Crank 2: High Voltage

[megladon8]

What the hell is going on here?

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/341/crank2photo2xv1.jpg

[Sven]

Oh. My. God.

[Lasse]

That actually makes me want to watch the damn thing. :lol:

[number8]

I seem to remember something about him turning into a video game character at some point.

[Grouchy]

That looks exactly like a goddamn classic in the making.

[Dukefrukem]

wtf.... dream sequence?

[Acapelli]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/12/30/nsfw-crank-2-movie-trailer/

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[MadMan]

That trailer rocked my face off. I have to get my hands on the first film. The sequel looks pretty sweet, too, in a "WTF?" sort of way.

[number8]

Oh, look. That Linkin Park guy is back.

I suppose I have to give credit to these guys for basically making a Troma film that is accepted by the mainstream. The cinematography looks even worse than Crank 1, but I'm sure it's "intentional" on their part. That's just how punk rawk this movie is!

[Acapelli]

apparently glenn howerton (dennis reynolds from it's always sunny) has an expanded role in the film too, but i'm not 100% on that being correct

he was a nurse or something in the first one

and as far as the look of the film goes, someone on another board said "Did they borrow David Lynch's 10+ year-old DV equipment" which seems like a pretty accurate assessment

[number8]

Did some googling. Apparently this was shot on consumer Canon cameras.

[Scar]

Wow.

[Dead & Messed Up]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/12/30/nsfw-crank-2-movie-trailer/

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

It should be noted that this link is profoundly not safe for work.

:)

[Saya]

Wow! I must see this.

[eternity]

So that original image that Megladon posted, I guess that sums up the entire film.

Consider me excited to see this if only for the laugh value.

[Rowland]

I kinda loved the original, but this looks like crap.

[KK2.0]

I kinda loved the original, and this looks just as funny if not better.

[transmogrifier]

I can't see the picture what is it?

[KK2.0]

the image meg talked about isn't showing, is this it btw?

http://alfafile.blig.ig.com.br/imagens/crank2.jpg


reminds me of the bizarre looking dolls from an old british comedy show... can't remember the name.

[Ivan Drago]

What. The. Fuck?

[Boner M]

Trailer makes it look pretty desperate, but so was the first one and I kinda dug it (to a point).

[Dukefrukem]

that looks so damn good

[Wryan]

Can't wait for Crank 3: Crunked.

[Boner M]

Can't wait for Crank 3: Crunked.
Crank 4: I'm Cranky

[Wryan]

Crank 4: I'm Cranky

Crank 5: The Crank Who Shouts at Loiterers

[Kurosawa Fan]

Crank 6: Get Off My Lawn!

[Wryan]

Crank 6: Get Off My Lawn!

The natural evolution of the process. Sorry Jason.

[MadMan]

Crank 6: Get Off My Lawn!That will end up being the best of the bunch.

[megladon8]

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/8924/crank2kc0.jpg

[Morris Schæffer]

Hehe. That is a cool poster!

[Lasse]

That's awesome! :lol:

[Ivan Drago]

Same idea as the first poster, but still kick-ass.

[number8]

The tagline... Oh my.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitter_production/profile_background_images/4438045/ka_sm.jpg

[Spinal]

Their explanation for why the heck he's still alive should be pretty entertaining.

[megladon8]

Their explanation for why the heck he's still alive should be pretty entertaining.


I think he just has another life.

The same way Super Mario does.

[Spinal]

I think he just has another life.

The same way Super Mario does.

Or maybe he has a slightly taller brother. The same way Super Mario does. :)

[Sycophant]

As far as I'm concerned, 2009 is all about Where the Wild Things Are, Whatever Works, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, and this.

[Rowland]

Statham had a pretty lousy year in 2008, his best picture being The Bank Job, which was merely decent. I hope this sets the course right. My hopes are high, given that the original is one of the 00s' best B-movies.

[Dukefrukem]

The tagline... Oh my.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitter_production/profile_background_images/4438045/ka_sm.jpg

bwhahahahah that's awesome.

[Lasse]

He was dead... but he got better.

