Yar, you be here: City of Angels > Customer Reviews

City of Angels Customer Reviews (1 - 3 of 51 Reviews)

City of Angels Review
I love the product, it arrived in a timely manner and well packaged, thanks Amazon!

Rubie Ochoa
Houston, TX

American Pop Translation of Wenders' Classic Turns Lush Film into Romantic Whimsy
This 1998 romantic drama is as fanciful as fantasy movies come, and John Seale's beautiful cinematography goes a long way toward creating the dream-like quality essential to pull this type of movie off. Director Brad Silberling and screenwriter Dana Stevens have decided to amplify the romantic elements of Win Wenders' wondrous 1987 classic, "Wings of Desire", but stick to the basic plot elements. The transatlantic adaptation is not altogether successful because the greater themes of immortality and human fallibility in the original film have been submerged in favor of more individualized needs like sensuality and love. The thematic change trivializes the film into little more than a piece of romantic whimsy.

Now set in Los Angeles, the plot focuses on an angel named Seth who walks freely among the living and remains unseen unless he so desires. He gets drawn to Maggie Rice, an exacting surgeon who loses her first patient on the operating table. In the middle of her personal crisis, Seth comes into her life filling an emotional void, setting the stage for the pivotal decision he needs to make - remaining immortal as an angel or becoming human to experience the passion he feels for Maggie. Luckily, in probably her best dramatic performance, Meg Ryan is especially resonant as Maggie as she mutes her natural sprite-like manner into a palpable sadness that fits the character.

With a part that risks skirting parody during the first half, a steadily unblinking Nicolas Cage plays Seth in a plaintive, child-like manner until the story moves toward its inevitable climax. I still find it difficult to believe that Seth's discomforting, Norman Bates-like manner would provide such a powerful attraction to Maggie at the outset. I also think the ending plot manipulations are a botch, a contemptible attempt to twist the viewer into thinking a greater point has been made when in fact, the viewer has been sucker-punched. Andre Braugher's becalming manner is used to good effect as fellow angel Cassiel, and Dennis Franz is appropriately ostentatious as a junk-food-addicted hospital patient who is not what he appears to be. By the way, the interiors of the San Francisco Main Library (opened two years before) never looked better than under the guise of LA's in this movie.

There are a surprising number of extras for such an early release DVD (1998) with three separate commentary tracks, the first by Silberling, the second by Stevens and co-producer Charles Roven, and the third by composer Gabriel Yared. Seale and production designer Lilly Kilvert contribute select-scene commentaries on the other side of the disc. There are two featurettes - a half-hour making-of documentary called "Making Angels" and a ten-minute short focused strictly on the visual effects. Seven deleted scenes, two music videos (including the Goo Goo Dolls' then-omnipresent MTV hit, "Iris"), and the theatrical trailer round out the major DVD extras.

Chick Flick Hell
*Warning: Spoiler*
I cannot believe people, excuse me, some women are giving this movie four and five stars.
Interesting premise,and it could have been a good, believeable movie-- but it was sooo syrupy. If this is what it's like to be in love, please somebody shoot me(note: I've been in real love for 27 years now.) I got through the movie and probably would have given the movie a 3 and a half until the very end. Why the blankity-blank-blank does somebody always have to die at or near the end for the movie to be a "good movie"?
I felt like I was drowning in estrogen by the time the movie was over. Wouldn't it have been more intriquing to leave the movie somehow pondering how this new love was going to all work out? That, at least, would have made the movie more intriquing, believeable and redeeming. If ever a movie was made to force tears, this is it.
This movie stinks and I don't mind telling you so--and it's not just because I'm a man either. Imo, there's not much difference between this movie and a stupid, blatant Steven Segall movie where testosterone is promenaded around like it's the elixir of heaven. Same coin, different sides.
The movie should be given a "one"--no a "negative one" just for the stupid ending, but other redeeming factors make it a "two." Still not worth seeing--i.e., unless you're into infuriating yourself.

** Note: Even my wife and daughter--both chick-flick connousiours--hate this movie.I haven't checked yet, but I think my dogs do too.**

Another note: These two good actors needed a better movie. See Ryan in the superb "Courage Under Fire", or the Jim Morrison movie, or "When Harry Met Sally"--which I don't categorize as a "chick flick" but as a good romantic comedy,i.e., not contrived.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Next Page