If You Hear The Concept, You've Seen The Movie: The Failure Of Crank

The Good: Concept is interesting, Direction has its moments
The Bad: Terrible characters, Unextraordinary acting, Poor direction, Simplistic plot, Dumb and degrading
The Basics: Unrelentingly violent and pointless, Crank is a movie that's concept tells the entire story and without a likable or believable protagonist is just a waste of celluloid.


It wasn't until I was about five minutes into Crank that I realized I had seen a preview of the movie in the theaters last year and written it off as not worth seeing then. It struck me as a movie whose best moments were in the trailer. Sadly, the best moments of the movie are in the concept, so once you've heard what the movie is about, you have essentially seen the movie. The best possible summary I can give about how poor a film Crank can be encapsulated in this one, true line: the biggest thrill in the movie for me came near the very end when I recognized obscure actor Keone Young (he has a beard in this). In an action-adventure movie filled with running, car chases, drug use, and more violence than virtually any other movie, this is a terrible fate to be remembered for the momentary appearance of an obscure character actor.

Chev is a hired assassin who has stopped working for - of all things - the love of a woman, in this case a dainty drug addict named Eve. Chev awakens to discover that his change of heart has not gone unnoticed by his former employers, who have injected him with an ancient Chinese toxin that will kill him within an hour. All hope that the movie will end within that hour is crushed when Chev quickly realizes that adrenalin slows the effects. What follows is 82 minutes (the entire movie comes in at 87 minutes) of Chev running around shooting people to try to find the guy who injected him with the killer toxin and find a cure, if possible.

That's it. You've seen the movie. Anything you can imagine within the context of "man has an hour to live, wants to keep alive by keeping the adrenalin flowing" concept happens in this movie. Chev drives fast, runs, gets into fights, does drugs, drinks a LOT of energy drinks, robs a hospital, has angry sex, and shoots a lot of people. That's it.

Because of the sheer stupidity and repetitive nature of the supposedly escalating excitement that keeps Chev around long enough to yell at his doctor, publicly rape his girlfriend and hack his way toward the big boss, I'm compelled to get what's good about Crank out of the way as quickly as possible. The basic idea is not terrible, though the execution of it falls dramatically short of anything that could be close to being called a worthwhile film. What works is the creativity of the direction. Writer-Directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor are a bit creative about how they present moments of the movie, with subtitles and hallucination scenes that are momentarily interesting.

Part of the problem with Crank is that the intrigue of the direction does not hold the viewer. I GET what they were trying to do, with frenetic, frantic camera moves, but it's more annoying and headache-inducing than it is genuinely interesting or qualitatively decent. And the concept is all up the first time the viewer sees through Chev's eyes as the toxin begins to have an effect and he gets into a dangerous situation and his vision begins to clear again. It would take a pretty dense viewer to not get the concept.

None of the characters are remotely interesting. Most of the characters in this movie are simple people Chev runs into or has cheesed off in the past to make them want to kill him. Most of the characters who appear in Crank appear long enough to provide momentary menace, then either lose his trail or are dispatched by Chev. There are slews of characters who do not have lines because, well, it's not that type of movie.

Eve does not seem all that worthwhile for one to give up a life of crime for (unlike the character of Edie Finneran in The Usual Suspects, Eve is doing nothing to get Chev out of the life he's found himself in). In fact, Eve has a pretty abysmal role, appropriately being blamed for the entire series of events that cause this cinematic abomination. After all, were it not for Eve and her feminine wiles, Chev would have stayed a cold-blooded killer for hire. Please. Eve serves as an excuse for the plot and a cheap excuse for a violent sex scene wherein Chev essentially uses her as a seminal receptacle to keep his adrenalin flowing by taking her - initially very much against her will - on a streetcorner in Chinatown.

Chev has essentially no character, either. There is nothing presented that makes his moment of conscience believable. As in Elektra (reviewed here!), it makes no sense why THIS case is different, when as a hired assassin Chev - like Elektra - had likely killed people exactly the way demanded in the past. Chev isn't given time - or lines - to develop a character. He's on the run and he has a basic idea of how to prolong his life.

