User Reviews

I do think this film is underrated. For one thing, it has beautiful cinematography that just adds to the appeal of the film. Another thing I liked was the very thoughtful soundtrack, that title song is very haunting, and we just know it is going to be very sad. Some of the film is genuinely moving, and the evidence is in the chemistry of the two stars Meg Ryan and Nicolas Cage. Cage gives a very moving performance as Seth, a very unusual representation of an angel, and Ryan is very charming as always as Maggie. Of the minor roles, Dennis Franz is a scene stealer, bringing some energy into a rather slow-moving story. The script was very touching, though sometimes cheesy, and there are some overly sentimental scenes like the ending, that gets a bit hard to stomach. Though, in conclusion, a lovely looking, moving and well performed film. 7/10 Bethany Cox.

In 2020 I would rather watch this movie for the tenth time than watch silly shallow romance movies of these days, this movie touch the the soul and heart, every time I feel I want a reminder of meaning of life I watch this movie.

I just watched this movie again for about the 3rd time. People say the movie is depressing, unoriginal, and boring. I'll bend on the depressing part, but the other 2 are completely un-true.

Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan give pretty good performances, nothing oscar-worthy, but it's not the acting that makes this movie great. It's beautiful. Pure heaven to the eyes and ears. While you see the wonderful scenes, and backgrounds, with wonderful color and beautiful art direction, and hear the perefectly performed and selected score in the background (with contributions from U2, Sarah McLachlan, and the surprise hit "Iris" from the Goo Goo Dolls) it doesn't really matter what kind of acting is happening. The screenplay is pretty good, but somewhat lacking, which is why I give it an 8.25 on a scale from 1-10. Its a love story, yes, and can get cheesy at points, but none the less, it's still worth seeing once or twice.

I thought City Of Angels was very good. I'm usually very critical towards movies, but City Of Angels got to me. Meg Ryan usually plays in Romantic Comedy's (Sleepless in seatle, You've got mail) but this time, City Of Angels, admittedly a Romantic film, but it isn't a comedy. Far from it, it's a drama in all of its aspects. And Meg Ryan converts to that change very well. She acts great in this movie. It wasn't an easy part for her, there is a lot of crying involved, and a lot of dramatic moments in her characters life.

As goes for Nicolas Cage's character. Oh my god, he plays Seth with such excellence. Really, i don't think that anyone else could play the part as great as he did. The way he looks, the way he moves .. so cool.

Ok the storyline is a little unbeleivable, but you musn't be held back by that fact. Just beleive the unbeleivable. Just go with the plot, and follow the movie closely.

I'm not suggesting that City Of Angels is the best in it's sort. It won't win any oscars, but what i am saying, is that it's a nice movie, with great actors, great music and a good storyline which rolls towards very emotional ending.

You won't be dissapointed.

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.

There's just one point I want to make about this movie, and that's about the OR scene when they're doing a coronary bypass. This is the first time I've ever seen a correct movie rendition of it, it's usually a baroque farce, but not here. Every instrument I could see, the bypass machine, the aortic cannula, the headlamps, the ECG monitors (and the traces!), the orders given, the type of suture, were correct (except I suspect they chose a heavier suture than normal 7-0, since a 7-0 would be very hard to see, it looked more like 4-0 or 5-0). Even the tying of knots, the Joule strengths used for defibrillation, the lidocaine dosages, the body temperature during bypass, the kind of mag the bypass operator is reading, the music (except we had Bach, country & western, Dylan or Cat Stevens, depending on surgeon and how the procedure was going), the time it will take to reprime the pump to get back on cardiac bypass again; I found not one single error! There's this one moment when everyone looks under the table, which is weird, but then Meg Ryan leaves the table, so even that is OK from a sterility point of view. I don't know if other people care, but this kind of care for detail makes a movie a lot more enjoyable for me.

Oh, one more remark: the reanimation with internal cardiac massage is a bit short, they give up a bit too soon. But that's exactly what she blames herself for, later.

City of Angels is a film like few others. Or rather, it is a novel like few others. Even when compared to its original feature, Wings of Desire, the film still delights both those who have been moved several times by its impossible love story and those who still intend to visit this remake that, in the opinion of many, is superior to the original by Wim Wenders. Comparisons or not, the fact is that City of Angels is perhaps among the most beautiful novels Hollywood has made for many years. Directed by Brad Silberling, who, with the exception of a few episodes of TV series, had only directed "Casper (1995)", but surprised by bringing to the land of Uncle Sam the story of an unusual passion between an angel and a human, and yet manage to be as sensitive and touching as Wim Wenders was in his first version.

