Metascore
54 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 22 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 22
  2. Negative: 1 out of 22
  1. Reviewed by: Emanuel Levy
    90
    The endlessly resourceful Nicolas Cage, as a celestial angel, and a terrifically engaging Meg Ryan, as a pragmatic surgeon, create such blissful chemistry that they elevate the drama to a poetic level seldom reached in a mainstream movie.
  2. Reviewed by: Angie Errigo
    80
    A stand-out romantic fantasy and surefire hit of Ghost-ly proportions. But all you cynical and smart-arsed brethren, beware: this is definitely not for you.
  3. 80
    Though far from a seamless work, the film is gorgeously crafted, and Silberling obviously has a passion for angels. But then these days, who doesn't?
  4. 75
    What I did appreciate is that City of Angels is one of the few angel movies that knows one essential fact about angels: They are not former people. ”Angels aren't human. We were never human,” observes Seth. This is quite true. Angels are purely spiritual beings.
  5. An odd hybrid but a successful one. It marries the lyricism and heavy atmosphere of a European art film with the soaring spirit of a Hollywood love story.
  6. 75
    I suspect City of Angels is going to remind many viewers of “Ghost,” but there's a big difference: this film is more true and less manipulative.
  7. Reviewed by: Laura Miller
    70
    Neither Ryan nor Cage indulges in their usual excesses -- hers a perky, chipmunk vivacity and his a rampant goofiness that's always struck me as disingenuous…doesn't try too hard, doesn't lean on or overexplain its spiritual underpinnings and doesn't push for tears. As a result, it turns out to be pretty effective in drawing them.
  8. A fascinating hybrid. A Hollywood fantasy at its most fantastic, the film is equal parts true innocence and shameless calculation. Deciding whether the glass is half empty or half full depends on which part you are willing to embrace.
  9. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    70
    Only near the end does the mix of melodrama, mush and message get out of hand.
  10. 60
    For all the "touched by an angel" sentimentality, the movie's eerie, slightly menacing vision of black-clad angels lurking in the shadowy corners of unsuspecting lives is genuinely haunting.
  11. Many will welcome the movie's interest in spirituality, but some may wonder why it's couched in a celebration of sensual pleasures ranging from sex to cigarette smoking.
  12. City of Angels will probably work better for some people than it did for a crusty fellow like me. I feel guilty that I don't like this movie more. I think the devil got the better of me.
  13. This is the sort of movie in which everyone on screen is swathed in gauzy benevolence. You practically have time to say a prayer in the dead spaces between lines.
  14. Reviewed by: David Denby
    50
    The movie is physically beautiful, but the ideas are kitsch -- it’s a New Age love story, the latest version of the doomed romances of 50 years ago.
  15. 50
    At least Dennis Franz, as a former angel, livens up his scenes, and Ryan is less intolerable than usual. Meanwhile, the always-interesting Cage does a good job pretending he's in a better movie. But he's not.
  16. Reviewed by: Richard Schickel
    50
    One of this movie's implications--and it's a common enough one these days--is that sensitivity is a quality impossible to find in straight guys. [20 April 1998]
  17. Reviewed by: Daphne Merkin
    50
    Angels, according to this movie's nonexistent logic, travel at the speed of thought and are invisible except to other angels, children, and the dying.
  18. 40
    Even if you accept this plot contrivance, the consummation of this union of souls isn't very emotionally involving -- it lacks that transcendence you associate with stories in which love knows no bounds.
  19. The movie aspires toward a solemnity that Dana Stevens's prosaic psychobabbling screenplay cannot support. The movie is so busy being seriously romantic that it forgets the poetry, the whimsy, the airy mystery, the dreamy what-if of angelic contemplation.
  20. If you've never seen the lovely Wenders film, maybe you'll be charmed by this low-grade variation, all of whose best qualities--such as the airy crane shots poised over city vistas and freeways--can be traced back to the original; otherwise you might run screaming from the theater.
  21. Needless to say, in the age of inferior remakes, this would-be homage -- a sort of Wim Wenders Lite -- is a mawkish debasement of its source material.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 15 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 7
  2. Negative: 1 out of 7
  1. 7
    I'm attached emotionally of this movie. The two of my favorite actors are in it. The idea of a falling angel is new. There is enough "garbage" ideas in it, but i can live with them. It is revolutionary so it worth to see it at least once. Meg Ryan is great: very good acting. Full Review »
  2. JayH
    6
    Not a great film, but it's professionally done. Meg Ryan is fine in her role, but Nicolas Cage just does not quite work in his role. I am not into films with a fantasy element, but this is one of the better ones. Full Review »
  3. ZBobby
    0
    This movie should not have even been made. It is maddening to see a Wenders masterpiece muddied by hollywood rewriting. How can you turn a trapeze artist into a heart surgeon, even worse she is played by none other than the worst actress in that high of a pay bracket. A ridiculous piece of trash at best. Where the original was one of the most philosophical and moving films I have seen in quite some time, this just mocks the original. Full Review »