City of Angels

Rating:
Summary: Weak, unmotivated, and boring...
Review: "City of Angels" has a lot of cool ideas. It has a great style of direction about it. It's biggest problem is that it falls under the standard movie cliches for love stories. A shame, because the first two acts are very good. Nicolas Cage is an angel. He walks the Earth unnoticed and unseen by humans. It is suggested that in death, one can see or feel the angels, which is an interesting concept indeed. Meg Ryan is a doctor who is a little lovesick. Cage follows her around one day and becomes increasingly interested in her. Finally, she sees him and the two begin to fall in love. So far, the movie is interesting, original, and very well-acted. Then it comes to a point where Cage must make a choice. He must either stay an angel or become human and live with Meg. It doesn't take a genius to predict what happens. The movie loses itself in utter predictability and uses recycled story elements from so many other romance movies. I realize I'm a guy and that I probably shouldn't like this movie anyway, but I believe in giving movies a fair chance. I like the first two acts of this movie a lot. I like the concept, I like the characters, and I like the acting. The third act is just so contrived and desparate I wanted to shout in anger at the screen during its climax. I didn't hate this film. I just hated the outcome. Would I recommend it? No. But I don't doubt that there are people that liked it.

Rating:
Summary: Ugh!
Review: This is dreary. WHile watching the film it seems better than average of its type; moving, original, gorgeous to watch. That, at least, is what I thought before watching the Wim Wender's film 'Wings of Desire'on which 'COA' is ostensibly based. I changed my mind fast. I would dissagree with the amazon.com reviewer above: Hollywood's constant leaching, and abysmal defiling, of European cinema's finest ideas is disgraceful, especially when one considers the amount of money cinema punters wasted on this aneamic 'remake'compared to what meagre earnings (comparitively) it's superior forbearer earned.

For those interested, 'Wings of Desire' is, as of my writing of this pseudo-review, due to be released on DVD at amazon.com soon. Check it Out.

To sum up: the measure of your enjoyment of these vastly different cinematic modes can be gleaned as follows: Do you enjoy Sarah MCLaughlan's soulful, crooningly sappy themesong for 'City of Angels', or prefer songs by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, a few of which grace "Wings of Desire"'s soundtrack?

Non-'aggrevation induced by sub-titles' is also a must, unfortunately.

Rating:
Summary: Great Actors, Though Provoking Story Line - Bring Kleenex
Review: My main reason to see this movie was Nicolas Cage - he is my favorite actor, so I was going to see the movie no matter what. Movies are a personal experience - it all depends what you want to take away from the experience of watching them. I personally loved this movie.

This movie was very touching, if you picked up on the subtle nature of what was going on. Maggie (Meg Ryan) was struggling with her faith while being a heart surgeon who can't see the connection between her work and faith in God. Don't let that scare you - religion isn't the main focus of the movie. It was very moving to watch Maggie come alive once she meets Seth (Nicolas Cage) who is an angel.

Another reviewer had a great point - the movie, if you spend time thinking about it, really does make you realize all the little things that we all take for granted. Dennis Franz's character really brings these things to light, but he reminded me that you don't always have to take life so seriously - there has to be room for fun and enjoyment.

I will admit that I was disappointed with the ending, but every movie has to end and even though I needed some Kleenex it was a very powerful ending to a though-provoking movie. The soundtrack of this movie is also great! The songs perfectly fit each scene.

The most memorable line from the movie for me is when Seth says the following to Maggie shortly after they meet for the first time:

"Some things are true whether you believe them or not."

Rating:
Summary: Will love prevail?--beware Nic Cage fans
Review: There's no question that 1998's 'City Of Angels' is a very diverse movie. It has great acting (some by an actor who comes off roles in '8mm' and 'Snake Eyes'), love, demise, angels, and even a great soundtrack. This movie resides nicely in my extensive movie collection, even though most of the others are comedies, dramas, or action movies. Nicolas Cage is one of my favorite actors; which is why I bought this in the first place. And I'm glad I did. Cage's performance is actually one of his best, and Meg Ryan is also at her finest. This is certainly not one of the best films I've ever seen (and it's not one of my personal favorites), but it is still pleasing and [at least] worth your time.

