Un ángel en la Tierra, un médico incapaz de creer, un paciente con un secreto y una historia de amor hecha en los cielos.Un ángel en la Tierra, un médico incapaz de creer, un paciente con un secreto y una historia de amor hecha en los cielos.Un ángel en la Tierra, un médico incapaz de creer, un paciente con un secreto y una historia de amor hecha en los cielos.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 10 premios ganados y 14 nominaciones en total
Opiniones destacadas
I just watched this movie again for about the 3rd time. People say the movie is depressing, unoriginal, and boring. I'll bend on the depressing part, but the other 2 are completely un-true.
Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan give pretty good performances, nothing oscar-worthy, but it's not the acting that makes this movie great. It's beautiful. Pure heaven to the eyes and ears. While you see the wonderful scenes, and backgrounds, with wonderful color and beautiful art direction, and hear the perefectly performed and selected score in the background (with contributions from U2, Sarah McLachlan, and the surprise hit "Iris" from the Goo Goo Dolls) it doesn't really matter what kind of acting is happening. The screenplay is pretty good, but somewhat lacking, which is why I give it an 8.25 on a scale from 1-10. Its a love story, yes, and can get cheesy at points, but none the less, it's still worth seeing once or twice.
Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan give pretty good performances, nothing oscar-worthy, but it's not the acting that makes this movie great. It's beautiful. Pure heaven to the eyes and ears. While you see the wonderful scenes, and backgrounds, with wonderful color and beautiful art direction, and hear the perefectly performed and selected score in the background (with contributions from U2, Sarah McLachlan, and the surprise hit "Iris" from the Goo Goo Dolls) it doesn't really matter what kind of acting is happening. The screenplay is pretty good, but somewhat lacking, which is why I give it an 8.25 on a scale from 1-10. Its a love story, yes, and can get cheesy at points, but none the less, it's still worth seeing once or twice.
There's just one point I want to make about this movie, and that's about the OR scene when they're doing a coronary bypass. This is the first time I've ever seen a correct movie rendition of it, it's usually a baroque farce, but not here. Every instrument I could see, the bypass machine, the aortic cannula, the headlamps, the ECG monitors (and the traces!), the orders given, the type of suture, were correct (except I suspect they chose a heavier suture than normal 7-0, since a 7-0 would be very hard to see, it looked more like 4-0 or 5-0). Even the tying of knots, the Joule strengths used for defibrillation, the lidocaine dosages, the body temperature during bypass, the kind of mag the bypass operator is reading, the music (except we had Bach, country & western, Dylan or Cat Stevens, depending on surgeon and how the procedure was going), the time it will take to reprime the pump to get back on cardiac bypass again; I found not one single error! There's this one moment when everyone looks under the table, which is weird, but then Meg Ryan leaves the table, so even that is OK from a sterility point of view. I don't know if other people care, but this kind of care for detail makes a movie a lot more enjoyable for me.
Oh, one more remark: the reanimation with internal cardiac massage is a bit short, they give up a bit too soon. But that's exactly what she blames herself for, later.
Oh, one more remark: the reanimation with internal cardiac massage is a bit short, they give up a bit too soon. But that's exactly what she blames herself for, later.
I was hesitant to see this movie for the longest time. Nicolas Cage and Meg Ryan in a romantic drama would seem to spell a movie filled with forlorn looks and sweet nothings whispered to each other. Upon seeing it, this movie proved my suspicions true.
However, I was astonished at how much more this film had. The sheer amount of interesting concepts, combined with the ability to look at humanity from some distance, made this movie well worth the watch. If this film succeeds, and I believe it does, it is precisely because of the mixture of Hollywood gloss and original Wenders magic. Something for everyone, if only you give it a little thought.
Touching date movie, nice discussion piece, and filled with attractive people, City of Angels is wonderfully shallow and surprisingly deep at times, making it well worth the watch.
However, I was astonished at how much more this film had. The sheer amount of interesting concepts, combined with the ability to look at humanity from some distance, made this movie well worth the watch. If this film succeeds, and I believe it does, it is precisely because of the mixture of Hollywood gloss and original Wenders magic. Something for everyone, if only you give it a little thought.
Touching date movie, nice discussion piece, and filled with attractive people, City of Angels is wonderfully shallow and surprisingly deep at times, making it well worth the watch.
