City of Angels

< Previous Trailer  |   Add to My Scrapbook  |   Next Trailer >
City of Angels

81% Liked It
liked it

City of Angels

Andre Braugher, Dennis Franz, Meg Ryan, Nicolas Cage, Colm Feore

Inspired by the modern classic, Wings of Desire, City involves an angel (Cage) who is spotted by a doctor in an operating room. Franz plays Cage's buddy who somehow knows a lot about angels.

Id: 10905294

Do you want to see this movie?

My Friends Said...

City of Angels Recent Reviews

Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !

Recent Reviews

City of Angels Recent Reviews
  • SirPant
    September 21, 2009
    SirPant
    A dire remake of Wim Wender's classic. Hollywood bile.
  • FangsFirst
    February 8, 2009
    FangsFirst
    As with everything that people claim is "love it or hate it" or otherwise black and white, I can't really universally claim what I'm about to. I realize there's middle ground, hell, I intend to place myself in that middle ground. Whenever this film comes up, it either leads one g...( read more)roup to sneer at its "Hollywood gloss" or the other that the film it is based on is "boring" or pretentious. I'm very tired of both approaches, which may surprise the people who know my general feeling about remakes, re-imaginings, re-adaptations and so on. Some, I guess, might attribute my indifference about this one to the fact that I saw this, the re-make, first. This might even be true, but even now I have difficulty reconciling them as anything remotely similar. And I'll probably make some claims about this one that disturb, disgust or disappoint many people. So be it.

    Seth (Nicolas Cage) is an angel tasked with observing humans and bringing them over to the life beyond the physical one. He can read minds but does not openly communicate with humans, being neither visible nor audible to them. His closest friend is Cassiel (Andre Braugher), who has the same job. They tend to migrate around Los Angeles, flitting from person to person as they go, only specifically assigned when someone needs to be taken onward. When he's in an operating room to take a dying man, he catches the eye of Maggie Rice (Meg Ryan), who happens to stare right at him in the midst of her work. Seth is delighted when he realizes this and takes an interest in her, following her in her daily activities, her job and her normal routines. At the room of Nathaniel Messinger (Dennis Franz), Maggie happens to actually see Seth and has a brief conversation with him, fascinated by him. Seth begins to feel tormented in some way by this, but decides to show himself as much as possible to her, within the limits of his angelic powers. It's not until he stumbles across the idea of freewill in the Host that he is left with the choice to join Maggie in mortality and lose the majesty of his eternity--for the rough and painful human life and all its increased sensation and experience.

    Calling this a remake of Der Himmel über Berlin is silly. Is it? Yes, technically--it goes so far (unlike other films I could name) as to declare its source material in its credits, even. It shares the idea of silent, invisible angels observing and documenting, a similar scene of Seth and Cassiel sharing notes on the day's observances, a library as their home--enough that it should give credit, but it does that. Beyond that, it takes the same concept and applies it to another idea. Der Himmel über Berlin is about minutiae. It's about the things we don't think about or realize in our lives, the things that we don't value because of their familiarity and consistency. People are observed in their monotony and their randomness, in reading, in thinking, in just doing their jobs. City of Angels examines the "larger picture" of living instead of being alive, the bigger issues of life and death and pain and joy. It's a deviation that manages to help the film extract itself from the source material. It's not an issue of superiority or inferiority, of obviousness and subtlety. It's a different approach to a different topic using similar (not always quite the same) tools.

    Actually, this film is a lot smarter than the more pretentious fans of Wenders' film would have you believe. No, it's not an arthouse film, no it doesn't use a contrast between black and white, no it doesn't dwell on langorous scenes of stream-of-consciousness babbling about inanities (which is not a criticism--Wenders' film is SUPPOSED to be doing that), and no it doesn't build its language as poetry. Yes, it is more a romance, yes, it is aware of its budget and happy to use it, yes, it's more willing to look to spectacle to show its meaning, yes, it's willing to use popular music (to an extent--not the contrived schmaltz of modern television use that annoys me so, which seems more designed to sell CDs than enhance scenes), and yes it stars big name draws. It's a strange thing, because Cage suffers similarly unfounded criticisms. A lot of people knock the man, but every time I ask if they've seen some of his best work, and many grudgingly admit to Leaving Las Vegas, then tell me they've never seen Adaptation. I don't really know what drives this (if I were a boring person, I might suggest jealousy, but I just don't get that feeling), but it continues onward, unlike Leonardo DiCaprio, who has finally outshone his "teen idol" reputation and shed it completely. It's a shame, because Cage can do really good work, but most people seem to decide he can't based on films that don't ask for it. Or maybe they saw The Wicker Man remake. I don't know. I guess I couldn't blame them for holding that against him.

