The Crow: City of Angels is a sloppy pretender that captures neither the mood nor energy of the original. Read critic reviews
The Crow: City of Angels
1996, Fantasy, 1h 24m
36 Reviews 50,000+ RatingsWhat to know
You might also like
See More
Highlander II: The Quickening
The Fly II
Cyborg
The Hitman
Species
Where to watch
Rate And Review
-
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
How did you buy your ticket?
-
Fandango
-
AMCTheatres.com or AMC AppNew
-
Cinemark Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
-
Regal Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
-
Theater box office or somewhere else
The Crow: City of Angels Videos
The Crow: City of Angels Photos
Movie Info
After mechanic Ashe (Vincent Perez) and his son (Eric Acosta) witness a murder, they are captured and killed by drug lord Judah (Richard Brooks). Soon, a young artist named Sarah (Mia Kirshner) meets Ashe, who has just returned from the dead. Sarah, who had known a man resurrected into the vengeful warrior the Crow years ago, explains to Ashe that he is now the Crow. Ashe sets out to get revenge by slaying Judah and his minions, but Judah discovers the Crow's power and craves it for himself.
-
Rating: R
-
Genre: Fantasy
-
Original Language: English
-
Director: Tim Pope
-
Producer: Edward R. Pressman, Jeff Most
-
Writer: James O'Barr, David S. Goyer
-
Release Date (Theaters): original
-
Release Date (Streaming):
-
Box Office (Gross USA): $17.9M
-
Runtime:
-
Distributor: Miramax Films
-
Sound Mix: Stereo, Surround
Cast & Crew
Critic Reviews for The Crow: City of Angels
Audience Reviews for The Crow: City of Angels
-
I used to own this on VHS as a kid, and It appeared on cable the other night, before watching I googled Vincent Perez.. Wondering who he really was.. MARIUS from Queen of the Damned.. I was really excited to re-watch it, hard to believe it was him. really good job, no where near as good as the first crow, but defiantly more tolerable than the ones that followed.
-
Formulaic and contrived, The Crow: City of Angels is a deplorable piece of garbage that lacks the passion and soulfulness of the original. This time the Crow resurrects a father to avenge his and his son's deaths at the hands of a viscous gang. The storytelling is awful, and feels like a cheap knockoff of the original. Additionally, the Gothic aesthetic is over stylized and pretentious. The Crow: City of Angels is a spectacularly awful film that has no grasp of James O'Barr's vision.
-
The Crow: City of Angels suffers from the greatest sin in movie making; too many hands in the editing cookie jar. Had the film that Tim Pope shot been allowed to be presented, I think fan reaction would not be near as harsh as it has been and had the studio trusted Pope's vision more and most importantly, trusted the audience more, this film had the potential to be great. As is, I love the style of the film and the performances of Vincent Perez and Mia Kirshner. In my original viewing my issue with casting issue was made in the form of one Iggy Pop. What I told friends at the time was roughly that granted, the man is a living legend in the Punk circles and is a personal hero of Crow graphic novel creator James O'Barr (Eric's movements are based on the lean Pop's stage antics)., one can not escape the reality that Iggy Pop was way over his head acting wise in this. A far more seasoned actor could have turned Iggy Pop's "Curve" into a great scene stealer. As is, he may look the part and at times even act the part, but he never IS the part. Now I think about those statements and not sure that they're valid. Its very likely his best parts of the performance along with other plot elements are laid to waste on the cutting room floor. Now we get to the biggest flaw and that is the tampering done by the studio in regard to the romance..I read and still have the original script which wasn't bad at all but when the film was done, they did some knee-jerk cutting of the film when some test screenings showed people were weary of a romance between essentially a dead man and a woman who is alive. However, had the core audience been trusted, but more importantly, had Pope's original vision and script been trusted, they could have pushed that doomed relationship story arc further. It would have given the story a lot better balance than it has (when a director makes one film and the studio wants edits to make it something else, you lose a lot of story cohesion). Along with that, sticking to the original story would have given us a darker ending, but none the less, an ending truer to the story than the eluded to happy ending we have. The final trapping of the film is that with all of the input outside of the director's, too many story elements are repeated from the first film to try and make it more in line with it (the first film) than being something entirely of its own accord. This caused an even harsher reaction from fans as they saw this as merely being a product pushed on the coat tails of the first film. In the end its most definitely a very flawed film. Not great but not terrible. If you can find the original script, give it read. A much better script than final film due to studio tampering.
-
The Crow is back. This time in the form of a man named Ashe who seeks revenge on the ones that killed him and his son. The little girl Sarah from the first movie is also back as a grown woman. Not even close to the brilliance of the first one. Sort of same gothic scene...less gothic though. And rather similar the whole way through..even the bad guys are slightly similar. And noone can beat Brandon Lee's epic portrayal.
Verified