didn't actually see it until after college and probably right before I saw this film for the first time. I could tell that there was a pretty noticeable step down even back then. Now watching this with a critical eye, I still feel similar, but I'll start with what I liked here first though.

The first thing is that I like continuing on with the mythology of The Crow. This film doesn't really introduce anything new though. The only difference here is that Ashe and his son were murdered instead of a man with his fiancé. I like that it is establishing that it can extend its powers to others in a similar situations. This is also interesting that Sarah is the same character from the first film, so it is good to have her as the bridge for continuity. Going along with the powers of this character, at the end we do see our character briefly losing them, which this being a semi-super hero/comic book film, you should probably know something like that will happen. Here though, we do see our villain becoming stronger and I like that they play with this to be a bit different. Having Sybil to relay the supernatural is something that works so we can get how this movie plays out.

Something that is both a positive and negative for me is where this movie takes place. With the name, I could tell that this is supposed to be Los Angeles. I did read that the look of the city is a hybrid of LA from the 1920s and 1940s. This gives it an odd feel which did work for me. The feel is also like we're seeing a legend play out. We have modern things like guns, but we have a supernatural force bringing back a man who's been killed and seeking revenge. The villains are listening to an oracle and I got a vibe of seeing like a Jason and the Argonauts in modern times. I also think that the feel of the city is also not realistic. It is the Wild West with no police being in the movie. The villains are running the city so it does give like we're seeing a Western town from that era where an unlikely hero needs to show up to clean it for the residents to finally live without fear. It does take some believability away for me though.

Going along these lines, it does have a lot of elements that I would expect me to really enjoy. I have laid out the things above, but regardless I found it to be boring. I never really connected with Ashe and for whatever reason it never held my attention. I think in part of that is The Crow version of him is just too powerful. By the time he becomes vulnerable, I'm already checked out. I also don't think that it does the best in building the characters up. The ending is fine, but nothing to really get me excited either. I just found this to be boring overall.

This is also quite shocking as we have some really good actors here. Pop is someone that just really plays himself and I like what he does with the role of Curve. Plus is fun to see Jane as Nemo who is a pervert. He isn't given a lot to work with and I thought Pop was just fine. Perez just doesn't pull me in like Brandon Lee did in the first movie. He plays the role okay with the physicality, but The Crow is such a tragic character and I didn't feel it. Kirshner is cute, but she feels underutilized as well. Brooks doesn't feel fleshed out enough to be this evil villain he's supposed to be. We get a bit, but it's a forgettable performance. Castellanos and Trang are all fine as well as Ellis, but no one really stands out.

That will take me to effects of this movie. We get some practical effects and we get some CGI as well. The practical effects are fine. No issues there. We do get some really good establishing shots to give us a feel of this city that we're living in and it really is comic book like. That takes away the realism where I feel there's only like 50 people living in this world that we're in. I think grounding this slightly would have helped. There is some really bad CGI in this movie as well, especially things that we get with the actual birds in the movie.

The last thing would be the soundtrack. It is hard for me to come down too hard. This is a 90's film, with a soundtrack that feels like the era. It just didn't really add a lot for me and I almost wonder if that is where a good portion of the budget went to. Too many of the songs are playing in the background with the words and it was distracting too be honest to following the dialogue of the movie for sure.

Now with that said, I don't mind what this movie is trying to do, but it fell short in my opinion. I like showing us that The Crow can give its powers to someone else who has been wrong and this film follows a similar formula to the first one. I don't mind the comic book feel mixed the Old West town, but it doesn't feel grounded and I think we need that. I was bored for the most part. Most of the acting performances are fine, but underutilized or uninspired. The effects are hit or miss and the soundtrack fits for what they needed, but was a bit distracting for me. I found this to be below average for sure and would avoid unless you absolutely love this series.

4.5/10

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.

This movie was bad. I don't just mean bad, I mean BAD. Bad story, bad acting, no point. Painful to watch. Completely missing any element that made the original such a special film. This film should only be viewed as an academic exercise into what can go wrong with a movie.

I'm serious, I mean, how could a movie ever be expected to live up to the potential that "The Crow" did? Even though I saw what they were trying to do, I didn't think it was that bad. Continuing for the crow to bring people back to avenge their horrible deaths wasn't a bad idea. What came into this bad idea was that they used the same exact story and fight moves as the first Crow. Bringing Sarah back also wasn't too necessary. She's a sort of depressed loner that just seems to get worse and worse from the first story. You mostly wonder what happened between her and her mother, what does she remember from Erik, and her and Ashe? The love story? It was so not necessary. Again, they used a gang as the killers. Only the first gang from the original "Crow" was more realistic, in fact besides Erik coming back from the dead, the first movie was very realistic. "City of Angels" on the other hand is more magical and fantasy like. The characters also were not well developed like in the first one. This wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't good either. I was in a lot of denial to see this movie. All I could think was "How could they do this to one of the coolest movies of all time?". To me, "City of Angels" didn't exist. But I was curious, and this is what I got.

4/10

Considering the tragic death of actor Brandon Lee during an on-set accident didn't stop Hollywood from completing the original Crow film, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that the premise quickly got exploited even further with a couple of (very inferior) sequels. James O'Barr's brilliant comic strip idea revives as a boisterous and 80-minutes-lasting music video that doesn't feature the slightest bit of creativity. As informed by the title, the setting moved from Detroit to Los Angeles and, no matter how hard director Tim Pope and his crew try to reproduce the original's brooding atmosphere, it's just not dark or disturbing enough! The story is pretty much identical, with a resurrected father avenging his own murder and – especially – that of his 5 year old son by a violent gang of drug dealers. The best story elements are simply copied from the original film (such as the big boss' spiritual sidekick and even the entire capture-the-crow finale) and the acting performances all are far below average. Vincent Perez is forgiven though, as I realize it's an ungrateful part to play after Brandon Lee, but particularly main bad guy Richard Brooks comes out really weak. Positive aspects include an exciting, albeit messy, climax sequence and a memorable supportive role for rock star Iggy Pop as the rough biker-gangster.

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 raped movie.

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.

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 original.

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.

9.5/10

The Crow: City of Angels is the sequel to the amazing 1994 film "The Crow." While in some ways it tries too hard to be like the first, the film also succeeds in other areas, such as emotion and style. While not as good as it could have been, it is still pretty enjoyable.

Story: The film begins in post-apocalyptic Los Angeles, with a grown up Sarah, who as you may recall, is the little girl from the original. She has visions of another man rising up. In comes Ashe, a single father raising a son, Danny. Ashe and Danny accidentally witness a gang attack, and therefore, are attacked and killed themselves. Guess what happens? Ashe returns from the grave to seek vengeance. One by one, Ashe hunts down those responsible for his murder, which eventually leads him to Judah, a drug kingpin and crime lord of the city. The story really focuses on Ashe's pain of losing his sun, and there are some really powerful and emotional moments in the film.

Directing: Tim Pope is an acclaimed music video director, and his knack for music videos really shines in this film. While he sets and certain mood and doesn't let it up, the movie really jumbles around in terms of style. It's like watching one huge rock video, and at time, it can be a little hard on the eyes. Most scenes were staged quite well, and other than the style, Pope did an adequate job.

Acting: Vincent Perez(Ashe) did an excellent job with his part. He had a lot to contend with, such as filling Brandon Lee's shoes. Regardless, he shined, and in his scenes of pain and grief, I really felt for him. Bravo. Mia Kirshner(Sarah) did great with what she had. I felt that the character was wasted in the film, but she did fine. Richard Brooks(Judah) played the sadistic drug-lord quite effectively, although I never really had an opinion of the character either way. That could be the fault of Brooks, the director, or the writer. I'm not sure which. Iggy Pop(Curve) overacted beyond belief, and I was quite amused.

Score: Once again Graeme Revelle proved himself an excellent composer. His music helps the mood incredibly. I only wish more of his music was in the film, and less of the hard rock.

Violence: While it is felt and implied everywhere, there really isn't tons of on screen violence, and when it was there, it wasn't overly bloody, though it had quite a brutal feel to it. The violence was in your face, and not overly entertaining or exciting like in the first film.

Profanity/Sexual Themes: Strong language throughout. The f-bomb is used all through the film. There is also a lot of S&M in the film, as well as female nudity.

Substance Abuse: The film is about a drug-lord, so, there is quite a bit of drug use in the film. Almost all the villain characters snort the coke-like drug, Trinity.

Overall: The Crow: City of Angels was a decent sequel, and really excelled in some ares, although it failed in others. If you're a fan of the first, it's worth a look. I really dug the fact that the movie was mostly about the pain of losing a loved one. It's a pretty stylish adventure. 7/10

Well, big fan of the first Crow movie, like a lot of people. This extremely unfocused and soulless sequel opened the floodgates for the Crow franchise and more family-orientated versions, in the same way that the Robocop franchise disappeared down the toilet.

Not a huge amount of sense nor drive about the narrative, this version has been over-edited so it's often confusing what is going on, big holes in character motivation, you end up not caring about any of the characters.

Whereas the first film conjured up a magnificent air of Gothic gloom, this one just isn't nasty enough, and that's how revenge thrillers work - you need to know how bad the bad guys are and how horribly the hero has been wronged to care about his mission to avenge himself and take some pleasure when he ices a bad guy. What you get here is a watered-down version that misfires on a number of levels, the acting isn't great and the script truly sucks, but I can forgive those if there is something genuine at the film's core. There is something wholly ingenuine at this movie's core however, even the photography and iconography plays like a long soulless rock video, full of its own importance but actually delivering nothing. Proper turkey

Many people who claim to be crowfans say that this film isn't what the Crow is all about but they don't bother to explain why. Many of those people only 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

Just about the most time I have ever wasted in my life watching this rip-off of the original "The Crow". It is an insult to Brandon Lee, and to any true fan of the original. For anyone one ignorant enough to say that it is nothing like the original is either blind or mentally handicapped. It is a disgusting sequel and the writers, producers, actors, and anyone involved in the production of this piece of trash should hang their heads in shame and leave the movie industry forever. I read a comment that said "The Crow - City Of Angels" was nothing like the original masterpiece, they could not be more wrong, it was a shameless scam of "The Crow" for example the dark setting of the movie, the make-up on the wanna-be Brandon Lee, and even the character name "Sarah". Please people if your going to defend a movie, have an argument (laughing). The Deftones were the only thing good about this movie and I would have rather just watched them perform.

Although his this a painfully sleep inducing movie this movie shouldn't had been made because it and it's sequels tarnish the image of the first movie. Although this has never stopped Hollywood from making movies before. This movie doesn't even seem like a Crow movie. It seems like a very typical revenge movie (something that the original Crow movie managed to make work for itself) you don't really care about the characters, the movie is obviously put on a lower budget, and it's the kind of movie that you can't help but not get involved in. It really seems like you could go out to eat, watch a different movie, and then come back and you wouldn't had missed anything. The movie also relies far too much on the clichés of the first movie (the following sequels also do that as well though.)

Where do I begin? I can't believe I wasted 1 hour of my life to this pitiful excuse for a movie. I know that sequels are never as good as the original, but this is an outstanding example of an attempt at sponging off of the success of a well made movie with a low-budget piece of crap.

Bad acting. Bad direction. Bad lighting. Bad camera angels. Bad special effects. And a story that, though searching for originality, ends up being a copy-cat version of the original "The Crow" movie.

This movie is a stain on Brandon Lee's memory. "The Crow" was his legacy. His greatest role. I will have to watch the original several dozen times to purge my mind of this insulting waste of film.

Watch the original "The Crow." Avoid the sequel at all costs!

In the City of Angels, auto mechanic Ashe (Vincent Perez) and his son Danny (Eric Acosta) witness a murder by drug dealers. On orders from the sadistic kingpin Judah Earl (Richard Brooks), both Ashe and Danny are shot and thrown into the water. Meanwhile Sarah (Mia Kirshner) in the years since the loss of her friend Eric Draven and his return as The Crow has moved to the City of Angels working as a tattoo artist. Sarah is haunted by visions of the Crow and Ashe's death and eventually finds him where he emerges resurrected by The Crow to exact his revenge with Sarah serving as a guiding figure for Ashe.

