Here’s a bold statement: The Crow: City of Angels is often dismissed as a soulless sequel, but what if I told you the real story is far more fascinating—and tragic—than you’ve been led to believe? But here’s where it gets controversial... Could this maligned film have been a worthy successor to the original if not for studio meddling? Let’s dive into the rise and fall of a movie that could’ve been so much more.
In 1996, The Crow: City of Angels emerged as the first sequel to Tim Pope’s beloved adaptation of James O’Barr’s graphic novel. While the original film is a cult classic, this follow-up is often forgotten or ridiculed by fans. And this is the part most people miss... Beneath its flawed exterior lies a story of creative ambition stifled by studio interference, leaving us to wonder: What could’ve been?
The sequel follows Ashe, a mechanic and single father, who is murdered alongside his son in a gang-related attack. Like Eric Draven before him, Ashe is resurrected by the mystical crow to seek vengeance on Halloween. Enter Sarah, the young girl from the first film, now grown and reluctantly drawn back into the darkness. Sound familiar? Here’s the kicker: The plot mirrors the original so closely that it’s hard not to call it a retread—but with less of the emotional punch that made the first film unforgettable.
But let’s rewind. How did we get here? After the massive success of The Crow on home video, Miramax Pictures was eager to capitalize. With Brandon Lee’s tragic on-set death casting a shadow over the franchise, the studio approached Tim Pope and James O’Barr to create a sequel that honored the original while introducing a new protagonist. Enter David S. Goyer, the screenwriter behind The Dark Knight trilogy, who joined the team to craft something special.
Their initial vision? A radically different film, inspired by Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire, with a stronger focus on Sarah, possibly even turning her into a female Crow. Bold move, right? But Miramax had other plans. They demanded a shorter, more action-packed film that mimicked the original’s tone and structure. Pope was sidelined during editing, and the result was a carbon copy of the first film, stripped of its soul and layered with studio mandates.
Here’s where it gets messy. Early drafts included a tragic romance between Ashe (Vincent Perez) and Sarah, with an alternate ending where Ashe sacrifices his chance to reunite with his son in death to save Sarah. Multiple cuts and endings were filmed, including abstract, metaphysical sequences, but the studio axed them all. Goyer, though credited, later called the experience “a master class in how not to adapt a comic book.”
Vincent Perez, chosen partly for his resemblance to Brandon Lee, struggled with the English dialogue and insisted on performing his own stunts, enduring grueling physical scenes. Yet, his performance lacked the gravitas Lee brought to the role, making the dramatic moments feel more soap opera than Hollywood blockbuster. But here’s the silver lining: The supporting cast, including Iggy Pop and Thomas Jane, delivered over-the-top performances that added a layer of fun to the film.
Mia Kirshner, as Sarah, stole the show with her haunting presence, bringing much-needed heart to the film. Fun fact: Tori Amos was originally offered the role but turned it down because she “didn’t like the character.” Kirshner’s portrayal, however, was a highlight.
The film’s cinematography, set design, and color grading were stunning, capturing the gritty, gothic atmosphere of the original. But with a budget nearly half of the first film’s ($13 million vs. $21 million), cost-cutting measures like stuffed crows on fishing lines and cheap digital effects drew criticism. The final battle, though ambitious, couldn’t save the film from feeling like a watered-down version of its predecessor.
The Crow: City of Angels grossed just $25 million worldwide, failing to recoup its budget after marketing costs. Both O’Barr and Goyer disowned the film, with O’Barr haunted by memories of Brandon Lee’s death and frustrated by the studio’s interference. The real tragedy? The lost potential of a franchise that could’ve innovated with a female protagonist or a more experimental narrative.
Now, here’s the question: Could this franchise rise again? Later sequels like The Crow: Salvation and The Crow: Wicked Prayer failed to recapture the magic, and the 2024 reboot deviated so far from the original that it felt like a different entity entirely. But here’s the controversial part: Is it time to let The Crow rest in peace, or is there still hope for a revival that honors the original’s spirit?
What do you think? Did The Crow: City of Angels deserve its fate, or was it a victim of studio greed? And what about the other sequels—are they worth revisiting? Let’s debate in the comments. Because here’s the truth: The story of The Crow: City of Angels isn’t just about a failed sequel—it’s about the battle between art and commerce, and the magic that’s lost when creativity is sacrificed for profit.
