City of Angels - La città degli angeli

Loose remake of Wings of Desire that goes less for the artsy approach and more for the romantic drama. Nic Cage plays an angel who falls in love with pretty surgeon Meg Ryan. Cage, as always, is an acquired taste. His usual half-ham approach to acting is on display here. If you are familiar with him and don't like his style, then you will hate this so don't bother. Ryan is adorable and pretty and can cry on cue. So she's perfect for this kind of schmaltz. Dennis Franz appears in a reworking of Peter Falk's wonderful role in the original film. Falk was the best part of Wings of Desire for me. Franz is OK here but not particularly memorable.

Despite its flaws, I was actually enjoying it for the most part. Not loving it, but enjoying it. It was pleasant enough. But the downbeat ending killed the whole thing for me. Look, you don't want to make a pretentious art film like Wings of Desire -- OK, cool, I'm with you there. But if you're going to make a mainstream love story, then stick with that and don't give me some depressing ending. It made me feel like I wasted my time with the whole thing. It had nothing profound to say and certainly didn't have the nice visuals of Wings of Desire, so it really needed to make the love story work. Instead it makes an attempt at the last minute to become something more than it is and it fails. Nice soundtrack though.

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.

I thought City Of Angels was very good. I'm usually very critical towards movies, but City Of Angels got to me. Meg Ryan usually plays in Romantic Comedy's (Sleepless in seatle, You've got mail) but this time, City Of Angels, admittedly a Romantic film, but it isn't a comedy. Far from it, it's a drama in all of its aspects. And Meg Ryan converts to that change very well. She acts great in this movie. It wasn't an easy part for her, there is a lot of crying involved, and a lot of dramatic moments in her characters life.

As goes for Nicolas Cage's character. Oh my god, he plays Seth with such excellence. Really, i don't think that anyone else could play the part as great as he did. The way he looks, the way he moves .. so cool.

Ok the storyline is a little unbeleivable, but you musn't be held back by that fact. Just beleive the unbeleivable. Just go with the plot, and follow the movie closely.

I'm not suggesting that City Of Angels is the best in it's sort. It won't win any oscars, but what i am saying, is that it's a nice movie, with great actors, great music and a good storyline which rolls towards very emotional ending.

You won't be dissapointed.

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.

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.