The Crow: City of Angels Poster

The Crow: City of Angels (1996)

Action | Fantasy 
Rayting:   4.6/10 19.3K votes
Country: USA
Language: English
Release date: 21 August 1997

The spirit of the Crow resurrects another man seeking revenge for the murder of his son.

Movie Trailer

Where to Watch

User Reviews

droogiedim77 30 May 2002

this is a surprisingly great movie. in fact, i'd say the crow trilogy is one of the best in the horror/dark action/supernatural genre. all the films are different enough to establish their own personality, but still similar enough in that they follow the exploits of a wronged man trying seeking vengeance. this film does what a sequel should do. while you can't continue the exploits of the eric draven, it brings back sarah from the first movie and continues the story of the crow granting a victim a chance to make things right. the only problem is it suffered from having to follow the legacy of the 1st crow movie. i thoroughly enjoyed the first crow movie, but i must say this is better in just about every aspect. it is shot so much better. in the first one, they try to make the film dark by washing out all the colors. this one achieves to be more twisted and sinister just by using darker hues and washing out most of the bright colors. it also has a deeper sense of foreboding and impending doom, and makes it villains darker and more mysterious by adding a slight touch of mysticism and perversion. vincent perez is fantastic as the crow, playing a more vulnerable ashe to lee's draven. he provides a more frustrated and frantic feel to his vengeance. he also adds more desperation, remembering his final moments when dispatching his enemies. mia kirshner is excellent as sarah and plays the role with just enough emotion to purvey her pain suffering but also an understanding of the crow mythos. the script is better written, making the film darker without resorting to stripping the film of color. the villains are made more sadistic and the crime to spark the crow more tragic. there is also a tighter feel between the characters by having it take place in what appears to be a pretty empty city except for during the climax. i dont want to ruin it, but the setting within the setting helps the story move along so much better to. tim pope does a superb job directing, adding an extra bit of flair to all the visuals from scene to scene while still the more gothic, medieval feel of the film. the soundtrack is also so much better. it isn't as all over the place as the first and maintains the intended feel of the movie with all of its tracks. it is also masterfully peppered throughout the movie, picking just the right song at just the right moment to add the little extra bit of feeling that help completes the scene. this film has just about all the ingredients of an underrated classic. my advice to you is to go out and rent this movie, but when you watch it forget about the legacy surrounding the crow and just try to enjoy it.

angarahad 24 May 2003

Fmovies: i was really skeptical about how this movie would turn out in comparison to the GREAT original Crow--who could possibly compare to Brandon??? but Vincent Perez totally blew me away--his acting lent such intense emotion to the physicality of his role as the "avenging spirit". i've seen some of his other work (indochine, bride of the wind, queen of the damned) and that is one thing he always beings to every role--very evocative displays of emotion that really bring you into the film. and Mia was a perfect choice for Sarah! what a great little gothgirl she was! i think the "special effects" weren't over the top--and the whole "lighting and smog/fog" effects worked --for me anyway. the only shortcoming was the soundtrack--the first Crow had a perfect selection of songs--especially the Cure's "burn", Nine Inch Nail's "dead souls" and My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult's "after the flesh". on City of Angel's soundtrack, the only song that stood out for me was White Zombie's "i'm your boogieman". so here's one positive vote in favor of The Crow: City of Angels....

iris_sheffield 23 February 2005

If anyone tells you that Crow: The city of Angels is just a poor shadow of The Crow, don't listen! The City of Angels is not just a dark and gripping story of pain and revenge. It's much much more. It complements the first movie perfectly, without messing up the whole point. Ash (perez) is wonderful as the main character, not letting you forget for a moment what drives him in his revenge. But what amazed me most is that, as Ash goes through his victims one by one, his ways of dealing with them is not just fearsome, but...beautiful. I mean, some of those scenes really catch your aesthetic eye. And just a look into the girl's eyes takes you into a whole new perspective on things.The Crow: City of Angels makes a dark movie beautiful. And what else do you expect from part II?

