Posted by PeteDude at x6.gatx.com on July 18, 2000 at 22:37:06:
In Reply to: The Crow was awful... posted by Neil on July 18, 2000 at 13:31:28:
: I couldn't even keep watching it. The editing was overblown. The visuals were cheap. The acting was simply embarrassing. Just absolutely, unforgivably terrible.
. . . that there are too many posts on this current board. If there were fewer posts, you'd probably be easier to notice, and be flamed by the many Crow fans who also frequent the ViewAskew pages.
I'd have to agree with "mdf", that City of Angels was truly the poorly done entry in the series to date. Otherwise, the first Crow film is a "love it or hate it" affair for most. I love it-- but I dug the visuals, the cinematography, the stunts, Lee's acting, the music and the overall themes. I have to admit though, that some of the actors needed some SERIOUS coaching. However, this movie was a victim of the same mentality that plagues the X-Men movie-- "let's make an epic film on a shoestring budget". That mentality is also part of the reason Lee died, as more competent (and more costly) staff were not hired for gun handling.
The Crow could have easily been done for 30 to 50 million up front, made an even sharper movie visually, probably avoided a death on the set, and made back its costs then some. Instead, its producers opted to spend 20 million, and ended up shelling out 8 million extra because the lead actor was killed (effects and other expenses).
As far as City of Angels is concerned. . . great visuals, great music, poor story, bad acting (though I give Vincent Perez kudos for handling such crummy material so well). It appears Pressman Films may have made up for this with the new film, Salvation. We can only hope.