We wish he wouldn't.

Regardless, the acting is nothing to write home about either. Jason Stratham runs and shoots a gun fine, but the lines are not delivered convincingly (fortunately, there are very few) and the net effect is watching someone the viewer does not care about run and jump to survive when we don't care if he does or not.

All that keeps this movie above 1 is the attempted creative techniques of the directors. A far superior movie would be The Usual Suspects or, more recently, Lucky # Slevin. Either of those would be vastly more worth your time. Save what life YOU have left by not watching this movie.

For other somewhat mindless action movies, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Death Race
Wanted
Doomsday

2/10

Check out how this movie stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of the films in order, best to worst!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The First Big Sequel Of 2012, Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance Utterly Disappoints!

The Good: The character design is better.
The Bad: 3-D effect does nothing, Abysmal editing, No character development, Plot? What plot?!
The Basics: In one of the worst sequels ever, Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance solidly disappoints anyone who likes a decent movie, much less a superhero flick.


There is some irony in my going to a sneak preview of Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance tonight. It’s ironic that I would see the new film after coming so late to the Ghost Rider phenomenon; I only saw Ghost Rider (reviewed here!) last weekend and the whole reason I sat through it was that I knew I was going to see Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance today! Between the two events, I saw only one preview for Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance and it annoyed me. In the preview, a character tells Johnny Blaze (Ghost Rider) that he has an assignment that will lift the Devil’s curse from Blaze. This irked me because Blaze made a conscious choice in Ghost Rider to keep the curse and do what he could to work against the devil Mephistopheles. So, I figured that unless Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance somehow dealt with that change in Johnny Blaze’s attitude, I would be pretty solidly panning the new sequel.

Sadly, I need no argument so finessed to completely rip into Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance. Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance is a sloppy movie. The editing was done by, despite what the credits and IMDB claim, a monkey and the special effects for the 3-D elements are enough to make one swear off ever seeing a 3-D movie again. Seriously, they are that unsophisticated and add absolutely nothing to the film, even when there are giant machines put into play that could be the coolest 3-D things ever rendered on the bid screen.

Yes, Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance is bad. It's a terrible movie and a terrible sequel. Like The Whole Ten Yards bad sequel. In addition to having a simplified almost nonexistent plot, there is no character development and, in fact, Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance illustrates a real degradation of what development was made to the Johnny Blaze character in the first Ghost Rider. While Johnny Blaze finished the first Ghost Rider as mildly articulate - even in Rider form - in Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance the character is largely nonverbal and reacts more like an addict or a full demon than a human who has any sense of conflict or nuance to him. And for those who did not see Ghost Rider, there is a simplified bit of exposition at the beginning of the movie that brings viewers completely up to speed.

Set years after the events of Ghost Rider, Johnny Blaze has come to believe that he made a terrible mistake by not relinquishing his curse. So, he hides out in Eastern Europe where he lives in seclusion and works to not hurt anyone or let the demon out. But, when Moreau comes to a fortress of monks to give them warnings about an impending evil come to take their visitor away, he accidentally draws that evil to the monks. While Benedict and his men give a good fight against Carrigan and his forces, the boy Danny flees with his mother, Nadya. Moreau visits Johnny Blaze and offers him a deal; recover Danny and keep him safe and he will get the curse lifted from Johnny.

So, Johnny begins hunting down Carrigan and his forces to get Danny. This becomes a problem when the devil Roarke intervenes and makes Danny disappear from the Rider's sixth sense for evil. But, Johnny hunts Carrigan's forces to an arm's deal in the middle of nowhere where a giant battle occurs and Johnny comes to learn just what the devil wants with Danny.

Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance is more a collection of chaotically assembled fight scenes and special effects shots than it is an actual movie. The characters do not grow, develop or change and none of the new characters are even remotely interesting. Roarke in Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance is not as compelling as Mephistopheles was in Ghost Rider and Moreau, Danny and Nadya barely rise to being types as opposed to actual individuals.

It is even hard to criticize the acting in Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance because the script is so bad. Nicholas Cage plays a parody of himself as Johnny Blaze and the result is that Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance lacks menace, charm or even interesting moments. There is not a single decent or memorable line in the film and watching Cage's Blaze made me recall Mr. Freeze in Batman And Robin and how virtually every line the character delivered was a catchphrase.

Violante Placido is not even remotely interesting as Nadya and the usually wonderful Ciaran Hinds falls flat as the listless Roarke. Less of a devil, Roarke is played by Hinds as more of a washed out gangster in a mellow, blase performance. Child actor Fergus Riordan is unfortunately stiff and too frequently dead-eyed as Danny. Even Idris Elba comes to Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance with a remarkable lack of his inherent charisma. Elba plays Moreau and he is a far cry from the strong, intriguing guardian that he played in Thor.

Ultimately, the only thing Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance has going for it consistently is that the new character design for the Ghost Rider is pretty cool. The four years between Ghost Rider and Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance were spent honing the CG effect process and Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance uses that well. Unfortunately, directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor forget the first rule of good (not even great) special effects: if you have great effects, you have to let people see them. The biggest, most impressive sequences of Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance are poorly cut, put together even worse and presented with an irksome shaking camera motion that is more nauseating than it is at all stylish.

In conclusion, whatever hopes anyone might have had that Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance would be the beginning of a great year of sequels can stow that rumor. Instead, Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance reaffirms that February is a dumping ground for movies that should never have been made in the first place.

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
The Avengers
Captain America: The First Avenger
X-Men: First Class
Thor
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man 3
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil


1.5/10

For other movie reviews, check out my Movie Review Index Page by clicking here!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Didn't I See This Last Year?! Gamer Is Death Race Without The Cars.

The Good: Decent acting, Moments of concept, Stylish presentation.
The Bad: Unoriginal concept, Characters we don't care about, Moral implications.
The Basics: Not truly all that imaginative (or even interesting), Gamer explores a violent prison game in the near future and follows one criminal's impending freedom while making a bolder statement on the viewers.


For those who follow my regular reviews, I'm making no note of "violence" in the "good" or "bad" sections about the film, Gamer because it is, quite simply That Kind Of Film. Complaining about the violence in Gamer is like complaining about car chases in a Jason Statham film. That there was the closest I come to a clever segue in complaining about Gamer, the 2009's first big Fall action flick for adults who want mindless entertainment. The biggest complaint I had after enduring a screening of this ninety-five minute "shoot-em up" flick was that it did not take long before all I was was bored with the film. My boredom came from an easily-identifiable source: I've seen this movie before. Gamer is a mildly clever twist on Death Race and given that that was a remake, Gamer becomes pretty unoriginal upon reflection. But more than that, Gamer is disturbing because while it might attempt to lampoon the entertainment complex by showing how degenerate a society may become through its entertainment, the way it is directed has the viewer experience the thrill of that moral decay.

This ought to have been unsurprising for me considering that Gamer was written and directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, the team that brought us the one-trick pony Crank and its mind-numbingly pointless sequel earlier last year (which even I could not muster up the enthusiasm to go see!). Neveldine and Taylor play on the same basic instincts with Gamer, a near-future flick that involves tough men with guns, big explosions and pointless nudity. But, again, what are we complaining about, we pretty much figured this going in!

Incarcerated and working as part of a "work release" program, Kable is a player in a game where he is a character in a live-action video game. Along with other convicted criminals, he is plugged into a Gamer's console and he responds to commands to take out adversaries, in this case other convicts. Told he will be set free after thirty victories, Kable begins to become convinced that the system itself is corrupt. As the popularity surrounding Kable grows, pressure is put on Ken Castle, the designer of the system, to keep the ratings high and the system working. When Castle's system is hacked by a group of humans (Humanz) who sense that the system is not above board, Castle begins to hunt for them.

