All Nonfiction
- Bullying
- Books
- Academic
- Author Interviews
- Celebrity interviews
- College Articles
- College Essays
- Educator of the Year
- Heroes
- Interviews
- Memoir
- Personal Experience
- Sports
- Travel & Culture
All Opinions
- Bullying
- Current Events / Politics
- Discrimination
- Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
- Entertainment / Celebrities
- Environment
- Love / Relationships
- Movies / Music / TV
- Pop Culture / Trends
- School / College
- Social Issues / Civics
- Spirituality / Religion
- Sports / Hobbies
All Hot Topics
- Bullying
- Community Service
- Environment
- Health
- Letters to the Editor
- Pride & Prejudice
- What Matters
- Back
Summer Guide
- Program Links
- Program Reviews
- Back
College Guide
- College Links
- College Reviews
- College Essays
- College Articles
- Back
The Crow - City Of Angels MAG
I could just jump right in and say that this movie was the worst I've ever seen in my life and call all persons involved with its monstrous creation creative barnyard-inspired names, but that would take the fun out of picking it apart element by element. So, here goes.
1. That the movie does not make a pretense of creating its own plot even remotely removed from "The Crow." The plot is less than the original, for all that it tries to copy. The mark of the crow appears by some magical influence each time instead of a creatively wrought personalized mark created by the crow himself. Since the villains are never really developed fully in this movie, their demises are reduced to being simply perfunctory violence instead of the apropos end given to each of the villains in the original. Unlike the original, there are no subplots. Which brings me to my next complaint ...
2. Subplots are started, only to die without explanation. Sara befriends a young girl but instead of even becoming a parallel to Sara's role in the original movie, she is never seen again. Ash expresses the desire not to return to the other world after his work is done (implying that he is in love with Sara), which could have been an interesting change from the original, but this too is left without any explanation. Perhaps the resolutions are lying in strips on the cutting room floor.
3. There is no guise of reality to help the viewer suspend their disbelief.
Now for the little gripes: The film is tinted an annoying yellow instead of a pleasing comic book-type blue/The sight of Iggy Pop wasting his cult status on this garbage is sickening/The actual crow looks fat/Ash can't pick an accent and stick with it/The original score is reused/The phenomenon of the crow as the source of the undead's strength is changed considerably enough to have almost no correlation with the original idea/Perez's flat recitation of lines can't begin to compare with Lee's throaty sardonic delivery/The "climax" of the movie, Judah (lead villain) being robbed of his life by a legion of crows can't even hold a candle to its predecessor, Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds."
Save your money and save yourself some aggravation. Rent "The Crow" (the original) and watch it at home instead of going to the theatre for this monstrosity
0 articles 0 photos 12292 comments