A very different look at the world of angels and their interaction with human beings. If this were a story about the devil, IMDB would have plenty of comments so I am not surprised to read so many negative ones.
I don't believe that angels wear black, but I do believe in the premise of this movie: "sometimes things are true whether you believe in them or not."
Meg Ryan, a very unlikely choice, was thoroughly believable as an obsessive-compulsive doctor who never sleeps. When she loses a patient for the first time, she cries bitterly and cannot understand how it could have happened--all witnessed by Nicolas Cage as Seth, an angel who was sent to escort her patient to heaven. Cage allows himself to be seen by Ryan in a hospital corridor and sweetly asks, "Are you in despair?" This entire conversation sweeps the women in the audience into their evolving relationship. Yes, I guess this is definitely a woman's movie.
Others in lesser roles were quite good. Dennis Franz nails the part of a former angel who has "fallen to earth." (I do not watch his television show so this was the first time I have seen him act--I was impressed.) Andre Braugher, formerly of Homicide (a show I did watch), was terrific as Seth's closest angel friend, although he had very few lines, as usual Braugher was effective. His smile at the end of the movie stays with you.
I don't believe that angels wear black, but I do believe in the premise of this movie: "sometimes things are true whether you believe in them or not."
Meg Ryan, a very unlikely choice, was thoroughly believable as an obsessive-compulsive doctor who never sleeps. When she loses a patient for the first time, she cries bitterly and cannot understand how it could have happened--all witnessed by Nicolas Cage as Seth, an angel who was sent to escort her patient to heaven. Cage allows himself to be seen by Ryan in a hospital corridor and sweetly asks, "Are you in despair?" This entire conversation sweeps the women in the audience into their evolving relationship. Yes, I guess this is definitely a woman's movie.
Others in lesser roles were quite good. Dennis Franz nails the part of a former angel who has "fallen to earth." (I do not watch his television show so this was the first time I have seen him act--I was impressed.) Andre Braugher, formerly of Homicide (a show I did watch), was terrific as Seth's closest angel friend, although he had very few lines, as usual Braugher was effective. His smile at the end of the movie stays with you.
The photography will blow you away. The scenes concocted and shot are breathtaking. It's almost better not to know this when you enter the cinema. And this movie should work far better in the cinema than on the small TV format at home.
As for the story, it concentrates on one small aspect of the original - and, according to about half the viewers, pulls a "dirty trick" on them, altogether unfair.
I left the movie house cursing the director and promising to punch his teeth in if I saw him. The ending, IMHO, was gratuitous sermonizing, and not at all what the majority of moviegoers came to see.
As for the story, it concentrates on one small aspect of the original - and, according to about half the viewers, pulls a "dirty trick" on them, altogether unfair.
I left the movie house cursing the director and promising to punch his teeth in if I saw him. The ending, IMHO, was gratuitous sermonizing, and not at all what the majority of moviegoers came to see.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe dedication "For Dawn" refers to producer Dawn Steel, who died of a brain tumor on December 20, 1997, four months before this film's release.
- ErroresWhen Maggie sees the truck she is about to hit towards the end of the movie, the truck is coming from the right side of the road and making a right turn. Later on when Nicolas Cage comes around to where Maggie is lying, the truck position is in the opposite direction, like it came from the left side of the road.
- Versiones alternativasThe DVD contains some additional/extended scenes:
- Seth studies Maggie in her home while she is preparing a bath.
- Maggie's dog Earl leaves her bed at night and she turns the light on. He sits beside Seth who is watching her. As she can't see Seth she just goes back to sleep.
- The first surgery scene is extended.
- Maggie prepares dinner while Seth watches her.
- Seth and Maggie visit Nathaniel Messinger at his bed.
- After Nathaniel told Maggie that Seth can fall, she goes and searches for angels in the hospital.
- A montage of small tidbits that had to be cut like Seth talking to a Vietnamese woman or him trying to feel the blowing wind at the beach.
- Bandas sonorasRed House
Written and Performed by Jimi Hendrix
Courtesy of MCA Records
Under license from Universal Music Special Markets
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is City of Angels?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- City of Angels
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 55,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 78,685,114
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 15,369,048
- 12 abr 1998
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 198,685,114
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 54 minutos
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta