Un ange sur Terre, un médecin incapable de croire, un patient avec un secret, une histoire d'amour faite au Paradis.Un ange sur Terre, un médecin incapable de croire, un patient avec un secret, une histoire d'amour faite au Paradis.Un ange sur Terre, un médecin incapable de croire, un patient avec un secret, une histoire d'amour faite au Paradis.
- Prix
- 10 victoires et 14 nominations au total
Avis en vedette
I thought City Of Angels was very good. I'm usually very critical towards movies, but City Of Angels got to me. Meg Ryan usually plays in Romantic Comedy's (Sleepless in seatle, You've got mail) but this time, City Of Angels, admittedly a Romantic film, but it isn't a comedy. Far from it, it's a drama in all of its aspects. And Meg Ryan converts to that change very well. She acts great in this movie. It wasn't an easy part for her, there is a lot of crying involved, and a lot of dramatic moments in her characters life.
As goes for Nicolas Cage's character. Oh my god, he plays Seth with such excellence. Really, i don't think that anyone else could play the part as great as he did. The way he looks, the way he moves .. so cool.
Ok the storyline is a little unbeleivable, but you musn't be held back by that fact. Just beleive the unbeleivable. Just go with the plot, and follow the movie closely.
I'm not suggesting that City Of Angels is the best in it's sort. It won't win any oscars, but what i am saying, is that it's a nice movie, with great actors, great music and a good storyline which rolls towards very emotional ending.
You won't be dissapointed.
As goes for Nicolas Cage's character. Oh my god, he plays Seth with such excellence. Really, i don't think that anyone else could play the part as great as he did. The way he looks, the way he moves .. so cool.
Ok the storyline is a little unbeleivable, but you musn't be held back by that fact. Just beleive the unbeleivable. Just go with the plot, and follow the movie closely.
I'm not suggesting that City Of Angels is the best in it's sort. It won't win any oscars, but what i am saying, is that it's a nice movie, with great actors, great music and a good storyline which rolls towards very emotional ending.
You won't be dissapointed.
The photography will blow you away. The scenes concocted and shot are breathtaking. It's almost better not to know this when you enter the cinema. And this movie should work far better in the cinema than on the small TV format at home.
As for the story, it concentrates on one small aspect of the original - and, according to about half the viewers, pulls a "dirty trick" on them, altogether unfair.
I left the movie house cursing the director and promising to punch his teeth in if I saw him. The ending, IMHO, was gratuitous sermonizing, and not at all what the majority of moviegoers came to see.
As for the story, it concentrates on one small aspect of the original - and, according to about half the viewers, pulls a "dirty trick" on them, altogether unfair.
I left the movie house cursing the director and promising to punch his teeth in if I saw him. The ending, IMHO, was gratuitous sermonizing, and not at all what the majority of moviegoers came to see.
Overall, this is a nice love story that I enjoyed the first time I saw it but decreasingly so with future viewings. After three, it was enough, but that's two more than I usually watch of Meg Ryan films.
Since it's Hollywood, you know there is going to be misguided theology, in this case the subject is angels and heaven. None of the "sermons" in here are Biblical, believe me. it's really more of a love story than anything else. Plus, it's an interesting story with good visuals.
Nicholas Cage plays a likable guy. There are actually a few good messages about God and angels - mainly that they exist - and another good message being that all of us should appreciate more what we have here on earth, starting with our senses (smell, taste, touch, etc.)
Anyway, if you like a good romance story, you should like this movie.
Since it's Hollywood, you know there is going to be misguided theology, in this case the subject is angels and heaven. None of the "sermons" in here are Biblical, believe me. it's really more of a love story than anything else. Plus, it's an interesting story with good visuals.
Nicholas Cage plays a likable guy. There are actually a few good messages about God and angels - mainly that they exist - and another good message being that all of us should appreciate more what we have here on earth, starting with our senses (smell, taste, touch, etc.)
Anyway, if you like a good romance story, you should like this movie.
