Okay, here's the deal. I'm not about to crank up the old argument again about love. You know, the age-old question, "What would you do for love?" That question just doesn't fly for me. Not that I'm not a romantic or anything like that. On the contrary, I think that might be my whole problem with women. I love a good romance as much as the next person. I just happen to find them with women who are, shall we say, not what the Doctor ordered. Translation: There is such a thing as a "good woman," but I've never met one. Bad women, on the other hand, seem to flock to me like raccoons to a dumpster.
I'd do just about anything for a woman, given the right atmosphere, the right amount of Cuervo, and the right room key. But the question doesn't apply to those types of romance. The question applies to a true love, one that makes everything else in life trivial by comparison. It's those loves that I've yet to run into. My loves all end up in a lawyer's office, trying to figure out how they can take my Barcalounger and my dog.
True love is one of those things, though, that you find only once in a lifetime. And, what would you do for that love? Would you do all the things in that Percy Sledge song, like turn your back on your best friend if he put her down? Sleep out in the rain? How about the more drastic measures. Lie, cheat, and steal to ensure that person's well-being? Would you give up control of the TV remote?
Push it a little further. Would you give up your life so that the other could live? If that question puts a little thought into your head, good. It's an interesting thought to ponder when you give some credence to the idea of commitment. But, take that idea even one step further. Never mind your life. Would you give up your after-life for the one you love?
That's the question up for debate in the new Warner Brothers movie, City of Angels, starring Nicolas Cage and Meg Ryan. And, regardless of how you'd answer the question, this movie shows you one man's struggle with the answer. And, lemme tell you, folks, it makes for one very good movie.
Brother Nic stars as Seth, a not-so-common man. He's an angel (minus the wings), here on Earth. He and his other angels are here as wanderers, patrolling the streets, libraries, and whatnot, eavesdropping on people's thoughts and trying to offer some comfort as they run across troubled spirits. They also ease people's minds and help them reach a peace as they are dying. One day, while Seth is helping oe of these spirits find that last mortal peace, he sees Dr. Maggie Rice, and he's instantly smitten (as is anyone who looks at Lady Meg). And, what's more, she can see him. Although angels are supposed to be invisible, the doctor can see Seth. Soon, she's the same way. And, then, Nic has a choice to make, between Earthly love and angelhood.
There are some great performances here, folks. The future Superman is riding at the top of his form, and, as always, he's shooting with every chamber firing. He has moments of pure brilliance here, especially when he turns on his penetrating stare. His eyes just seem to convince you that he is, indeed, an angel, and he can read everything you are just by looking at you. Darling Meg plays well against her norm, harkening back to her fine performance in When a Man Loves A Woman (Percy Sledge again. Hmmmmmmm....). She's still all sparkley, but in a more serious vein. This is truly one of her best performances. But these two don't take all the glory here. Andre Braugher, from TV's "Homicide," and Dennis Franz, from "NYPD Blue," both reveal new sides to their talent. Braugher, especially, as an angel who guides Seth through his decision.
This thing does, however, have a near-fatal flaw that almost chokes it down to nothing. Director Brad Silberling and screenwriter Dana Stevens make a picture-perfect retelling of Wim Wenders' brilliant movie Wings of Desire, one of the best movies of the past ten years. But they add to it. They tack on an extra twist at the end that scrapes away most of the film's credibility. It takes the movie from the touching and poignant and pours a whole five-pound bag of Dixie Crystals right on top, making it so sappy sweet that it does permanent damage. If they'd just left well enough alone, it would've made for a much more satisfying story all around.
On the surface, this movie would seem quite akin to the general premise of Ghost, one of the most manipulative tearjerkers in moviedom. Granted, it was popular, and it made you laugh and cry and all that, but it was hopelessly consumed with contrived tragedy and heartstring-strumming. Here, the romantic story is done with subtlety and grace. The story evolves into the sort of romance that fueled Titanic, one of star-crossed lovers who are never to be together, despite a phenomenal love. In Titanic, it was the girl that had the most to lose -- material wealth and status. City of Angels swaps the roles and ups the ante with the sacrifice to be made by the angel. And, that upgrade in the sacrifice makes the romance somehow all the more real.
I am and always will be a huge fan of the original Wenders film. That movie was much more concerned with the spiritual side of the story than the romantic side. It also used color vs. black-and-white very effectively to show the austere existence of angels. It also let the story come about as much in the mind of the audience as it did on the screen. Things haunt a viewer in Wenders' story. Here, they're all pretty much spelled out on the screen with a permanent marker. It just doesn't feel the same.
Still, if I was looking for a retelling that could fill the void, City of Angels would do quite nicely, thank you. Guys, this is the date movie of the year, so far. And, like Titanic, it might just reach out and grab you too. The story is good, the acting is very good, and, whether or not you want to, I'd bet you money that you'll look up and wonder just who is listening anyway.
Image copyright Warner Bros.
|
in for observation