    But this movie has interesting things to say--some are a little reeled out (mostly around issues of faith, which were rounded down a bit, based on the special features, from ridiculous polemic parody), but most are cleverly reeled out when they are. If it chooses to make something more obvious than Wenders did, it does so in a logical and smart fashion, and an emotionally acceptable one. So it's a romance--so what? Is there some refusal to accept the naïve unreality of romance in "real art" or something? There sure seems to be, and this defies expectation and desire, if you ask me. If this weren't such a magnetic concept to humanity, it wouldn't be as successful as it is. Perhaps it's just irritation with success--rather than actual jealousy, just a simple annoyance--that drives this condemnation. I can't really say, because I don't share it. I don't feel like, as I fear with others, this film will bury its progenitor. Wenders is credited, but also the title and story vary enough that those interested in both realms of film (arthouse and populist) can appreciate both films. It's not a cheap, quick-run picture thrown out to capitalize on a quiet art film, it seems like one where someone (apparently late producer Dawn Steel) saw a film they liked and wanted to do something else, and, instead of criticizing the film for not exploring what they were interested in (I'm looking at you, Ebert--even if it's related to different films), they chose to return to the concept of these angels and explore those ideas they were interested in through a new film.

    Maybe I'm just a romantic at heart, I don't know. I don't love the film because Meg Ryan and Nicolas Cage are "so cute together" (though they do have chemistry, I freely admit), or simply because it's such a fantasy for those with romantic hearts, because I usually have to activate a portion of my brain devoted to a kind of enjoyment-sustaining suspension of disbelief to take in bad, poor or even middling films that do something I'm interested in, or "turn off" the portions that are looking at things like scene construction, dialogue or visual approach. This film has those things, though, and uses them intelligently, despite the claims of big budget-naysayers, who refuse to like the film on general principle, and can thus sadly never allow themselves to enjoy it. It's not the best film ever, and relies too much on its predecessor to be a revelation, but it's a very good, very enjoyable film, with a good handful more brains and thoughtful heart than most of its star power-infused siblings. Even the score is a little more well-constructed than usual.

    Of course, maybe it's just the presence of the incredible Andre Braugher, who brings real class to any role he takes on. It could be that (or Franz, who brings a seedier authenticity, and a wonderfully genial kind, here).
  • irisheyes686
    August 23, 2008
    irisheyes686
    Undoubtedly one of the saddest movies I have ever seen. It was such a touching story though.
  • Redlats
    December 4, 2007
    Redlats
    A sappy movie - chick flick type. Nicholas Cage has to decide between the immortality of an angel vs mortality and the love, feel and touch of Meg Ryan. If you haven't seen the movie, don't read any reviews until after you have seen it. I need to see the movie Wings of Desire ...( read more)now.
  • ladyp1964
    November 21, 2007
    ladyp1964
    and just when you think everything's going right at last.... it all goes very wrong.

    A heart-wrenching story!
  • alexonia20
    December 26, 2009
    alexonia20
    Rrrrrrrrrromantique!!!
  • ZakaryasX
    December 19, 2009
    ZakaryasX
    GREAT MOVIE, EXCELLENT STORYLINE
  • Marischa2
    December 18, 2009
    Marischa2
    an angel that falls inlove with a women its so sweet.
  • shadow16ro
    December 18, 2009
    shadow16ro
    Bittersweet ,it makes you laugh,leaves you pensive.Interesting view on our guardian angels.
    It's a sad end but still worth's watching.(I hate sad ends ! >:| ).
    Goo Goo Doll's "Iris" is an amazing song.
  • annegirlms
    December 17, 2009
    annegirlms
    my friend tells me I should see this...
View All Reviews

Opening This Week

Top Box Office

Upcoming Movies

New on DVD