1994's The Crow was a sleeper hit, despite a troubled production history that resulted in original distributor Paramount dropping the film after the unfortunate death of Brandon Lee in a prop gun setpiece gone horribly wrong leaving many to wonder whether the film would be completed at all. An 11th hour rescue by Miramax who used then new compositing technology to finish key scenes Lee had not yet shot allowed the film to be released and the film became a sleeper hit becoming the first bonafide blockbuster for Miramax's fledgling genre label Dimension. The success of The Crow spurred interest in producers Jeff Most and Edward R. Pressman and distributor Dimension in a sequel and the group contacted James O'Barr who wrote the comic to pitch a concept, but as O'Barr had become good friends with Lee prior to his death he wasn't able to do so but did give his blessing on the film. Producers had reached out to fans asking what they'd wanted to see in a crow sequel with the fans stating they didn't want to do a repeat of the first film and to leave Brandon Lee's Eric Draven character alone and at rest. This gave producers the ground they needed to follow an anthology direction for the series with only the character of Sarah returning (now played by a different actress as years had passed between the stories in film) and music video director Tim Pope was hired based on his short film Phone. Pope and writer David S. Goyer set out to create a new story for The Crow that would be tonally and thematically different from the first one. When Pope presented his director's cut to Bob and Harvey Weinstein, they absolutely hated how far City of Angels differed from the previous film and demanded the film be recut to be more in line with the '94 film. The 160-minute cut screened for the Weinsteins was chopped to 84 minutes and upon release to theaters was eviscerated by fans and critics but did make just enough (though a far cry from its predecessor) that Pressman would try to salvage the brand with a syndicated TV series and a third Crow film. The unreleased director's cut of City of Angels has left a legacy of its own in a similar way The Crow did, but unlike The Crow being a somber and hauntingly beautiful final appearance from the gone too soon Brandon Lee, The Crow: City of Angels is a tragic reminder of a vision rendered blind by executive interference.

To start off on a positive note, the visuals on and production design in City of Angels differ from the first film's depiction of Detroit but still feel like they're set within the same dark and grungy universe. Unlike the gray washed out color palette of The Crow that tried to be (relatively) monochromatic to create a noirish look that respected the black & white artwork of the original source comic, City of Angels creates a decidedly different city. Unlike Detroit which was painted in hopelessness, ruin, and neglect, City of Angels is painted as a city of smoke, vice, and excess with the constant heavy layer of smog creating a vision of a city that is choking on poison (both metaphorically and literally). The streets are lined with broken glass and used packets of Judah Earl's drugs and it's a very visually interesting and tangible world created by the filmmakers especially considering their budget was less than their predecessor by about $2 million ($10 million if you count the money Miramax spent doing salvage work). The city is bathed in sickly yellows, greens, and oranges and anyone who remembers driving through Los Angeles at night in the 90s will recall those same colors and City of Angels does a good job of creating an alternate universe lens of this city using that inspiration.

Where the movie falters however is in the story as the plot is anemically thin (in the theatrical version) as we basically go through the same story as the first film only instead of The Crow avenging his fiancé he's avenging his son. Sarah is the only returning character from the first film and has aged since the last film, but there's unfortunately not all that much to her in this film as she kind of acts as a sort of mentor to Ashe (I guess) but it's very muddled and not all that clear. The villains are also not especially developed and are portrayed as repackages of the ones we saw in the first Crow only with even less to distinguish them. This goes on to the really confusing ending which shows clear signs of being a hatchet job complete with a tacked on happy ending that fits about as well as a square peg in a round hole and doesn't feel thematically connected to the imagery and foreshadowing present in the rest of the movie.

The good news however is there is a fan edit (that has the approval of director Tim Pope himself) called The Crow: City of Angels: Second Coming made by a YouTube creator known as Digital Clay Production (DCP). The DCP edit uses a mixture of deleted scenes, trailer shots, production stills, and written lines and direction from the script to make the movie more in line with Pope's vision and even being the patchwork job that it is, it's still infinitely more satisfying and thematically resonant with elaborations on the villains, scenes that were odd out of context and now make more sense within their original place, and a tragic love story between Sarah and Ashe that hits all the right notes and leaves us with a more appropriate ending that fits with the tone. Had this version been what was released to theater City of Angels probably wouldn't have topped the scores of the original Crow film, but it probably would've been somewhere between a 6 and a 7 on IMDb instead of a 4.7 (surprisingly it's gone up from the 3.9 it was a few years ago). Many still hold out hope for a proper release of this cut of the movie and stranger things have happened (how long did we wait for a proper release of Halloween 6's Producer's Cut?).