I am laughing so hard right now. :lol:

[Spinal]

Well, they are just stealing that joke from Monty Python.

[lovejuice]

Well, they are just stealing that joke from Monty Python.
monty python invented the concept of joke anyway.

[Spinal]

monty python invented the concept of joke anyway.

Aristophanes has a couple thousand years on them.

[Grouchy]

Aristophanes has a couple thousand years on them.
The Greek don't stand a chance!

[Wryan]

Aristophanes has a couple thousand years on them.

"I sez, 'Ma! Couldn't you have come up with a better name?' I'm sure she did it on purpose--to set me apart from my brother, Turbo."

[Spinal]

I have no idea what anyone is talking about.

[MadMan]

I have no idea what anyone is talking about.I only do half the time around here. I just shrug my shoulders and move on.

[kuehnepips]

I have no idea what anyone is talking about.

Something about dentists

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/celebrity-pictures-jason-statham-dentist-weird.jpg

[kuehnepips]

Mean

Sneak preview on the 15th where I live: Two beers for the prize of one: for men.

:frustrated:

[Acapelli]

they underestimate the female audience for this

[Watashi]

This is getting good reviews.

I kinda want to see the first one now.

[Rowland]

Watch the first one, it's probably Statham's best movie.

I'm looking forward to reading Armond's review for this.

[Sycophant]

Alas, my plans to see this with friends has been delayed till next weekend. I'm looking forward to it.

[Raiders]

Watch the first one, it's probably Statham's best movie.

I like Revolver more, but yeah, it only gets better every time I watch it.

Seeing this tomorrow.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

I will never listen to REO Speedwagon's "Keep on Loving You" the same way again.

This film is everything I hoped it would be.

[Justin]

One of the few films I have seen in the theater this year, was a great time.

[Raiders]

Didn't care much for it surprisingly. The more literally "like a cartoon" it was rendered (Atari-like opening and hallucinogenic monsterheads), the less fun it became. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing, and it reached its saturation point here. The first film felt like a goofy skewering of itself and action films (useless women, gay men as props, and so forth) and revved itself up, the form inspired by the content. This time though, it felt more like it was trying. Statham was even less fun and seemed to be having less fun.

I don't know. Maybe it is just an inherent problem whenever a sequel merely attempts to "outdo" the original, but merely by amping up the same aspects. Something will never be the same twice, and the second time will always be subject to higher standards.

[Morris Schæffer]

As an action fan, I could probably derive something of interest out of most actioners that aren't considered classics. Well, I really found Crank almost unbearable.

[Derek]

Crank: High Voltage (Neveldine/Taylor, 2009)

From the opening credits and the first shot, this sequel amps up the original's ridiculousness and over-the-top style, taking the video game aesthetic of the first and expanding it to infuse every inch of this world. The complete amorality, juvenile humor, racism and sexism come off as less offensive in its appealing to the lowest common denominator and more a reflection of the post-GTA aftershocks being transferred into the domain of the action film. There are still several sequences that lack the humor Neveldine and Taylor clearly find in them - particularly the once again awkward and offensive public sex scene with goofy Asian bystanders - but this film's expanded sense of absurdity prevents them from feeling as mean-spirited and unnecessary as in the film. Sure, this is a kitchen-sink (with all household appliances tossed in a blender and microwaved) approach to filmmaking that has no overarching visual strategy aside from providing every shot with the maximum visceral impact possible, but there is something charming about the effort here and looking a video game morality through the lens of a live-action film could prove somewhat insightful, considering some of its more bothersome elements are much easier to take in the context of playing a game. Still, please don't ever have the protagonist flick off the audience. It's not badass, just kind of sad.

[Amnesiac]

Still, please don't ever have the protagonist flick off the audience. It's not badass, just kind of sad.

Heh.

[Sven]

Well, the first is practically a masterpiece, so of course it wasn't going to be AS good, but that's irrelevant. What matters is that it continues the pumping, thrusting trajectory of the first film and moves Chelios's energy from personal (adrenaline, that which fuels the body) to interpersonal (electricity, that which fuels apparatuses). The escalation of interaction from the first one is a necessary byproduct of the thematic ambition of the filmmakers. Do we define ourselves by our organs or by the systems through which we operate? Where do we find the individual?

