City of Angels (1998)

I've watched "Wings of Desire" and "Faraway, so close" two or three times -yes, I LOVE those movies. In my opinion, "City of Angels" is a bad copy of "Wings...", a bad copy between the obvious and the disrespectful.

First, the acting -all you have to do to be an angel is lift your eyebrows (as Nick Cage enjoys doing the whole movie). He wanders through the film looking as if he's about to cry; he's no angel, just a good-looking guy trying to play the innocent-and-loving character. Meg Ryan -well, why bother? She's the standard actress for this kind of romantic journeys -maybe because she always performs the same way.

Then, the photography. No spoiler here: remember when Cage and his angelical companion Cassiel, standing on a skyscraper, mention the beauty of the view -which we are carried to see; and there, all over the screen, stands this awfully big Marlboro ad. Oh, how lovely! Also, those unavoidable pieces of every simplistic romance movie: the "character ponders it over" with its score of incidental music, and the "great slow-mo" moment of ecstasy.

And last, the plot. Plenty of cliches ("love conquers all", "the wages of sin is death", "the materialistic who starts to believe again"...), absolutely predictable, flat characters, clumsy lines. Love is far more complex than this -and so is death.

Looking at this picture I ask: why is it that nobody thinks of re-writing "Romeo and Juliet" or repainting Van Gogh's "The sunflowers", but everybody thinks it right to remake "Psycho" or "Wings of Desire"?

Look for the best-seller: "How to spoil a classic: The Movie!"

Fmovies: I'm about the easiest person in the world from which to jerk a tear, and this movie left me completely dry-eyed. Yes, it was a very Hollywood story, complete with quick, convenient character transformations & plot discoveries & a very predictable plot-line, but a well-done Hollywood tale can often reduce me to big, blubbering sobs. I think the main problem with this movie was the total miscasting of Nicholas Cage - I agree completely with those who say that had they met him in the hospital corridor as Meg did they would have been terrified & called hospital security!! There was no warmth or wisdom or charisma or anything in his portrayal - it was as though he was hiding everything that normally makes Nicholas Cage sexy & compelling in a mis-guided effort to appear wise & ethereal. Had an actor like John Travolta or Jeff Bridges or any number of independent film stalwarts been cast, some charm & a sense of humor could have shown through, I could have understood why he compelled her, and perhaps the story would have moved me, in spite of the Hollywoodish-ness.

its a truly brilliant movie especially when you pay attention to the soundtrack. the words in the movie are brilliant, especially Iris by the Goo Goo Dolls and and Angel by Sarah Mclachlan. Probably the two most brilliant movie songs that i have heard and they match this movie so fittingly.

on another note, Nicholas cage was a brilliant choice for this role. his eyes and his tone, while not making him sexy in any way, fit him into this role like a glove.

Truly recommend this movie as a brilliant piece of film and a beautiful story.

City of Angels fmovies. A very different look at the world of angels and their interaction with human beings. If this were a story about the devil, IMDB would have plenty of comments so I am not surprised to read so many negative ones.

I don't believe that angels wear black, but I do believe in the premise of this movie: "sometimes things are true whether you believe in them or not."

Meg Ryan, a very unlikely choice, was thoroughly believable as an obsessive-compulsive doctor who never sleeps. When she loses a patient for the first time, she cries bitterly and cannot understand how it could have happened--all witnessed by Nicolas Cage as Seth, an angel who was sent to escort her patient to heaven. Cage allows himself to be seen by Ryan in a hospital corridor and sweetly asks, "Are you in despair?" This entire conversation sweeps the women in the audience into their evolving relationship. Yes, I guess this is definitely a woman's movie.

Others in lesser roles were quite good. Dennis Franz nails the part of a former angel who has "fallen to earth." (I do not watch his television show so this was the first time I have seen him act--I was impressed.) Andre Braugher, formerly of Homicide (a show I did watch), was terrific as Seth's closest angel friend, although he had very few lines, as usual Braugher was effective. His smile at the end of the movie stays with you.

Overall, this is a nice love story that I enjoyed the first time I saw it but decreasingly so with future viewings. After three, it was enough, but that's two more than I usually watch of Meg Ryan films.

Since it's Hollywood, you know there is going to be misguided theology, in this case the subject is angels and heaven. None of the "sermons" in here are Biblical, believe me. it's really more of a love story than anything else. Plus, it's an interesting story with good visuals.

Nicholas Cage plays a likable guy. There are actually a few good messages about God and angels - mainly that they exist - and another good message being that all of us should appreciate more what we have here on earth, starting with our senses (smell, taste, touch, etc.)

Anyway, if you like a good romance story, you should like this movie.

Nothing in film upsets me more than a dumbed-down, cheesed-up remake of a truly great work of art.

I cannot understand what would possess anyone to commit such an atrocity, and I cannot recommend that anyone waste their time on this piece of trash when they could instead be watching the original, "Wings of Desire" (1987), and its sequel. The remake may employ better-known actors, but it adds nothing of merit while stripping away most of the original's emotional depth.

Had I not first seen the vastly superior original, I might have enjoyed this movie enough to sit through more than the first half and give it 4/10 stars.