There's just one point I want to make about this movie, and that's about the OR scene when they're doing a coronary bypass. This is the first time I've ever seen a correct movie rendition of it, it's usually a baroque farce, but not here. Every instrument I could see, the bypass machine, the aortic cannula, the headlamps, the ECG monitors (and the traces!), the orders given, the type of suture, were correct (except I suspect they chose a heavier suture than normal 7-0, since a 7-0 would be very hard to see, it looked more like 4-0 or 5-0). Even the tying of knots, the Joule strengths used for defibrillation, the lidocaine dosages, the body temperature during bypass, the kind of mag the bypass operator is reading, the music (except we had Bach, country & western, Dylan or Cat Stevens, depending on surgeon and how the procedure was going), the time it will take to reprime the pump to get back on cardiac bypass again; I found not one single error! There's this one moment when everyone looks under the table, which is weird, but then Meg Ryan leaves the table, so even that is OK from a sterility point of view. I don't know if other people care, but this kind of care for detail makes a movie a lot more enjoyable for me.
Oh, one more remark: the reanimation with internal cardiac massage is a bit short, they give up a bit too soon. But that's exactly what she blames herself for, later.
Oh, one more remark: the reanimation with internal cardiac massage is a bit short, they give up a bit too soon. But that's exactly what she blames herself for, later.
I was hesitant to see this movie for the longest time. Nicolas Cage and Meg Ryan in a romantic drama would seem to spell a movie filled with forlorn looks and sweet nothings whispered to each other. Upon seeing it, this movie proved my suspicions true.
However, I was astonished at how much more this film had. The sheer amount of interesting concepts, combined with the ability to look at humanity from some distance, made this movie well worth the watch. If this film succeeds, and I believe it does, it is precisely because of the mixture of Hollywood gloss and original Wenders magic. Something for everyone, if only you give it a little thought.
Touching date movie, nice discussion piece, and filled with attractive people, City of Angels is wonderfully shallow and surprisingly deep at times, making it well worth the watch.
However, I was astonished at how much more this film had. The sheer amount of interesting concepts, combined with the ability to look at humanity from some distance, made this movie well worth the watch. If this film succeeds, and I believe it does, it is precisely because of the mixture of Hollywood gloss and original Wenders magic. Something for everyone, if only you give it a little thought.
Touching date movie, nice discussion piece, and filled with attractive people, City of Angels is wonderfully shallow and surprisingly deep at times, making it well worth the watch.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe dedication "For Dawn" refers to producer Dawn Steel, who died of a brain tumor on December 20, 1997, four months before this film's release.
- GaffesWhen Maggie sees the truck she is about to hit towards the end of the movie, the truck is coming from the right side of the road and making a right turn. Later on when Nicolas Cage comes around to where Maggie is lying, the truck position is in the opposite direction, like it came from the left side of the road.
- Autres versionsThe DVD contains some additional/extended scenes:
- Seth studies Maggie in her home while she is preparing a bath.
- Maggie's dog Earl leaves her bed at night and she turns the light on. He sits beside Seth who is watching her. As she can't see Seth she just goes back to sleep.
- The first surgery scene is extended.
- Maggie prepares dinner while Seth watches her.
- Seth and Maggie visit Nathaniel Messinger at his bed.
- After Nathaniel told Maggie that Seth can fall, she goes and searches for angels in the hospital.
- A montage of small tidbits that had to be cut like Seth talking to a Vietnamese woman or him trying to feel the blowing wind at the beach.
- Bandes originalesRed House
Written and Performed by Jimi Hendrix
Courtesy of MCA Records
Under license from Universal Music Special Markets
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is City of Angels?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- City of Angels
- Lieux de tournage
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 55 000 000 $ US (estimation)
- Brut – États-Unis et Canada
- 78 685 114 $ US
- Fin de semaine d'ouverture – États-Unis et Canada
- 15 369 048 $ US
- 12 avr. 1998
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 198 685 114 $ US
- Durée
- 1h 54m(114 min)
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant