O Corvo: A Cidade dos Anjos

Obviously, many fans of the original movie did not like this supposed sequel. At a glance, it does steal the same plot points. But when i first saw it, I saw it as its own movie. I may not have lost a son but i can feel what Ashe feels. The only bad point of this movie is the addition of Sarah from the original.

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

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.

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.