A lot of other reviewers have gone into great depth in explaining the plot. Therefore I won't do the same; I'll just give a brief overview of it. The movie's plot is based on the characters of Seth (Cage) and Maggie (Ryan). Seth is an angel who is sent to "pick up" the people he's to take to heaven. And when he is waiting for a patient of Maggie (she's a doctor) to pass, he finds himself fascinated with her relentlessness in not giving up on the child. Seth almost feels violated; as Maggie looks him in the eye and (seemingly) tells Seth not to take him yet. The way the two interact when they're supposed to not even notice each other is outstanding. Even though Seth knows that he's dead, he sometimes feels as if he can intermingle with her. This part of the movie is by far the best; and once the two actually are able to communicate (how I won't ruin for you; I wouldn't be able to explain it too well), everything that seemed to be amazing within the movie begins to fade. The acting becomes more average and the story starts to slow down and not let you know where it's going. There's not much more that can be said about the film or it's basis. But as for the ending, it almost ruined the movie completely. I won't spoil it for you; as you can decide for yourself whether or not it's fitting. It came up too fast, I think. And I will stick to my saying it was one of the weaker endings in the romance movie library. I could've easily changed my ranking to 4 stars from three if they'd had a better ending. But even if you know what actually happens or you hate poor endings in film, still watch the movie. The beginning and (overall) acting by Nicolas Cage are certainly worth it. But for the common Cage fan: stay away from this one. If you are hoping for a repeat of any of his action sequences from his previous or latter movies, you will be extremely disappointed. This is a love story, this is not an action movie. Nonetheless, he does an excellent job with his role and almost outdoes himself. Meg Ryan also rises to the occasion; for all you 'Sleepless In Seattle' fanatics out there.

In the end, 'City Of Angels' is, overall, a decent movie. The cast list is pretty limited; as really only Cage and Ryan are given the chance to shine. But Andre Braugher does a good job in the small supporting cast, and Cage's 'Leaving Las Vegas' co-star Elisabeth Shue appears shortly as a pregnant woman. Still, Cage and Ryan are all you need to enjoy this movie. It was a very popular movie, but I do believe it's slightly overrated. The ending was very ineffectual and may, in time, make you lose interest in the movie (meaning you won't want to watch it again). But kudos to Nicolas Cage for trying something new with his distinct career. Definitely watch this movie if you haven't already. You may not completely like it, but you will at least be able to form some strong opinions about it.

Rating:
Summary: I didn't want to watch it, but I'm glad I did.
Review: I just finished watching this movie and I just had to write a review. I decided to watch this movie with some reservation. I think Nicholas Cage is a fine actor but he looks just like my much despised ex. It didn't take too long for me to get past it though. He was so innocent and vulnerable, just like I imagine an angel to be. However, I just cannot buy Meg Ryan as a heart surgeon. But this is Hollywood after all, so I gave it a try. I'm glad I did.

This movie took me on an emotional ride. I don't often cry at movies (in fact, Tears of Endearment was on just before City of Angels and I was dry-eyed the whole three hours). But City of Angels... I cried. It was especially touching to see them in the bedroom, together but not quite together with the haunting "In the Arms of the Angels" playing in the background. God it gave me chills. And tears. I'm usually pretty good at predicting movies but I didn't see that ending coming, it hit me like a kick in the stomach. I hated that movie at that moment. I hated everything. I really wanted everything to be happily ever after. But then I realized.... shlocky happy endings are so empty. While I didn't like the ending, I had to respect it. If a movie can do all of that to me in just 2 hours, I have to say I recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: Love the movie, hate the ending.
Review: Nicolas Cage physically repulses me, and yet I loved most of this movie. Meg Ryan's cardboard upper lip annoys me, and I still loved most of this movie. I think it's the only movie I've seen in which the actors do not make it work- the script and scenery work on their own. I love how it makes me appreciate all my senses, love how it makes me love being human. But for God's sake, the ending was terrible. I know the directors probably wanted to go for an artsy-fartsy sad ending, but it wound up as A.) Too long, and B.) Schmaltzy. I first saw it in the theaters five years ago and my first reaction upon leaving the theater was, "They should have ended the movie when he jumped." I stand by it. To me the ending felt anticlimatic, because the whole movie leads up to Seth's decision: "Do I stay an angel and live forever, or become human and acquire touch, taste, smell, and love?" After the dilemma is answered, it's a bit of a let-down. I always shut off the movie just as he finally jumps but before he wakes up, and pretend that it was always that way.

Rating:
Summary: Emotionally tugging and beautiful
Review: As a person who is yet to see Wings of Desire, I had nothing to compare this movie to. I didn't need to, I just loved it. I am just sorry that it was treated like just another 'chick-flick' as it was so much more than that. The story stems from the Wings of Desire movie and that wasn't a Hollywood movie so it is unfair to compare based on the storyline. The cinematography may wreak of Hollywood but look past that and into the story and you will find very special messages.

Seth and Maggie are lovely characters. Maggie is like so many of us, not sure what she wants in life, not sure who's hands life is in, confused as to why things happen beyond her control no matter how hard she tries. I am certain you too have asked yourself these questions at some point. If you have recently lost someone close to you, this movie can do nothing but reasure you that they are fine whether you believe that there is any truth to this 'idea' of what happens when you die.

I had lost my grandfather only a couple of years before I saw this film. I have a belief that there is life after death but questioned it after he died. He meant so much to me and then I saw this film. I felt him watching it with me. I am not a movie crying person but couldn't help but weep throughout so many parts of this film.