As Kable gets closer to the thirty victories, the system itself seems to be against him and with contacts from Humanz and his controller on the outside, Kable begins to piece together a conspiracy to keep the gaming system intact and popular regardless of whether or not Kable lives or dies! As the menace grows, Kable tries to work with the sympathetic forces to expose the corruption of Castle and the game and free his wife from the counterpart game, Society.

Gamer, to be fair, often feels fresher than it actually is and the directors do occasionally unexpected things like throw in a literal song and dance (this is less surprising when one knows that Michael C. Hall, who plays Castle, has a dance and theater background). But for the most part, Gamer is undermined because exactly what we suspect will happen does. This includes, rather annoyingly, moments where the mind-control technology of the gaming system is sublimated to sheer human will and we are meant to feel like human will can trump anything. Unfortunately, in this context, the idea is more problematic. Kable is supposed to be at the mercy of his player, Simon, and even the idea of Kable being able to speak without Simon controlling it becomes problematic for the concept. After all, if Kable truly has the will to take on the system all along, how did he get so far with Simon controlling him?

This leads to an unnecessary and often-pointless plot involving the reasons Kable was incarcerated and the state of his family on the outside. Here the film more-than borrows from Death Race and given how often uninspired that movie was, it is unsurprising how the whole conspiracy story unravels. As a result, Gamer is a movie that has multiple personalities, even if both are monolithic. One half of the film is a pointless, violent action-adventure film wherein a man responds to controls from a player to blow apart other human beings (who just happen to be death row inmates). The other half of the movie is a mystery involving Kable's family and the institutions which arose to create the game "Slayers."

Gamer is stripped of any real social commentary or social relevancy, though, because Ken Castle is a somewhat monolithic villain. There is something not right about the entrepreneur from the beginning and the movie spends more time looking at him and his issues than it does at exploring one of the basic questions the film implies. If death row criminals are set free after thirty wins - which involve killing, maiming and generally violent behavior - what is the penal system doing to society? The idea that video games are bad for people is a metaphor in hyperbole in Gamer, but the idea that in addition to raising a new generation of psychopaths (the gamers who devalue human life by playing with death row inmates) our society becomes content within a quarter decade to let out the current generation's psychopaths for doing exactly what got them incarcerated to begin with is utterly ridiculous. As a result, this becomes a movie one can only watch with their brain firmly in the off position (though there are plenty of explosions and bright lights for those who do!). And with the nudity, gratuitous murders and explosions, the viewer becomes essentially the characters who are lampooned for being slovenly controllers.

The acting in Gamer is fair, with most of the performers simply playing to their strengths. Michael C. Hall uses his theater background and ability to vocalize in dialect well and Kyra Sedgwick shows up and plays essentially the same way she does in The Closer. Even Ludacris (Chris Bridges) is surprisingly sedate in this movie and playing along the lines of other characters he has in the past. Of course everyone in Gamer looks Hollywood beautiful in either obvious or "ruggedly good-looking" ways.

Gerard Butler once again plays a warrior and here his performance is entirely within what is expected of him and it is hard to be empathetic with his character because Kable is a bad guy on some level. Butler plays the role as the archetypal action hero and lets the dialogue make for any character ambiguities, but on screen, he is tough, moves well and he carries the action scenes. Even so, he has no more depth here than he did in, for example, The Bounty Hunter (click here for that review!)

Still, there is nothing remarkable about Gamer and this became very easy to pass up in theaters. Now on DVD, Gamer features surprisingly sparse, but predictable, bonus features. There is a commentary track which neglects much of the film's actual commentary as well as two featurettes on the making of the movie and the film's trailer.

None of this makes the movie more worth watching.

For other action-adventure movies I have reviewed, please check out:
Inception
The Game
Zombieland

3/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my index page!

© 2010, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |