At last!! I can write a positive movie review.

This film, based somewhat on Wim Wenders' 1987 feature "Wings of Desire," concerns Seth, an angel (Nicolas Cage) who falls hard for Maggie, a surgeon (Meg Ryan). Seth is first attracted to Maggie after observing (unbeknownst to her) how she reacts when she loses a patient. Since angels are spiritual beings that can materialize, but even then not take on fully human characteristics, there are many issues to be worked out.

Helping Seth is Nathaniel Messinger (Dennis Franz), one of Maggie's patients. Messinger has tremendous insight into Seth's problems. He should. Nathaniel made the transition from angel to human about thirty years earlier! It's all a matter of free will. (Don't get TOO involved with the theology, please.) Also along for the ride is angel Cassiel (Andre Braugher) who seems better adjusted to his angelic status than Seth.

Rounding out the romantic situation is yuppie doctor Jordan (Colm Feore) who is involved with Maggie.

Although it's not done perfectly, the story unfolds quite well, setting up Maggie as the ultra-rationalist trying to deal with this new reality of angels. For once, there are some great shots of LA, and our town is presented in a positive light. (Yes, there's more here than fires, riots, earthquakes, and celebrity scandals.)

Late into the film, Seth decides to take the fall, literally, and becomes fully human. But now, he has to confront the real world as he searches for Maggie, who is off to Lake Tahoe, for some R & R--but mostly to choose between Seth and Jordan.

Seth gets to Tahoe, presents himself as human, and Maggie's decision is easy. Alas, things aren't perfect in this flesh and blood world, as Seth soon finds out. Maggie dies, and Seth gets a quick lesson in being human.

After all this, he is talking to Cassiel, who, in effect asks if becoming mortal were worth it. Seth answers, "I would rather have had one breath of her hair, one kiss from her mouth, one touch of her hand, than eternity without it. One."

The critics and the public seem to be evenly divided on this film. The hard-boiled atheist types will have none of it, of course. This idea of angels makes no sense. Stephen Holden of the New York Times goes out of his way to find everything wrong with the picture, as does the infamous Mr. Cranky website. "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," sniffed New York Magazine's David Denby.

Not exactly. There's nothing new-agey about this film's portrayal of angels. "Angels aren't human. We were never human," says Seth. Thus, comparisons with "Ghost" (1990), which was new-agey, are inappropriate since Sam Wheat (Patrick Swayze) was a dead human--not an angel.

Sure enough the line "Some things are true whether you believe them or not" is reminiscent of such sappy fare as "Love means never having to say you're sorry." But think about it. Faced with Seth's problem, what else COULD you say to a non-believing Maggie?

"City of Angels" worked its magic on me. Sometimes, even cynics are impressed.