Not being a fan of Nicholas Cage, I dreaded the idea of watching it because of him, but adoring Meg Ryan as a fabulous and convincing actress, I decided to drag my boyfriend to see it. THe idea that there are these angels around us, reasurring us and helping us throughout our lives and keeping us company as our lives pass from this existence to the next just made me feel very reasurred about death. It helped me to believe that my grandfather was not alone when he passed.

The film itself is so beautiful. The way that the angels were never human and Seth's craving to know what it is to be human and alive. I love Maggie's character as she is so willing to trust this unusual stranger that enters her life. She is not willing to dismiss him as 'nutter' and realises that there is a peace about Seth and an intelligence but also a mysterious innocence about him. Nicholas Cage manages to show this innocence so excellently that I found it hard to separate him from his character at some points.

This heart tugging, emotional, beautiful film will touch anyone if they just open themselves to it. It was just a refreshing view on angels, not conforming to the idealistic view that angels are white (not in a racial sense but in clothing) and silvery with wings and sing. It is external to these stereotypical portrayal of Angels. Instead they wear black clothes covered in long black overcoats. They were never human and cannot touch or feel physical things although they do have feelings and emotions. Necessary of course. Seth is different. He falls in love with Maggie, a human and a mortal, and craves her touch and to experience normal life, to feel pain and hunger and true love and to be with her.

Their journey to understanding each other is just... beautiful. I know I have used that word far to often in this review but it is the most accurate word to describe this unique take on angels.

Rating:
Summary: Please...
Review: Romantic, beautiful... what a bunch of ... This movie was one of the worst I have ever seen. I like romantic movies. I like Meg Ryan. ("When Harry Met Sally" and "You've Got Mail" were really good.) This movie I hated.

I as I sat through this movie, I had an overwhelming feeling that I was being played. This movie was made for the sole purpose of making people cry. Not that it had a story to tell, just string together as many sad events as you can in two hours. It was heavy-handed and insulting. If you liked this movie, watch it again and then tell me the reason why.

..."Joe vs. the Volcano" was a more romantic and beautiful movie than this, and it was just plain silly; but at least it didn't ask to be taken seriously.

Rating:
Summary: A very sad and beautifull tale of romance...
Review: First off I may have not seen "Wings of Desire" yet... And that's probrably for the best. Considering since it is supposed to be far superior. Plus everyone who has seen it trashes this movie. However I may be a critic, I'm not quite as critical, but everyone has and is entitled to their own opinion.

Its funny how the other reviewers(who've seen "Wings")pan the acting. Because I'm an actor and well personally I thought it was all wonderfull. And I scrutinize everyones acting and I was able to just sit and back feel their emotions. Nicholas Cage as Seth and his reaction to the things of this world, were well done. He did a marvelous job. And Meg as always did Marvelous. And the supporting cast did well too.

And heck it upset me that someone would say he became human to get in the sack with her. That's funny. I don't see why he would. I mean he's never felt it, how would he know if it [is bad] or what. But he loved her(Though personally I'd wouldn't sleep with anyone till I'm married. But ehehehe).

And sure this movie has its fault, but I'm not picking them out. Why? Because this movie is just a good romance. What its meant to be. Good acting, good story, and good movie overall.

Sorry for no plot summary. But I'd think you should know it anyways.

*Enjoy*!
Thankyou&God Bless ~Amy

Rating:
Summary: Nice surface, not much substance (warning, slight spoilers)
Review: OK, just to get this out of the way up front, this is another review preferring "Wings of Desire" over this glossy remake.

It's not that I utterly detest "City of Angels." The director borrowed well from Wim Wenders' German original, particularly the nifty images of dark-coated angels roaming in this world, not in direct contact with human beings, but still able to influence them. And the leads, Nicolas Cage, Meg Ryan and Dennis Franz, are capable actors.

And yet, and yet ... in the end, "City of Angels" is merely about a supernatural being who becomes human just to get into the sack with a pretty woman, overlaid with some homilies tacked on about how much he sacrificed to achieve that state, and everything being worth it no matter what tragedy strikes.
Guess they thought they were brave in giving the movie a sad, yet ultimately uplifting ending, but it falls flat.

In "Wings of Desire," the angel's passion for a certain woman is the precipitating factor for him taking the plunge (quite literally), but it's just the final influence in a long-held desire to experience all the sensations that being human confers. Indeed, we never really see the two "get together," and really, there's no need to. There's also much more of a spiritual dimension in the original as opposed to the pat, feel-good sort of theology tacked on to "City of Angels."

Yes, "Wings of Desire" has a much more deliberate pace than "City of Angels" and it does spin out a lot of philosophy, but don't let that scare you away. You don't need a college degree to enjoy it - just a willingness to take the time and let its subtle spell envelop you.

And I'll bet you'll find the moment in "Wings" when Peter Falk says, "I can't see you," but I know you're there," much more delightful than the same moment Dennis Franz has in "City."