Crow, The: City of Angels - Second Coming

The theatrical cut of City of Angels felt like a poor knock off of the original. This edit does an excellent job of restoring a better, more unique plot, The inserted scenes and stills certainly stand out, but they’re paced well and never felt like they could have been done better given the sources. Given how aggressively DCP had to rework things I’m impressed it flows as well as it does, and I heartily recommend it to anyone who’s a fan of the series.

r8s8fr8 Nov 27 2009

This is a lotbetter than the very weak original. It’s still not great, but you managed to make it a movie that did not bore the crap out of me.

jokersmailbag sept 2 2008

First let me state that I really appreciate your intent for this edit, restoring what the studio seems to have mercilessly hacked out of the Director’s vision. Credit to you for that.

Watching this project, I was prepared to accept a certain shortcomings if you will (i.e. sub-par video sources, switching between live action and stills with titles.) This was all based on your comments. All well and good, given the noble intent.

The Review:

From a video/audio perspective, I noticed no jarring cuts. Audio levels were all good. I didn’t realize you had replaced some songs until afterwards, the ultimate compliment.

A note about the titles (someone else noted this as well): the opening credit title has a sparkly effect that really doesn’t fit the film’s tone.

The music you used for the still sections was appropriate. The font I wasn’t too crazy about. The still video at times was poor, but again we must consider your sources. I’m not keen on the sound effects and animations you applied during these sections. It was interesting what you did with these parts, but the overall effect didn’t quite do it for me.

Another reviewer mentioned perhaps using the comic adaptation for the still footage. If the comic follows the uncut story, I would highly recommend trying to use that as your source. Some creative motion/transition effects could really help there as well.

The real problem with Crow 2 for me is in the source. Vincent Perez was OK as the Crow but I really found his accent to be a hindrance, only in the sense that it sort of stilted some of the dialogue. His diction didn’t really allow the impact to come through. The villain was pretty poor this time too- I think that guy was badly miscast. And the less said about Iggy Pop the better.

Another problem is they cloned many of the elements from the first film as well, the villain living in a high-rise (replete with Asian female assistant), Devils Night/Day of the Dead, capturing the crow etc. This merely invites comparison to the original, which will win every time in these situations.

The original film I rate a 2.
I give yours a 3, for your inspired and creative attempt at a solution.

I really like the idea, but it didn’t quite work for me in execution. Still, a noble effort, and I will gladly check out any of your future edits.

adrift sept 27 2008

The ultimate fan edit. Absolutely wonderful! I bought the boxset several years ago, and the second Crow film has always been a lackluster, but heartfelt adventure. This re-edit gives the Crow sequel heart and soul…
The cuts, movement of sequences, animatics, still shots, and new source music add a whole new element to this film not found in the original. It went from a shoddy D-rate Hollywood sequel to an artsy indie cult film favorite for me. That the director himself, Tim Pope, gives his approval to the re-edit speaks volumes for the dedication and talent that went into this effort.
It still has it’s flaws… Iggy, as much as I love his music, is just not that great of an actor. Some of the lines, even scripted in, are a bit corny, and the film overall can’t shake its poor production value, but Tim Pope’s true inspiration does seem to flow through with this edit despite these issues.Fans of fan edits owe it to themselves to witness what could have been.

stubbs20 june 21 2009

*This rating was given before reviews were required*