Seth (Nicolas Cage) is an angel who wanders the Earth comforting the desperate souls of humans alongside his partner Cassiel (Andre Braugher). One day, Seth finds himself side by side with surgeon Maggie (Meg Ryan), a woman very dedicated to her profession and who is shaken when she loses a patient during an operation. Both end up meeting several times, and little by little, a greater feeling arises between them, but unable to be realized due to Seth's condition. And in order to stay by Maggie's side, Seth makes a bold decision that will bring about several changes in both their lives.

Every morning and afternoon the angels gather on the beach to hear the heavenly sound. The film approaches the relationship between angels and God in a poetic way, although it does not go into divine detail. Visually, angels are not like the figures commonly associated with them, here wearing black overcoats and having no wings. They talk to each other and walk calmly through the streets, or watch from the tops of buildings. Nicolas Cage has a lot of chemistry with Meg Ryan. The actor conveys the peace that is expected of an angel, in a minimalist and very restrained performance that strays from his traditional style and proves his quality as an actor. Through body language and restrained voice, Cage illustrates very well Seth's distress at the impossibility of living that love, as well as his doubt after discovering that he can change his condition. Capturing the actors' expressions very well, Silberling also takes the opportunity to fill the narrative with symbolic plans, such as when Maggie kisses her boyfriend at her house and the director moves the camera towards Seth, who is behind the bars of her kitchen, in a shot that illustrates the moment he realizes he is in love and, therefore, "imprisoned by her".

As indicated by the conception of the first act, we have two points of view that, a priori, are opposed, but that with the course of the narrative, will merge and complement each other: the first seeks a more supernatural and faith-based reflection, represented by by the persona of Seth; the second is constantly reaffirmed by Maggie, her unshakable belief in science and her methodical explanations that make her a practical and stigmatized object of what she has always stood for. I am not saying here that there is a right and a wrong side, but that this duality soon collides and begins to reverse roles as the doctor realizes that she can abandon some of her work addictions in the name of a more "human" life. , while the angel develops earthly feelings - such as, for example, love and desire.

Establishing from the beginning the angelic nature of its protagonist, director Brad Silberling makes a point of also introducing us to the benefits of that special condition, bringing Seth and his friend Cassiel (Andre Braugher, in good performance) sitting on top of a sign admiring the look. And talking about the things they can't feel. Thus, early on in the narrative, the dilemma that will torment Seth is already evident: to remain in the privileged condition of an angel or to surrender to the pleasures and dangers of human life. Obviously, neither the protagonist nor the spectator knows that he will be able to have this choice, since it is only after the amusing Nathaniel Messinger enters the scene that this alternative will be presented to the character. Completely at ease in the role, Dennis Franz plays Messinger competently, bestowing grace on the gluttonous angel who decided to leave eternity behind to experience the joys and pains of human life, while also serving as a kind of spiritual guide to Seth.

To expand this sensory experience so desired by Seth, Silberling inserts plans that highlight the everyday activities that make our human condition so special. Thus, simple pleasures like eating a pear or feeling someone else's touch gain a new dimension in the director's camera and become objects of desire for Seth, who reveals his curiosity in a dialogue with his friend Cassiel and in his fascination with the skill. Of the writer Ernest Hemingway in describing sensations he could never feel. He wanted to feel the wind, feel the sea, feel the pain, feel the heat... Anyway, Seth wanted to feel.

Through beautiful traveling shots that roam the city accompanying people going to work, walking and even the police acting, the director highlights life happening naturally as angels roam the place. Aided by the naturalist photography of John Seale, the director highlights the contrast between the realism of the hospital environment and the charm of stunning moments such as when angels gather to accompany the sunset and the beautiful sequences in which they sit on buildings or tall objects. To look at the city, presenting us with plastically beautiful plans. Likewise, the director does a good job of building the supernatural aura that surrounds the angels, especially in shots that have everyone looking at the same place, like when Seth and Maggie leave the Library together for the first time. This feeling is further reinforced by the daring choice of costume designer Shay Cunliffe, who subverts the cliché and brings the angels dressed in black instead of the classic white.

Collaborating in the contrast between the realism of the hospital and the magical aura that surrounds the angels, Gabriel Yared's soundtrack features dissonant instrumental compositions, interspersed with beautiful songs such as the beautiful "Angel" and the hit "Iris", by The Goo Goo. Dolls. Thus, Silberling and his team manage to create the desired atmosphere in "City of Angels", hooking the viewer into a classic narrative about impossible love. In addition, the slow evolution of the novel helps to better develop the characters and their dilemmas, which is also a merit of the editing by Lynzee Klingman, who invests the necessary time in building the atmosphere that will allow Seth and Maggie to get closer. In this way, Silberling can calmly work on the construction of the characters, bringing us closer to them through the constant use of close-up and creating the necessary empathy for the viewer to root for the novel's success.

Some highlights of the script and direction are in the details. As the angel Seth has no sensations, the film tries to represent life through these small and simple pleasures. Nature is inserted in this context as a sensory issue. For angels, the sea represents their connection to the sacred, and the source of life on Earth. Brad Silberling created a meticulously crafted universe. The parallel world of angels - their costumes, dialogue and habits - was created in a very subtle way by the directors. In the 1987 feature film, the version is even more loaded with philosophical concepts and religious or mystical references. And it still proposes the reflection of what is more important: to love for a brief period, to live an ordinary life or to contemplate eternity without tasting the intensity of emotions? Is living a love worth more than an eternal existence?

City of Angels only sins in the haste with which it wants to bring the story to an end, but Silberling gets around this problem by turning this novel out of the ordinary into an immersive experience, with beautiful moments, spectacular photography (I have rarely seen New York City so well lit) and a soundtrack filled with songs that perfectly complement their scenes, featuring tracks from Jimmy Hendrix, U2, Frank Sinatra and The Goo Goo Dolls.

To finish pulling out the last drops of tears from part of the audience, Seth says he "would rather touch her, kiss her and feel her just once than spend eternity without doing it". And if the viewer agrees with him, the success of "City of Angels" is guaranteed. Despite following basic clichés of the novels, Silberling has the courage to escape the expected happy ending and bet on an ironically tragic outcome, which makes us reflect on the ephemerality of human life and our impotence in the face of it. Still enriched by competent performances and a striking visual, "City of Angels" confirms itself as an efficient and beautiful novel.

I absolutely love this movie. I have seen it several times and it still never ceases to bring me to tears. Nicholas Cage does a wonderful job portraying Seth, an angel who falls in love with a workaholic doctor, convincingly portrayed by Meg Ryan (in a definite departure from her usual kooky, girl next door role). The movie is beautifully photographed, and the love story, although a little far fetched, (angel gives up being an angel to become human to be with the woman he loves) it is still incredibly moving. Without giving away all the best parts of the movie, you had better have plenty of Kleenex on hand...it's definitely a tearjerker. The ending of the movie is a testament to the power of love and life...powerful stuff. This is definitely a "chick flick", but is just wonderful on all levels. I have always believed in angels, but after seeing this film it gave me a different perspective of our guardian angels. A must see!

This 1998 romantic drama is as fanciful as fantasy movies come, and John Seale's beautiful cinematography goes a long way toward creating the dream-like quality essential to pull this type of movie off. Director Brad Silberling and screenwriter Dana Stevens have decided to amplify the romantic elements of Win Wenders' wondrous 1987 classic, "Wings of Desire", but stick to the basic plot elements. The transatlantic adaptation is not altogether successful because the greater themes of immortality and human fallibility in the original film have been submerged in favor of more individualized needs like sensuality and love. The thematic change trivializes the film into little more than a piece of romantic whimsy.

Now set in Los Angeles, the plot focuses on an angel named Seth who walks freely among the living and remains unseen unless he so desires. He gets drawn to Maggie Rice, an exacting surgeon who loses her first patient on the operating table. In the middle of her personal crisis, Seth comes into her life filling an emotional void, setting the stage for the pivotal decision he needs to make - remaining immortal as an angel or becoming human to experience the passion he feels for Maggie. Luckily, in probably her best dramatic performance, Meg Ryan is especially resonant as Maggie as she mutes her natural sprite-like manner into a palpable sadness that fits the character.

With a part that risks skirting parody during the first half, a steadily unblinking Nicolas Cage plays Seth in a plaintive, child-like manner until the story moves toward its inevitable climax. I still find it difficult to believe that Seth's discomforting, Norman Bates-like manner would provide such a powerful attraction to Maggie at the outset. I also think the ending plot manipulations are a botch, a contemptible attempt to twist the viewer into thinking a greater point has been made when in fact, the viewer has been sucker-punched. Andre Braugher's becalming manner is used to good effect as fellow angel Cassiel, and Dennis Franz is appropriately ostentatious as a junk-food-addicted hospital patient who is not what he appears to be. By the way, the interiors of the San Francisco Main Library (opened two years before) never looked better than under the guise of LA's in this movie.

There are a surprising number of extras for such an early release DVD (1998) with three separate commentary tracks, the first by Silberling, the second by Stevens and co-producer Charles Roven, and the third by composer Gabriel Yared. Seale and production designer Lilly Kilvert contribute select-scene commentaries on the other side of the disc. There are two featurettes - a half-hour making-of documentary called "Making Angels" and a ten-minute short focused strictly on the visual effects. Seven deleted scenes, two music videos (including the Goo Goo Dolls' then-omnipresent MTV hit, "Iris"), and the theatrical trailer round out the major DVD extras.

