The Crow: Wicked Prayer
#26
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chicago
Originally posted by LivingINClip
'The Crow: City of Angels' - Terrible film in every respect.
'The Crow: Salvation' - Tolerable and half way enjoyable. I didn't think it was near as bad as people was sayin'.
'The Crow: City of Angels' - Terrible film in every respect.
'The Crow: Salvation' - Tolerable and half way enjoyable. I didn't think it was near as bad as people was sayin'.
#27
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all personal opinion.
I thought 'City of Angels' was boring and lacked anything worth noting. I however, thought the 'The Crow' character in Salvation was a lot more interesting , as was the villians.
I thought 'City of Angels' was boring and lacked anything worth noting. I however, thought the 'The Crow' character in Salvation was a lot more interesting , as was the villians.
#28
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Godfather
Again, I can't remember a single villan from Salvation. Not a very memorable movie.
#29
DVD Talk Hero
"The Crow" was an awesome film. One of the best horror/dark fantasy movies of the 90s thanks to the art design, direction, and the late Brandon Lee.
"The Crow City of Angels" was a huge let down. The whole affair felt like a huge rehash of the original. Vincent Perez and Mia Kershner are decent enough actors, but the film just didn't give them enough to work with. The plot itself wasn't bad
"The Crow Salvation" was a decent film. I appreciated that it had its own unique plot and just didn't rehash all of the elements of the original.
The Crow isn't a bad concept for an ongoing franchise. I think having a new Crow for each movie, with its own set of circumstances, makes for a better experience than just trotting out Jason or Michael Myers for another go around. The only recurring character in the Crow franchise should be the weird industrial-gothic-heavy metal world it takes place in.
Hell, they could do anything with it. A Crow could take place in Victorian England or the Old West. One could take place in the Blade Runner-like future. They could throw in the occasional vampire or werewolf or angels. There's a lot of territory to mine within the milieu.
I'm still waiting for a female Crow. Preferably with Fairuza Balk.
"The Crow City of Angels" was a huge let down. The whole affair felt like a huge rehash of the original. Vincent Perez and Mia Kershner are decent enough actors, but the film just didn't give them enough to work with. The plot itself wasn't bad
"The Crow Salvation" was a decent film. I appreciated that it had its own unique plot and just didn't rehash all of the elements of the original.
The Crow isn't a bad concept for an ongoing franchise. I think having a new Crow for each movie, with its own set of circumstances, makes for a better experience than just trotting out Jason or Michael Myers for another go around. The only recurring character in the Crow franchise should be the weird industrial-gothic-heavy metal world it takes place in.
Hell, they could do anything with it. A Crow could take place in Victorian England or the Old West. One could take place in the Blade Runner-like future. They could throw in the occasional vampire or werewolf or angels. There's a lot of territory to mine within the milieu.
I'm still waiting for a female Crow. Preferably with Fairuza Balk.
#30
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Godfather
Nice choice. I have to say, based on the trailers for Underworld, Kate Beckinsale wouldn't be bad either. She looks great in leather.
#32
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Godfather
I never saw that episode. She was on an ep. of X-files also.
Any word of a STH dvd release? Marc Dacoscos was great in that.
Any word of a STH dvd release? Marc Dacoscos was great in that.
#34
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Godfather
As most know this never hit the theater. DTV a couple weeks back. I picked it up on half.com on the cheap already. Anyway, I watched it last night.
After reading a handful of reviews I was expecting the worst movie ever made, but I was pleasantly surprised. It was pretty decent. Not great, mind you but enjoyable enough to watch it. It had solid characters, which Salvation lacked as well as some decent villans.
The setting was great ~ out west where most scenes take place, out in the open daylight. Nice change of pace and worked.
The story about a native american tribe closing down a mine to open a Casino forcing many people out of work was interesting. Certainly a bigger plot than the usual revenge flick. Added some depth to some villans who are usually just that, bad guys for no reason. It was also different to actually see character development before he dies and becomes the crow.
Edward Furlong ~ He was good as his crow personna but his Jimmy Cuervo lacked any depth or emotion. His chemistry with his fallen 'love' was not there. It was interesting seeing a Crow that was unsure of himself. Nice take on the mytho.
Villans - They had some decent villans - Famine, War, Pestilence, & Death. Very creative unfortunately like Salvation before it, their death scenes are quite forgettable when compared to the first two flicks.
Dennis Hopper - Yes the ghetto speak is quite the odd choice. But he doesn't show up until the last 20 minutes of film and only has a few lines of dialog at that.
Tara Reid - as usual, quite a laugable performance. The only thing as bad as her performance is the goofy intro introducing the characters. They freeze the screen on them and throw text up on the screen introducing the character like a business card. Thinking back, that was the worst part of the flick.
David Boreanez - Not bad. I hadn't seen him in anything before.
Stock footage of the crow flying was out of place. They used shots from the first film to cut down on the budget of this one.
Overall, I thought it was a decent entry into the francise. I'd probably watch it again.
After reading a handful of reviews I was expecting the worst movie ever made, but I was pleasantly surprised. It was pretty decent. Not great, mind you but enjoyable enough to watch it. It had solid characters, which Salvation lacked as well as some decent villans.
The setting was great ~ out west where most scenes take place, out in the open daylight. Nice change of pace and worked.
The story about a native american tribe closing down a mine to open a Casino forcing many people out of work was interesting. Certainly a bigger plot than the usual revenge flick. Added some depth to some villans who are usually just that, bad guys for no reason. It was also different to actually see character development before he dies and becomes the crow.
Edward Furlong ~ He was good as his crow personna but his Jimmy Cuervo lacked any depth or emotion. His chemistry with his fallen 'love' was not there. It was interesting seeing a Crow that was unsure of himself. Nice take on the mytho.
Villans - They had some decent villans - Famine, War, Pestilence, & Death. Very creative unfortunately like Salvation before it, their death scenes are quite forgettable when compared to the first two flicks.
Dennis Hopper - Yes the ghetto speak is quite the odd choice. But he doesn't show up until the last 20 minutes of film and only has a few lines of dialog at that.
Tara Reid - as usual, quite a laugable performance. The only thing as bad as her performance is the goofy intro introducing the characters. They freeze the screen on them and throw text up on the screen introducing the character like a business card. Thinking back, that was the worst part of the flick.
David Boreanez - Not bad. I hadn't seen him in anything before.
Stock footage of the crow flying was out of place. They used shots from the first film to cut down on the budget of this one.
Overall, I thought it was a decent entry into the francise. I'd probably watch it again.




