The Crow: City of Angels

The Crow: City of Angels

1996 "Believe in the power of another"
The Crow: City of Angels
The Crow: City of Angels

The Crow: City of Angels

4.6 | 1h34m | R | en | Fantasy

After Ashe and his little son are murdered violently for no reason by Judah's men, he returns from the dead to take revenge. One after one, Judah's people face the power of the dark angel. The second film based on James O'Barr's cult comic.

View More
Rent / Buy
amazon
Buy from $7.99 Rent from $2.99
AD

WATCH FREEFOR 30 DAYS

All Prime Video
Cancel anytime

Watch Now
4.6 | 1h34m | R | en | Fantasy , Action , Thriller | More Info
Released: August. 29,1996 | Released Producted By: Miramax , Jeff Most Productions Country: United States of America Budget: 0 Revenue: 0 Official Website: https://www.miramax.com/movie/crow-ii-city-of-angels/
Synopsis

After Ashe and his little son are murdered violently for no reason by Judah's men, he returns from the dead to take revenge. One after one, Judah's people face the power of the dark angel. The second film based on James O'Barr's cult comic.

...... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Cast

Vincent Perez , Mia Kirshner , Iggy Pop

Director

Gary Diamond

Producted By

Miramax , Jeff Most Productions

AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime.

Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

AlienatorX I don't think we as an audience appreciate just how disastrously wrong The Crow could have gone. The Crow is one of those stories with such dark subject matter and such brooding visuals that in the hands of lesser filmmakers it could have gone horribly wrong and ended up as some dark bitter mess like Batman Returns. Thankfully the right people were involved and we got the movie we did. And then they made a sequel. Now I'm not one of those people who thinks that 'The Crow' shouldn't have a sequel. The idea that there are other lost souls who must return to earth to right some wrong is not a bad one. But not like this. This movie fails across the board, the story goes on way too long and is hopelessly convoluted despite a pretty simple set up, the music is almost none stop grunge punk rock that adds nothing to the scenes. But the biggest problem with this movie is the way it looks. The director is a man named Tim Pope. Never heard of him? Well before this movie he directed music videos and do you know what he made after this movie? More music videos! This movie is shot like a music video, the camera is too close, the shots are all framed wrong, the angles are weird and the editing is nauseating. Of course this style could be forgiven if it wasn't for the fact this is the ugliest movie I have ever seen in my life. Gone is the smooth neo-Gothic look of the first movie. In its place is hideously ugly punk grunge look with bright colours and nauseating shades that are actually difficult to look at half the time. The music video style directing and editing only makes it worse and I'm sure those with weaker stomachs might actually throw up watching this film. To make all this even worse the story goes out of its way to be dark and gritty adding even more nauseating imagery to this already stomach turning movie. But even the worst movie can be saved by the performances, sadly the performances in this movie only serve as the icing on the garbage cake. The script is ridiculously cheesy and grimy and the actors they picked to say it are dreadful; Vincent Perez doesn't have the aura of menace Brandon Lee had and so he just comes off as sulky half the time and the other half he spends pretending to be intimidating, Richard Brooks's performance as the villain Judas Earl is terrible as none of his lines are delivered properly, they all come off as either bored or forced. This is one of the absolute worst movie I've ever seen. This is a joyless grungy mess that no on should ever have to watch even for the sake of curiosity. I would tell you to destroy it but that would involve buying it and I don't want that. Instead I want no one to buy it. I want all the copies to sit on stores shelves for years and years and years until the company has no choice but to take them all out in the middle of nowhere and bury them in big pit so they can slowly biodegrade until there is nothing left but a grungy patch of earth where nothing can grow. I hate this movie.
zardoz-13 Everybody who saw "The Crow" (1994), a grisly but formulaic back-fr0m-the-dead revenge melodrama, knows actor Brandon Lee died from an accidental gunshot wound on the set during filming. Strangely enough, Lee's untimely demise boosted the box office appeal of "The Crow." The success prompted Miramax Pictures to release a sequel of sorts: "The Crow: City of Angels." Not only have the film producers replaced Lee with another actor, but they also have conjured up an entirely new character. Sequels typically fail to live up to the high standards of most original films, but "The Crow: City of Angels" proves the exception to the rule. The message of "The Crow: City of Angels," a nihilistic supernatural sadomasochistic saga, is that love is sometimes stronger than death. Nevertheless, love takes a backseat to violence in this expressionistic follow-up to the ill-fated but financially successful original. Instead, the filmmakers aim their cameras like guns at the more unsavory narrative elements: brutal murders and echoes of deviant sexual practices with an incidental node to the love aspect.The premise of the first "Crow" reechoes throughout the sequel. When somebody dies, a crow carries the soul to the land of the dead. Occasionally, something so horrible occurs that a soul can find no rest. In such a case, the crow leads the soul back to the living so that injustices can be resolved. David Goyer, who penned the original "Crow," tinkers rather than tampers with the surefire formula that yielded a $50 million haul at the box office. A cadaverous hero rises from the grave and destroys a depraved gang of low-life hemorrhoids. In "The Crow: City of Angels," a twenty-something auto mechanic, Ashe