City of Angels (5 Stars)

Sometimes I don't know why I've gone so long without rewatching a good film. In this case I have a valid reason. I remember seeing "City of Angels" the first time on television while I lived in America. I loved it immediately. Shortly after that I moved to England. When it was shown on television again I taped it, and I recall watching it a few times. Then I bought my first DVD player in 2003, and I quickly replaced the tapes of my favourite films with DVDs. In most cases it was an improvement, but the "City of Angels" DVD was awful. It was a double-sided DVD, with the film on one side and the special features on the other. I hate double-sided DVDs with a passion. I'm not sure exactly when I bought it, probably round about 2005, but I shunned it for years, merely because I didn't want to use a double-sided DVD.

Now the problem has been solved. Recently the film has been released on Blu-ray in Germany, so I've rebought the film and dumped the DVD in the trash, where it belongs.

"City of Angels" is a case of a remake which most people don't know is a remake. The original film is "Wings of Desire", a German film made in 1987. Average film fans might not know that it's a remake, but professional film critics know both versions, and they're united in saying that the original was better. I strongly disagree. "Wings of Desire" is a film for the brain, "City of Angels" is a film for the heart. "City of Angels" makes me cry, which makes it a much better film, in my opinion.

The remake has been simplified. Maybe that annoys the oh so intelligent critics. The original is an ode to the city of Berlin, emphasising that it's one city, even if a wall has been built through the middle of it. The angels don't even notice the Wall, and they walk effortlessly through it. It's only humans who are blocked by the Wall. The other thing that's been removed is the character of Homer, who has been telling stories for thousands of years, a man who's almost as immortal as the angels themselves.

Many other details have been changed, but it's still the same basic story. Angels are watching over a city, invisible except to children and the dying. Despite their supernatural powers, they lack the human senses of taste, touch and smell. They also don't see colours (although this is only hinted at in the remake). An angel falls in love with a human woman, so he gives up his immortality to become a human at her side.

For me, the major factor in the film's success is the casting of Nicolas Cage as the angel Seth. Nobody else could have played the role. His sombre, brooding countenance is what fascinates me. This is definitely his signature role.

As for Meg Ryan, who plays his love interest Dr. Maggie Rice, there might have been other actresses who could have been picked, but she plays the part perfectly. The change of career from the original film is extreme, but understandable. In "Wings of Desire" the angel falls in love with a failed circus artiste, but in "City of Angels" she's a highly successful surgeon. This is more suitable for American audiences, who like to see women being strong and independent.

For me, "City of Angels" is an example of what a remake should be. It shouldn't just repeat the story, otherwise it would be enough to dub a foreign film into English. The director should give the remake his own vision, shifting the emotional emphasis while remaining close enough to be recognisable as a remake.

I know that remakes are a controversial subject. If you disagree with my thoughts on remakes, I recommend that you watch both films back to back, "Wings of Desire" first. Then let me know what you think.

Success Rate:  + 1.6

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.de