City of Angels

Rating:
Summary: forget it, it's not worth it.
Review: It was more like watching a documentary! all these sites and the music, very little talking on the part of the actors. The more annoying thing bout this film was having to watch the cold performance by Cage. Add to that: who on earth have even conceived the thought that all angles live in a library building????? This title is definetly not worth the money or the time.

Rating:
Summary: You cannot compare apples and oranges!
Review: I kept reading and hearing about Wim Wender's epic German film Wings of Desire on which City of Angels is supposedly based. So I hunted for Wings of Desire, and after months of searching found an old VHS video with English subtitles. Something troubled me after I viewed it(besides the fact of the English subtitles and that the majority of the time the "star" angel does most of his monologue as a soliloquy). And then it struck me! It was a German movie based, I believe, on a German book. Having studied German for 4 years and being a Dutchman since birth(52 now, thank you), much of that culture's literature and art work (including films) are very philosophical and erudite. Watching Wings of Desire gave me a nasty headache, because it was hard to keep up with the depth of the plot(which was mainly thinking), especially with the English subtitles. City of Angels, on the other hand, was more understandable because Seth spoke frequently to his buddy angel, so the soliloquy became a true dialogue. Also, the cause for Seth's unrest was introduced close to the beginning of the movie: Meg Ryan as a very frustrated, agnostic cardiologist. The rest of the movie, including Seth's questions about humanity and immortality, move along at an acceptable pace. For depth of plot I suggest you look at Seth when he looks at children, the dying, the living, at Dennis Franz, who is great by the way. You (at least I) see the depth of plot in Seth's eyes and his attempt to touch as mortals touch. This is not a journey into the deeply intellectual, philosophical, "heady" part of us, as is Wings of Desire. City of Angels has a better tempo, an understandable plot, and, if you think deeply enough about it, it leaves you with questions that only you can answer.

Rating:
Summary: Dramatic and Heart-Trending
Review: This movie is more for people who like sad movies. It just isn't for people who wish they coud live in Happy Land. Cage and Ryan do an excellent job of bringing this story of life, love, and tragedy to life. The fact is that most people don't believe in angels. This movie made me change my perspective on that subject.

Rating:
Summary: Disappiontment!
Review: As a fan of Cage, I am very disappointed.. The plot is too simple and the performance was not good.

Rating:
Summary: MAGNIFICENT
Review: " City Of Angels " is the movie of the decade . How true what "Messenger" says in the movie " People dont believe in us anymore " Heart wrentching , tears , laughter never get bored as , I have watched it 14 times . and thats not the last either . It just goes to show that you dont have to make a blockbuster with 10 years of making it . Good work ! " Cage " was the best . Very talented and dedicated . I like to see that

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful movie
Review: Need a standard format on this dvd. Do no like the wide-screen format. Who wants to look at half the screen, especially when you have a normal size tv. Am very disappointed that most of the dvd's do not have both formats.

Rating:
Summary: Ryan and Cage = NO SPARK
Review: I am perhaps the biggest Meg Ryan fan around. I absolutely adore When Harry Met Sally among her other great films. This flick ws almost as disappointing as 1998's Youve Got Mail. The difference is that in You've Got Mail Hanks and Ryan have a connection that ignites on screen, while this movie had an okay script just bad casting on the choice of Cage.

Rating:
Summary: A ho hum movie...wake me when it's over.
Review: This is one of those highly forgettable movies that two days after you've seen it, you can't recall much, if anything, about it. Basically, it's about some dreary, gloomy, joyless heavenly angels that live in a library, (it gets worse).This movie lost ALL credibility for me in an early scene when one of the angels (Cage) reveals himself to a doctor (Ryan) who doesn't know he's an angel. He then asks her what food tastes like. Without batting an eyelash, she answers him like this is an everyday normal question. I think he also asks her what an orange tastes like...like I said, it's hard to remember. I can not recall anything from that scene on, not even how it ends. The script in this movie is pitiful and Cage and Ryan are moronic throughout.

Rating:
Summary: this was the worst!
Review: this is meg ryan and nicholas cage in their absolute worst. nicholas's acting was that of a 3rd graders! i would recommend NOT seeing this movie! if i could, i'd give it 0 stars.

Rating:
Summary: Riveting....a great movie.
Review: This movie was truly captivating. The portrayal of "angels" was fresh and different even contrary to conventional perceptions of angels. I think it is a beautiful (although tragic) movie. It made me realize how lucky I am to be able to enjoy the simple pleasures that life has to offer. This is one movie that I will take with me for a long time.