There are a few clunky moments (the porno-protest had no reason to exist, for example, and the scene where he meets Eve was lousily blocked and paced, deflecting Chev from his trajectory with too much shuffling) and I was a bit uncomfortable with the film's groinal fixation, though I don't think it's from any prudishness on my part, but rather I think it misdirects the sexual component of the series's approach to biorhythmic ontology (I'm really not trying to sound snarky). But the good very much outweighs the bad.

Re: the audience flip-off, I think it was simply a capstone in the film's running motif of birds-to-the-viewer, including little Chev on the talk show and Eve flipping off in the mug shot. A bit silly, I'll grant, but it's all a part of the show. It fits right in with all the other direct blows to the audience.

[Sycophant]

I didn't care for this. I'll support flipping the audience the bird though. At that point in the film, it only made sense.

[Ivan Drago]

Thought both movies were awesome. Loved the video game aesthetics, loved the editing, loved Statham...GAH THIS SERIES IS AWESOME!!!

[Sycophant]

I've been struggling with my feelings about this one. I've decided I probably need to give it another shot. My initial reaction was very hostile, but I'm wondering if that might've had something to do with the throbbing headache I had when I went to the theatre.

[trotchky]

I think I'll spend the evening with Crank 1 on itunes and a few lines of coke.

[[ETM]]

I think I'll spend the evening with Crank 1 on itunes and a few lines of coke.

Watch your blood sugar.
http://www.sixthseal.com/archive/September2004/coke_c2.jpg

[Henry Gale]

This is basically like Speed Racer's R-rated, sex-addicted, digustingly crude cousin that has no regard for how anyone else in its movie family goes about any basic things regarding aestethic and structure as it jumps about and throws everything that crosses its mind at the screen in around 90 minutes' time. And yet... I found it as charming as I did gruesome.

Middle finger or not, any movie that can end with the lead character set on fire and left in such a state that he mistakes some random woman he met for his not-so-beloved girlfriend, embraces her (in his mind, quite REO-mantically) and ends up setting her on fire also in the process should still be considered quite an insane and incredible ending for a mainstream movie.

It doesn't have itself quite as together as the first movie, but it's still pretty enthralling.

*** / ****

[Grouchy]

This is not as good as the first one, but really, could it have been? From the moment it has to find some ridiculous reason for Chelios to be still alive, the movie's story and connection to reality have jumped the proverbial shark. Fortunately, Neveldine and Taylor know it and use it as a starting point for the fucking insanity they are about to unleash on us. Video game footage, obsession with penis injury, hilarious and gratuitous money shots (this has to be the most graphic mainstream movie I've ever seen), and Statham the Man. A fist fight that for some reason becomes a kaiju battle. And the public sex scene which easily outdoes the one in the first film, specially due to that horse POV shot. David Carradine's appearance is basically a cameo, but it was kind of creepy how the situations his character goes through mirror his death.

I also commend the movie's use of digital consumer technology to make a feature film. That's some inspirational shit right there. I've noticed that, as digital becomes more and more prominent in cinema, some directors (like Michael Mann did with Public Enemies) are starting to explore a way to use it without trying to imitate the "film look" and finding its own unique characteristics.

[Ivan Drago]

The DVD comes out 2 days before my birthday. Fuck yes.

[BuffaloWilder]

What kind of masochist would be happy about a thing like that?

[Sven]

What kind of masochist would be happy about a thing like that?

Oh just stop.

[BuffaloWilder]

...why?

[megladon8]

I can't wait to see this.

Unfortunately I'm really having to cut down on money I spend on this kind of stuff. My prescription cost has just sky-rocketed, so between that and my other bills I'll only have maybe $50 to $100 to play around with each month.

It's one I'll probably buy used in a couple of months for like $10.

[Sycophant]

...why?

Because one-note posters are awful and annoying. So stop beating your dead horses.

[Sycophant]

The DVD comes out 2 days before my birthday. Fuck yes.

I'm going to rewatch this when it hits DVD. I loved the first film. But I saw the second film with a caffeine withdrawal headache, and that's probably really not fair to the movie.

[BuffaloWilder]

Because one-note posters are awful and annoying. So stop beating your dead horses.

I've only mentioned the movie like once or twice, though.

[Sycophant]

I've only mentioned the movie like once or twice, though.

Anyone who's read the FDT would know you hate this. Anyone who's read the Avatar thread would know you hate this. And anyone who's read Match Cut would know there are people who like this. You've brought it up where it doesn't really belong. It just strikes me as uncivil.

[BuffaloWilder]

Anyone who's read the FDT would know you hate this. Anyone who's read the Avatar thread would know you hate this. And anyone who's read Match Cut would know there are people who like this. You've brought it up where it doesn't really belong. It just strikes me as uncivil.

Hey, hey, hey. I mentioned it once (or twice, in passing because it struck me as relevant) in the FDT thread - wasn't really a derisive post. There was a discussion on the film between Qrazy and Sven in the Avatar thread already going on, and I was just commenting on that.

So - what's the deal?

[Sycophant]

Going around insinuating a character flaw ("masochist" in this case) in someone because they enjoy a movie you don't is just shrill.

[BuffaloWilder]

Going around insinuating a character flaw ("masochist" in this case) in someone because they enjoy a movie you don't is just shrill.

It's a joke, you humorless statue.

Whether or not it's funny, I leave that for the ages. I didn't really spend a lot of time mulling over it, y'know.

[Sycophant]

It isn't funny. It's annoying. I've said my peace.

[BuffaloWilder]

It isn't funny. It's annoying. I've said my peace.

Okay.


:pritch:

[Ivan Drago]

What kind of masochist would be happy about a thing like that?

The kind of masochist who loves to feel his head explode from witnessing sheer awesomeness.

[BuffaloWilder]

The kind of masochist who loves to feel his head explode from witnessing sheer awesomeness.

I will say Chelio's wife is just cute as a button.

[Qrazy]

It isn't funny. It's annoying. I've said my peace.

No offense Syco but in my mind it's much more annoying to repeatedly point out peeves and irritations with other posts and posting styles than the level of obnoxiousness caused by the initial posts themselves (glib, caustic or what have you)... and yes I realize that indicts this post as well... fuuuck.

[Qrazy]

And, yes, a practically surrealist humanism that manages to be true to its grimy self (complaints about its ugliness are only making it stronger) while maintaining a democratic faith in every character. People do business, someone tries to cheat the company a little and the company tries to fire him. Fair is fair, everyone's doing their job as resourcefully as possible.

I see nothing humanistic in the Crank films. The image most drastically conveying this anti-humanism comes in Crank 2 when a young nurse/doctor discussing his Chelios driven PTSD, is told by his psychiatrist to get out there and dive into some muff. On the verge of doing this he then receives a bullet to the head and the psychiatrist vomits on the camera.

In terms of both humanism and a democratic faith in every character, I don't see it at all. The vast majority of characters are one note enemy meat sacks to be disposed of by Chev. They are there only to attack the protagonist, they are killed and their deaths are of little consequence. Now this is a staple of the action genre (although Cameron tends to treat death with a bit more weight) so I don't really fault the Crank films for it. But it's certainly not indicative of a democratic faith. The film begins with Chev being poisoned in his sleep. Chev certainly feels this to be unfair and I believe that the film's allegiances also make themselves clear on this point. We may question Chev's methods but we aren't made to question his motives given that the 'bad guys' are shown as honorless double crossers.


What makes Crank and to a lesser extent in Crank 2, and thus the entirety of Neveldine/Taylor's body of features, truly special is how Statham's character's transgression is motivated by that poetic force that is said to be the fuel of all life: love. Right? So here is a character motivated by love impossibly moving his body through this system that, governed by the laws of human nature and capitalistic evolution, will normalize with him dead, all the while attempting to use his ingenuity to sustain his libido from moment to moment. To me, this is a very viable (and moving) model of literary social function and an appropriately philosophical basis for a modern approach to technological narratives and lifestyles, particularly given its extreme range of visual perspectives.