Loose remake of Wings of Desire that goes less for the artsy approach and more for the romantic drama. Nic Cage plays an angel who falls in love with pretty surgeon Meg Ryan. Cage, as always, is an acquired taste. His usual half-ham approach to acting is on display here. If you are familiar with him and don't like his style, then you will hate this so don't bother. Ryan is adorable and pretty and can cry on cue. So she's perfect for this kind of schmaltz. Dennis Franz appears in a reworking of Peter Falk's wonderful role in the original film. Falk was the best part of Wings of Desire for me. Franz is OK here but not particularly memorable.

Despite its flaws, I was actually enjoying it for the most part. Not loving it, but enjoying it. It was pleasant enough. But the downbeat ending killed the whole thing for me. Look, you don't want to make a pretentious art film like Wings of Desire -- OK, cool, I'm with you there. But if you're going to make a mainstream love story, then stick with that and don't give me some depressing ending. It made me feel like I wasted my time with the whole thing. It had nothing profound to say and certainly didn't have the nice visuals of Wings of Desire, so it really needed to make the love story work. Instead it makes an attempt at the last minute to become something more than it is and it fails. Nice soundtrack though.

This movie is worth falling for ,when u really want to hold the hands of Magi,feel her,touch her and really leave the eternity to just be with her. The theme was so wonderful that u really want to live with the characters and just hope to be one of them, that proves why man is afraid to die ,because he know that he will lose all the sensations for what human being is really crafted by the god, to live in pain leaving the eternity,but to feel love.The characters are excellently played,even the scores following were just letting you feel the theme and live with the characters. I really can't understand the harsh notes of critics and there sharp views but I can feel that this movie is worth falling for, even if you have to loose your eternity.This is my first comment on this site but I feel may be I delayed it only to give my first one to this one only.(24-12-05)

Angels are everywhere, on highway signs, building tops, and in libraries. Dressed in black trench coats they hang out, unseen, eavesdropping while waiting for people to croak so they can escort them to the hereafter. No wonder angel Seth (Cage) gets the hots for a perky surgeon (Ryan). He meets her in her operating room, which apparently is a good place for picking up angel-business, i.e., the newly deceased. This also explains why angels like to hang out on interstate highway signs...but libraries? Anyway it turns out that angels can "go human" if they wish. Now this is not at all as good a deal as skipping college and going straight to the pros for the big payday. No, this is irreversible and earns the changeling angel such human features as hunger, aging, pain, and death. Why would an angel do it? For Meg Ryan? For the munchies?

If you like this kind of stuff (and I generally don't) instead rent Wim Wender's original movie, Wings of Desire, of which City of Angels is a remake.

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.

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.

City of Angels is a decent movie, but like many Hollywood movies before it (and after it), it is not an original. I noticed one person posted a comment about it being a good original movie, but it is a remake of the German film "Der Himmel über Berlin," or more often referred to as "On the Wings of Desire." City of Angels took an incredible movie and turned it into a typical entertainment/romance film. Meg Ryan did an incredible job, and I'm still a little shocked at how well Cage portrayed the angel. This is a film I can stand to watch; however, I do not enjoy it as much and beg you to at least give "On the Wings of Desire" too.

Best wishes in finding which movie you enjoy more!

As a kid I loved this movie. I watch it again after many years, and is bad! It has very good moments. But overall is slow, boring, and the dialogue is ridiculous. Maggie and Seth have no chemistry. Just insta love. And Seth, he is so creepy all the time (uncomfortable to watch). The ending is good though.

As with any copy of a film, especially into another language, some things are lost in translation. The original ("Wings of Desire") is amazing but this is mediocre.

If you ever forget to appreciate the blessing of being a human being, simply watch this film, one of the best films of all time for me, this is not your average angel movie, yes is a love story but not necessarily a "chick flick" for me is more of a spiritual approach, real love and appreciation for life.

the world's most underrated actress must be meg ryan. she is very good in all romantic comedies like french kiss and sleepless in seattle and in voiceovers like anastasia and then romantic dramas like this. she is the best thing in this and she is excellent she saves it from becoming awful. nicolas cage is a creepy weirdo that falls for her. usualy nick is cool but he's 1 dimensional in this.

As a teenager, I loved this movie. I thought it was romantic in a tragic way, the way that only true love can be real love. As an adult I see this movie differently. Meg Ryan is flat and shows that she doesn't have a wide acting range. Cage and Ryan have no chemistry together, there was no real depth or emotion from either of them. I was they had cast Braugher as Seth (he was the only character I wanted to see more of, that smile!) and someone else as Maggie, left out the artsy flyovers and angels hanging out on road signs, then it might have been a decent movie. Dennis Franz was another character that brought the movie up a notch, the rest phoned it in.

Something else that bothered me, some of the music must have come from "Elevator Music: Greatest Hits", it didn't fit at all. The soft piano melody was sad, but the rest awful.

Good idea (I realize it was based on the German movie), poorly executed.

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!"