I'm serious, I mean, how could a movie ever be expected to live up to the potential that "The Crow" did? Even though I saw what they were trying to do, I didn't think it was that bad. Continuing for the crow to bring people back to avenge their horrible deaths wasn't a bad idea. What came into this bad idea was that they used the same exact story and fight moves as the first Crow. Bringing Sarah back also wasn't too necessary. She's a sort of depressed loner that just seems to get worse and worse from the first story. You mostly wonder what happened between her and her mother, what does she remember from Erik, and her and Ashe? The love story? It was so not necessary. Again, they used a gang as the killers. Only the first gang from the original "Crow" was more realistic, in fact besides Erik coming back from the dead, the first movie was very realistic. "City of Angels" on the other hand is more magical and fantasy like. The characters also were not well developed like in the first one. This wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't good either. I was in a lot of denial to see this movie. All I could think was "How could they do this to one of the coolest movies of all time?". To me, "City of Angels" didn't exist. But I was curious, and this is what I got.
4/10
4/10