City of Angels Review
by p-m agapow (agapow AT latcs1 DOT cs DOT latrobe DOT edu DOT au)June 12th, 1998
# [film] "City of Angels"
A Postview, copyright 1998 p-m agapow
One of the multitude of angels that looks over Los Angeles (Cage) falls in love with a surgeon (Ryan) who is facing personal and career turning points.
"City of Angels" is not a bad film, but it is a poor remake of Wim Wenders' "Wings of Desire". For those who came in late, the central conceit is that angels walk amongst unseen amongst us. They do not interfere, just witness, eavesdropping on thoughts, marvelling at the travails of humans, silently offering solace. Given the growing popularity of angels as (strangely secular) icons of optimism and spirituality, it was perhaps inevitable that the aloof, (largely) monochrome and very European "Wings" be remade in the Hollywood mode. This apparently involved the use of a Waring blender to edit the script into an appropriately dumb form. Where "Wings" was ponderous, "City" is frothy. Where "Wings" is remote and oblique, "City" is superficial. Where "Wings" is romantic, "City" is a romance. In short, where "City" diverges from "Wings", it mostly does so for the worst. But the result is not all bad.
It is a trifle ludicrous though. Instead of Bruno Ganz struck with wonder at the dissolute acrobat Solveig Dommartin, we have Nicholas Cage lust-struck with idealistic heart-surgeon Meg Ryan. (Hey, it's a romance. It needs - nay, requires - Meg Ryan.) Subtlety has quietly been thrown out the window. When the angelic Cage reveals himself to Ryan, she gasps "You're beautiful!". This is not - repeat, not - a great moment in cinema. Cage's male pattern baldness and (ahem) excess of chest hair are distracting, to say the least. A celestial chest wax and toupee would go a long way. Slap in some trite aphorisms about the wonder of the world and love (which could only be uttered in a wealthy city like Los Angeles, and not one like Berlin wedged between two warring military powers), add an intrusive soundtrack, and there is every reason to expect "City of Angels" to be irritating.
But, for the sentimental viewer (which I confess to be), there is worth even in something as potentially trite as "City of Angels". Much like "Faraway, So Close", the somewhat mundane sequel to "Wings of Desire", there are moments when it beautifully flares to life. Angels crowd the beach, in rapture at the sunset and dawn. A dead girl nostalgically remembers pyjamas. A robber is agitated by self-doubt and guilt during a holdup. A fallen angel rejoices in the mundane sensations of life. Despite its lumbering gait, these ideas shine through and save a simple movie from becoming simple minded, and admitting both the wonder of complexity of life. This mission is aided by the competence of some its components. There is some genuinely beautiful photography in this film. Cage and Ryan, who have both at times turned in cliched performances, here give two restrained and humane portrayals. "City of Angels" may not be high art, but it is worthwhile.
"Is this God punishing me?" whimpers a character. "You know better than that," his colleague answers. And that's not a bad thought to take away from a movie. [**/ok] and "Everything I Needed To Know, I Learnt In Kindergarten" on the Sid and Nancy scale.
"City of Angels"
Released 1998.
Directed by Brad Silberling.
Starring Nicolas Cage, Meg Ryan, Andre Braugher, Dennis Franz.
------
Paul-Michael Agapow ([email protected]), La Trobe Uni, Infocalypse "There is no adventure, there is no romance, there is only trouble and desire."
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