I'm not sure I follow. What do you find to be 'an appropriately philosophical basis for a modern approach to technological narratives and lifestyles' in relation to transitioning visual approaches (previously employed with much greater purpose by Oliver Stone and others) employed in the expression of a dying/wounded character fighting against a system he's stuck in (motivated by love/a desire for a cure/and by revenge). All systems will normalize if they kill off the rogue element within them. I feel that I've seen a number of films/animes with dying or severely wounded characters exacting revenge/looking for a cure because of their love interest (although frequently the love interest is already dead, but not always). What particularly separates this film? The only thing I can think of is the Crank element, the need to have these constant adrenaline surges. But I don't see that the film particularly interestingly examines or is particularly interested in examining the relationship between Chev's material/organic self and his ideal/spiritual love and his need to physically fuel himself in order to to keep that love a reality. The film isn't interested in these ideas in the slightest because it's very much concerned with flippant humor and killing people off in inventive ways. In fact in relation to the love issue, the film (as well as the sequel) often addresses the fact that Chev frequently leaves Eve in the dirt in order to go chase after his victims and/or to sustain his own life. Yeah he cares about her somewhat, enough to leave her a message while falling out of an airplane, but she's not exactly drive his modus operandi.

[Amnesiac]

No offense Syco but in my mind it's much more annoying to repeatedly point out peeves and irritations with other posts

I feel like Sycophant does do this a lot but he at least tries to be polite about it (note: I'm not saying that, conversely, you're not being polite).

[Sycophant]

Thanks, Amnesiac. I'd like to just drop it now. Sorry to anyone I've irritated.

[Qrazy]

I agree with Amnesiac as well and to clarify I'm not actually irritated I'd just prefer conversation to flow (faults and all) naturally rather than grind to a halt for evaluation. I fully realize I have my conversational flaws as well so that's the last I'll say about it too.

[transmogrifier]

I agree with Amnesiac as well and to clarify I'm not actually irritated I'd just prefer conversation to flow (faults and all) naturally rather than grind to a halt for evaluation. I fully realize I have my conversational flaws as well so that's the last I'll say about it too.

Yeah, sometimes I think we at Match Cut worry too much about how we say stuff, rather than just saying it.

[Grouchy]

You are all a bunch of pussies.

[Sven]

I see nothing humanistic in the Crank films. The image most drastically conveying this anti-humanism comes in Crank 2 when a young nurse/doctor discussing his Chelios driven PTSD, is told by his psychiatrist to get out there and dive into some muff. On the verge of doing this he then receives a bullet to the head and the psychiatrist vomits on the camera.

I was shaken by the implications of this scene more than I have been by any other scene in any other film intended to convey the complete randomness of existence. I find it very humanistic. The scene's focus on the body (sex, blood, and vomit) places it well within the films' central concerns of life as action, life as physical sensation. And especially with Crank 2, the chaotic nature underpinning the modes of security that we set up (here, a doctor's office is supposed to offer help, health, and safety) is dramatically subverted in an exciting, unpredictable, and yes, disgusting fashion, accentuating human desire within a scheme that fundamentally lacks any sort of guarantee. It's similar, I think, to No Country for Old Men, where the crux is the inevitability of death's creeping behind locked doors.


In terms of both humanism and a democratic faith in every character, I don't see it at all. The vast majority of characters are one note enemy meat sacks to be disposed of by Chev.

I think we have different conceptions of the function of the characters. Without referencing Crank 2, which I've only seen once at the moment (whereas I'm sure I've seen Crank roughly 5 or 6 times - and Crank 2 is certainly more troublesome), I will say that your assertions of "vast majority" and "meat sack to be disposed of" are not quite right. Yes, as is the deal with any film dealing with gang warfare, there are a few of those. But the characters with whom Chelios interacts are given humor, strength, and a touch of ingenuity: the cab driver (who tolerates Chev's theft, but not his being wet), Verona, Verona's brother, Kaylo, the "whatchyumean'ding'?" guy, Carlito, Orlando... even the sassy pharmatician and the Haitian cab driver. Very few are his interactions with disposable, inept people. (Now that I think about it, one of the few true inepts he meets is the ER nurse who gets shot in the second film. Hmmm...)