Akuma-5 13 December 2002

The Crow: City of Angels fmovies. I could go on a more-than-1000-word rant on the underrated good elemtsn of this movie versus the horrible ones....what misfired, and what should've been brought to light...and I was about to a few minutes ago. However, it was in the middle of this rant that i decided to check out the alternate versions section of this movie's info....And apparently, we've all seen a raped movie.

The scenes detailed there are PRECISELY what this movie required to make it work the way it should have. Of particular interest is the alternate ending, in which Ashe eventually chooses to stay on earth with Sarah than return to the afterlife, and is apparently punished forhis sentiments with eternity on earth. Even though I am one of the few who believes the ending is actually one of the film's strong points(except for the barrage of crows thing...unexplained in the film, but, according to the alternate versions section, has an explanation), this ending is a much more suitable one to The Crow's universe....so, the question raised is "Why?"

A biggert question raised is "Where can I see this?"

I'd continue, but i dont think any more should be said until someone sees this print in motion.

lost-in-limbo 4 May 2008

I adore the original film that starred Brandon Lee as the avenging angel brought back from the dead. Now a sequel was probably inevitable, and I remember being largely disappointed by it with its wearily cut-up story, dour performances and diluted action. Well nothing has changed the second time around. Again I can't knock that killer hard-rock / industrial sounding soundtrack, haunting score and the dark, Gothic embellishment creating an atmospherically catastrophe post-apocalyptic Los Angeles. It's dirty, smoggy and jarringly bleak. Jean Yves Escoffier's cinematography lenses it with the right free-spirited. However there's nothing overly memorable, or even powerfully gripping to draw any real emotion and interest form the suffocatingly drab and unimaginative narrative. By following the same patterns of the original's tragedy, it doesn't lay any new groundwork. It was a tediously repetitive mess that seemed more fantasy-based and conjures up a script that's weakly penned. Vincent Perez's avenging soul is unconvincingly void in a tortured performance, which doesn't create much heart-ache or grace. There's no imprint, or witty charisma that Lee evoked. Honestly I didn't feel anything. Richard Brooks flimsily strolls by with no impressionable stance as the head villain. Mia Kirshner gives a sound performance and Iggy Pop delightfully chews up the scenery to spit it out. Director Tim Pope can formulate some flourishing visuals and lasting poses, but when it came to setting everything in motion. Flat and unexciting comes to mind. His action set-pieces lacked zest and seemed to plod like they're sliced up music video clips. Never did it infuse any real sense of energy, thrills and urgency. In the end it feels just like a cheap, quick and empty rehash.

terminator690 31 December 2004

Stop criticising this movie! Surly it's no match for the first Crow movie, but in the long run it's a totally different movie to the first. The Characters are different, The actors are different, the villains are different and technically the story is different, for in the first movie, It's Eric Draven's Fiancée that gets murdered and the "sequel", It's Ashe's SON that get's murdered.

O.K. maybe i'm wrong, it more likely is a sequel. But it's not a sequel to the first crow film, it does not follow the same story, it's about a completely different person.

The message I'm trying to get through to you is: "Stop thinking of it as a sequel. Think of it as it's own movie, THEN you'll enjoy it better." Walk down to a video store near you, and rent it out. Just give the damn movie a chance.

Similar Movies

8.6
Karthikeya 2

Karthikeya 2 2022

6.2
Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore 2022

7.0
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness 2022

6.1
Day Shift

Day Shift 2022

5.5
The Princess

The Princess 2022

6.5
Bimbisara

Bimbisara 2022

8.7
Spider-Man: No Way Home

Spider-Man: No Way Home 2021

6.8
Eternals

Eternals 2021


Share Post

Direct Link

Markdown Link (reddit comments)

HTML (website / blogs)

BBCode (message boards & forums)

Watch Movies Online | Privacy Policy
Fmovies.guru provides links to other sites on the internet and doesn't host any files itself.