A LITTLE ROMANCE - '90S STYLE; LOVE'S BOX-OFFICE LESSON LEARNED: PEOPLE DON'T SEEK REALISM; THEY JUST WANT TO BELIEVE.

Byline: Glenn Whipp Daily News Film Writer

Two movies, two romances, two worlds apart.

In ``City of Angels,'' a doe-eyed Meg Ryan falls for a dewy-eyed, honest-to-goodness angel, played by Nicolas Cage. Like most movies with winged creatures, this one has a fairly conventional romantic plot that goes something like: Angel meets girl, angel loses girl, angel gives up everlasting life for girl, saying: ``I would rather have had one breath of her hair, one kiss from her mouth, one touch of her hand, than eternity without it.''

Never mind that since angels have no gender, kissing and hand-holding would be the last thing on their minds. Audiences lapped up the film's fantastic coupling as ``City of Angels'' took in a heavenly $15.4 million in its first weekend in theaters. The film's success offered further proof that when it comes to romance, people don't need, much less want, realism. They just want to believe.

Which brings us to this week's love story, ``The Object of My Affection.'' Here, the romantic waters have been muddied by the realities of modern-day sexual confusion. It's boy meets boy, boy loses boy, boy meets girl, boy wants to raise girl's unborn baby, boy meets another boy ... and, well, it only gets more confusing from there.

And the question is, once you hack your way out of the film's complicated carnal jungle and untangle all the muss and fuss: Does anybody want to deal with that kind of romantic authenticity when they go to the movies?

``Sex basically kills a romantic comedy,'' says Nora Ephron, who wrote ``When Harry Met Sally ...'' and directed ``Sleepless in Seattle,'' two of the classics of the genre. Ephron is filming another ode to love, ``You've Got Mail,'' which reunites Tom Hanks and Ryan as two people who can't stand each other but nevertheless fall in love through e-mail. It will be out this Christmas.

``In the classic romantic comedies,'' Ephron continues, ``people had sex by talking to one another. Sex comes along, and instead of people talking to one another in movies, they have sex with one another. And the truth about what we all want to believe about romance is that it has very little to do with sex, anyway.''

Of course, times being what they are, even the romantic fantasies are going to their lovers hitting the sheets. Cage's angel beds Ryan in ``City of Angels,'' Tom Hanks got horizontal with a mermaid in ``Splash.' ``Pretty Woman,'' one of the most popular romances of the decade, colored its story by making its Cinderella heroine into Happy Hooker with a heart of gold.

All-consuming love

But sex was never the selling point in any of those films. It had more to do with all-consuming love in every one of its soppy, sappy and head-over-heels manifestations. It's about barriers - the concept goes all the way back to ``Romeo and Juliet'' - and the ideal that two people can overcome any hindrance and live happily ever after.

``Oh yes, the obstacles are the key to a good romance,'' says Ryan, who knows a thing or two about film flirtations, having made a career of them. ``You want those believable barriers that keep people apart for as long as possible while the audience is hoping and rooting for them to get together. And then when they finally do get together, it's sexy and romantic and kind of comforting because they beat the odds. They made it.''

But then, sometimes the couples beat the odds only not to make it. We hate to keep referring to those doomed lovers, Romeo and Juliet, but they do illustrate an excellent point about movie romances, namely that sometimes you're better off dead.

``I think that's one reason everyone loves `Titanic,' '' says romance novelist Jackie Collins. ``Leonardo DiCaprio's character saves the girl and then he dies, making him perfect in her eyes for eternity. He can never go off and be unfaithful and get drunk and screw around. He's dead, but it's sooooo romantic.''

The same could be said for Patrick Swayze in ``Ghost,'' Ali MacGraw in ``Love Story,'' Robert Redford in ``Out of Africa'' and Kristin Scott Thomas in ``The English Patient.'' They all die, and therefore, their love endures for all of eternity.

And with other screen couplings, such as Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in ``Casablanca,'' Redford and Barbra Streisand in ``The Way We Were,'' and Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep in ``The Bridges of Madison County,'' the majesty of their love is only apparent after they part. That way, they never have to settle down and deal with life's little day-to-day drudgeries like washing the dishes, taking out the garbage and cleaning the toilet bowl.

``And that way, you never have to see their faults, either,'' Collins adds. ``You just remember the lovely parts.''

And you also don't have to deal with the reality. Even in a modern-day romance such as ``Four Weddings and a Funeral,'' Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell have great sex after a couple of wedding receptions, but they never set up house together - much less go on a date - during the entire movie.

At the end of the film, they passionately kiss in the pouring rain - another romantic fantasy that's perpetuated again in the upcoming ``Sliding Doors'' - and declare their undying love for each other. We learn through a closing credits sequence that they not only stayed together, but had an adorable kid, too. This, despite the fact that they probably hadn't known each other long enough to learn each other's last name.

``A lot of these movies work better when the couple doesn't get together or if they do, you don't see much of their togetherness,'' says USC professor and film historian Leo Braudy.

``Look at `Sleepless in Seattle.' The lovers didn't appear in the same scene until the end. All that longing for them to get together is what made for a great romantic fantasy. And fantasy is the most important element in these romantic movies. It wouldn't be romantic if it involved reality.''

And after wallowing around in the bodily fluids produced by the sexual revolution and then cynically regarding love with a jaundiced, post-AIDS eye, Hollywood seems to be again awash in a wave of true-believer romanticism, juiced considerably by the emotional response to ``Titanic.'' (Brace yourself for more Celine Dion-inspired theme songs.)

Even self-referential ``Scream'' scribe Kevin Williamson is getting into the act with his next writing project, a teen love film called ``Her Leading Man'' that promises to deconstruct romantic comedies in the same manner ``Scream'' reinvented horror films.

Expect the film to be filled with ``Pretty in Pink'' angst and sentimentality derived from years of watching (and rewinding and watching again) John Hughes films such as ``The Breakfast Club'' and ``Sixteen Candles.''

And expect to see a happy ending - after overcoming a minefield of obstacles, of course.

``There's nothing wrong with happy endings,'' Ephron says. ``You don't want every movie to sugarcoat life, but I think sometimes there's such a thing as too much reality. It doesn't hurt to escape every once in a while.''

CAPTION(S):

3 Photos

Photo: (1) On the cover: Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston in ``The Object of My Affection.''

(2) In ``The Object of My Affection,'' starring Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd, the romantic waters have been muddied by the realities of modern-day sexual confusion.

(3) In ``City of Angels,'' with Meg Ryan and Nicolas Cage, angel meets girl, angel loses girl, angel gives up everlasting life for girl.