Too bad it doesn't happen this time.

The Crow: City of Angels is a halfway decent action flick, not totally horrible, but nothing special. If it had been the first of its series, the movie would have been ignored. As it is, City stands as a disappointing followup to a surprisingly good action film.

Because of Brandon Lee's death on the set of the first Crow movie, the lead character in the sequel--a different character--is played by Vincent Perez. The Swiss-born actor playes Ashe, a man who, with his son, is murdered by a gang, then brought back by the Crow spirit to enact his revenge. And he does just that. For an hour and a half.

Which is what the first Crow was about, right? However, the differences are varied and many. The biggest difference is that the first movie was exhilarating and well-paced, with a lead actor who played his part with grit, but not without humor and feeling. City of Angels is badly paced, somewhat ineptly directed, and the acting talent is, by and large, questionable. Vincent Perez tries his hardest, but he lacks the subtle depth that Brandon Lee brought to the role. Lee played a different character, Eric Draven, but the writer of City of Angels doesn't seem to know the difference. And Perez seems almost to be just going through the motions. He seems to try his hardest to bring some character to Ashe, but he can't. Unfortunately, it seems the only reason he was picked for the part was his passing physical resemblance to Brandon Lee.

Mia Kirshner, playing a grown-up Sara--the girl from the first movie--tries her hardest as well to overcome the writing, and she almost makes it. Kirshner is an actor of some talent, as she demonstrated in Atom Egoyan's Exotica, but this movie gives her very little to do but look at Ashe with her expressive doe eyes.

Since the "good guys" are not of much note, what about the other end of the spectrum? I'm sad to say that there's not much there, either. The villains in City of Angels are a multicultural lot, similar to the mob in the first movie. This time, they're a different group, led by Jonah (Richard Brooks), a mystic/druglord who lives atop an abandoned cathedral. This might have been interesting, but Brooks spends the movie doing a poor impression of Avery Brooks (no relation). The only bad guy who makes any sort of (positive) impression is Iggy Pop, who turns in an over-the-top performance as a wasted-out punk, appropriately enough.

The languid acting, however, isn't City of Angels's biggest problem. That's the writing, which is strictly linear--point A to point B to point C. Even that would just reduce the movie to being just another faceless action flick. No, the most nagging, subtle, and irritating problem about this movie is the atmosphere.

The first Crow (and this is my final comparison) took place in Detroit. The city was dark, grimy, neogothic, and, most importantly, metallic. That dank metallic look was essential, in an almost indefinable way, to the feel of the movie. Eric Draven looked to be his element in the Batman-like city, avenging his death and that of his girlfriend. The whole look of the Crow figure just matched well with the city.

On the other hand, City of Angels, as the title suggests, takes place in Los Angeles. The first movie was directed at fans of heavy-metal and alternative music, and the second one is, too. However, this one, with its gauzy curtains, almost total lack of artificial light, and people with magic powers, plays up the occult side of "alternative." This blatant demographical stab hurts the movie to a great degree--the action seems uncomfortable and out of place.

The Crow: City of Angels is a work of limited imagination. It lifted several scenes almost directly form its predecessor, but without The Crow's atmosphere, the puzzle falls to pieces. (1996/Nov 21, 1999/Dec 16, 1999)