Corven (Vincent Perez of "Queen Margot"), and his young son Danny (Eric Acosta of "Cheerleader Massacre 2") witness a gangland execution by a drug kingpin called Judah.The setting has been changed from the Motor City to the City of Angels. Instead of hoodlums celebrating Devil's Night, as in the original, here citizens participate in the Day of the Dead ceremonies designed to discourage departing spirits from lingering with the living. Eight years have elapsed since the first movie, and Sarah (Mia Kirshner of "Not Another Teen Movie") is the only hold-over character from the original. Sarah has grown up, moved to Los Angeles, and now runs a tattoo parlor. Sarah has been having nightmares lately, about a double homicide.A crow flies into her apartment, and she follows it to the harbor where the bodies of Ash and his son were dumped. The crow revives Ashe, and he emerges in a frothy fountain of bubbles before Sarah's eyes. When Ashe embarks on his revenge, Sarah paints his face in the same Harlequin pattern as Eric Draven's from the first film. Only this time, she uses Ashe's dead son's paints, giving it a truly symbolic meaning. Ashe begins knocking off Judah's (Richard Brooks) henchmen, working his way, as he calls it "up the food chain" to Judah himself. The villains comprise an undeniably loathsome bunch. You'd certainly never invite these scumbags home to meet your parents. Curve, (plug-ugly Iggy Pop of "Tank Girl") resembles death warmed over, while a dark smooth-skinned Richard Brooks as Judah presents a commanding presence. The drug dealing merchant of pain here is so repellent that he display little remorse when a poorly mixed batch of his own narcotics kills his customers. Every time one of these reptilian characters dies, the image of a crow appears around him. For example, when Ashe pitches one baddie from a window, the blood from the dead person's head coagulates in a puddle shaped like a crow.Compared with the first film, "City of Angels" isn't as violent. There is nothing here that comes off as violent as the table scene where Brandon Lee's Eric Draven got blasted by a barrage of gunfire. French heartthrob Vincent Perez animates his slain avenger with a Gallic exuberance. Perez's performance also conveys a quality that makes his character vulnerable and at the same time somewhat melancholy because he is deprived of life. Ashe reveals his reluctance to Sarah to blindly adhere to the fix path that fate has paved for him. Audiences learn the bare minimum about him. All we know about his wife is that she abounded him and their son after she became a drug addict. Unlike Eric Draven, Ashe's body doesn't erase the signs of violence. Gunshot wounds don't magically vanish. He spends more time tooling about on his motorcycle in search of felons and he never carries the crow around on his shoulder.Goyer's episodic script resembles a formula Republic serial from the 1940s. A mysterious hero enters a destitute city and topples a tyrant. Compared with the longer original film, "City of Angels" amounts to a severely pared down exercise in minimalism. The filmmakers have sacrificed exposition, which would clarify characters and story, for supercharged, headlong momentum. If you're looking for exposition, try the web site for "The Crow: City of Angels," because only the most essential information for pushing the plot forward remains in the film. Goyer and director Tim Pope keep the narrative simple, the characters shallow, and the story free from complications or digressive sub-plots. Extraneous characters, such as Ernie Hudson's cop from the first "Crow" don't clutter up the storyline. "The Crow: City of Angels" marks the motion picture debut of music-video director Tim Pope. Previously, Pope helmed music videos for Paul McCartney, Iggy Pop, Queen, and David Bowie. Pope clearly draws on his background so that his "Crow" boasts a fast-paced, no-nonsense, imagine intensive appearance. The film possesses a murky, Gothic look. Smoke swirls around the different bombed-out nocturnal settings, and Pope bathes different scenes in harsh, abrasive color schemes. The wide-angled point of view shots from the perspective of the craw have an avant-garde quality. You don't need to have seen "The Crow" to appreciate "The Crow: City of Angeles."
xparanoid-184-809587 To be honest, this movie doesn't deserve the hate it gets. The visuals are amazing, and the city feels fleshed out. It really feels like you're in a drug infested Los Angeles in the middle of the 90's, something the first film achieved greatly. They didn't go cheesy with this movie as much as they did the titles that followed it (with Ed Furlong and the other guy), but people still see it as a remake. It's actually a sequel, with a more pure love in my opinion than the first movie. I enjoyed the movie, try to watch it with an open mind. Vincent Perez does a great job as the lead role, and completely steals the spotlight from everyone else in the film. It's worth watching for him alone.
tfclubjazzgirlraven I admit that Salvation was the first version I watched before looking for the original from 1994, but I'm glad I did or I wouldn't have given it a chance after this great disappointment.The actor choice and acting was poor at best and it was slow moving.The directing was everywhere and though the soundtrack was still good, that's about the only good thing about this film.Vincent Perez is the worst version of The crow yet! I couldn't help but view him as a spazzed out Carrot-Top, No, even that comedian would have done the role better! They murdered the character that was supposed to be Sarah, and though I'm sure it's supposed to be because she grew up and matured, they chose the wrong direction for a character that was so lovable.Not to troll, I love the feelings any father has for his child, but the feeling just wasn't the same. It felt more like "Oh my god, was he more with his son then a dad? Is he gay?" Just a personal opinion, Salvation and the Original were way better then this piece of scrap and I'm glad I didn't waste the money to see it in theaters.