The Crow: City of Angels is a mess of a movie, but that mess is squarely on the shoulders of the Weinstein brothers and Miramax. Even in the butchered theatrical cut of the film you can see the artistry and craft on display and even some of the acting comes through despite more muddled characterizations. If you do decide to watch City of Angels I highly recommend watching the DCP edit (usually found on YouTube under "Crow City of Angels FAN EDIT") and despite it being rather rough, it's an infinitely better film than the theatrical cut and delivers a tragic but engaging story.

I guess I was expecting a movie as good as the first Crow movie and I was terribly disappointed with City of Angels. Not only was it not even close to the superb acting and story line of the first Crow, it wasn't even close to being related to it in content, context, or special effects. This movie, rated as a movie by itself and not compared to the first Crow and Brandon Lee, is a mediocre half-baked attempt to keep The Crow alive. Extreme violence and a sexual scene that leaves nothing to the imagination makes this movie a candidate for late night viewing when all of the infomercials and paid programming is on. I would not watch it again and it did not stir me in the slightest like the first Crow movie did. Some gross scenes were not necessary and the movie could have been much better. The cast did a superb job though, and in recognition of their superior acting, this movie should not reflect badly on them. I hope the rest of the Crow movies are much better than this one.

As far l could read some comments from IMDB's users reviewers, the Crow's sequel they love or hate, l'll stay in the middle 7 out 10 is suitable enough according what l did watch last week, the director had a satisfactory outcome using a sepia green color in the framework, giving a dark and scary atmosphere to the picture, the leading role played by Vincent Perez is a low pattern as your forerunner, the remaining cast is quite acceptable, barring Iggy Pop in another outstanding and usually performance, anyway unless otherwise agreed is my final opinion!!!

Resume:

First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7

After the cinematic masterpiece that was "The Crow" came this truly dreadful sequel. Playing as more remake than continuation of the original film, it offers nothing new whatsoever to the Crow storyline and only goes to serve as a reminder of how great the original was.

Everything about this film is a mess, from the horrendous visual look of the film (substitute visual flair for tacky colour filters), to the flat "acting by numbers" from the leads.

If you want to see a good sequel to The Crow, don't waste your time with this one, check out "The Crow: Salvation" instead which is a far superior film and a worthy continuation of the Crow legend.

Rating: 1/10 (I Only gave it the 1 for the Rob Zombie song on the soundtrack!)

I decided to revisit this film tonight. I remember the excitement for it and how my friends and I showed up at the theater opening night to just find disappointment. It is a pretty film, very dark and with a decent story and characters, but we judged it very hard, because it wasn't what we felt we were promised. Over the years, I have come back to this movie a few times and each time, I liked it s bit more.

Being so removed from the time it was released, it has aged in some strange way, or maybe I have, to distinguish itself from the first and as its own film.

With that, I really, kind of, like it.

If you can drop the whole "crow" tie to the original, yo may find a underrated film that is far better than memory let's you believe.

The Crow is one of my favorite films. After seeing the Crow II I had a different feeling, Sarah's dead is strange, it would be a better end when she won't die. Also is the film a undirected follow up of the first. People that didn't see the first one might be confused. They should better introduce Sarah as the girl from the first movie. Also I missed sometimes "the crow" feeling, The Crow - City of Angels is more commercial & action minded, I miss the emotional & psychological dialog in this movie. I also miss the story over Sybil, she tells how the kill Ashe but at the end she helps Sarah ... All by all is The Crow 2 is a good movie but some scenes are wasted & other scenes are not clear. Conclusion: 7/10, but if you seen the first one, I recommend to see the second one.

How could someone cheapen a movie so good as "The Crow" by comeing out with a sequel. All I have to say was they were not thinking about plot, style or quality....Just cash

"Hey lets use the name of a great movie to bring the kiddies in so we can fatten our wallet!"

I wish the voting area has the ability to give a movie a -10, because thats what I would give this movie