We may question Chev's methods but we aren't made to question his motives given that the 'bad guys' are shown as honorless double crossers.

Certainly, but I don't think this precludes an acknowledgment of the resourcefulness (however dubious "honor"-wise) of Verona, who by any reasonable account should be the victor in this scenario. It is only what Neveldine/Taylor position as Chelios's grace, being his body and his love, that keep him going (the revenge gets him 'killed,' remember). This is more humanism.


I'm not sure I follow. What do you find to be 'an appropriately philosophical basis for a modern approach to technological narratives and lifestyles' in relation to transitioning visual approaches (previously employed with much greater purpose by Oliver Stone and others) employed in the expression of a dying/wounded character fighting against a system he's stuck in (motivated by love/a desire for a cure/and by revenge).

This is a rather serpentine concept that would necessitate a greater theoretical basis than I'm ready to outline at the moment. But to put that into other words, I'm saying that the basis of Crank, its nature (which you place more in terms of genre and I place more in terms of form), is itself adequately expressive of the technological overkill of media-driven lifestyles.


What particularly separates this film?

Well, you note the conscious injection of adrenaline, which is essential, but I love its wit and its style too. I think question "what separates this film" is a bit disingenuous, because its existence separates it from everything else, right? Unique cast, locations, soundtrack, dialogue... everything, right? I know I'm reading that a bit literally, but it is a vague question with an infinite amount of answers, so I'm not sure what to say.


The only thing I can think of is the Crank element, the need to have these constant adrenaline surges. But I don't see that the film particularly interestingly examines or is particularly interested in examining the relationship between Chev's material/organic self and his ideal/spiritual love and his need to physically fuel himself in order to to keep that love a reality. The film isn't interested in these ideas in the slightest because it's very much concerned with flippant humor and killing people off in inventive ways.

What I like about the film is that it's not the kind of film that has to explore or foreground this model. The fact that it exists is sewn so naturally into the plot that the idea becomes the fuel rather than the vehicle. The concept of a film "examining" or "studying" an element is something I've developed a bit of an enmity toward. Surely I do not mind that a film has concerns, but in terms of critical responses, turning the focus toward the film's object of study is, by necessity, verbal paraphrase of the direct filmic observation. And that, to me, is an impossible way to truly address a film. (I'm starting to mix my critical and theoretical modes of thought, here, for which I apologize, because I'm not going to be able to clarify much in this form at the moment.)

In other words, Crank is mostly 'about' action and kills and juvenility. But using its genre and plot as an analytic framework will, I think, yield only superficial results because it is not a superficial film. It questions the source of action: where is Chev's energy(/motivation) coming from? where does it go? This is what the film is really about (no quotes).


In fact in relation to the love issue, the film (as well as the sequel) often addresses the fact that Chev frequently leaves Eve in the dirt in order to go chase after his victims and/or to sustain his own life. Yeah he cares about her somewhat, enough to leave her a message while falling out of an airplane, but she's not exactly drive his modus operandi.

Well, desperation brought on by the want to not die is his M.O. And it's worth noting that even if he had killed Don Kim, they would've wanted him dead anyway. It was in his NOT killing Kim because he was "made better" by Eve that saves him at the end when Kim surprises everyone on the rooftop. So his love, or his connection to her, is definitely a point of origin, which, as I mentioned before, is what the film is really about. As for the nature of the sexual treatment of Eve, I think it's fine. This is not PC cinema, so roughness and machismo are expected. It's like complaining about nudity in a film about strippers.

[BuffaloWilder]

So, watched the first Crank again. And, while a lot of the elements that made this one so -- annoying were still present, it was a much more coherent film. In particular, there's actually a pretty well-orchestrated chase sequence in the film's final third - you know the one; with Chelios simultaneously receiving a blowjob from his wife. While the extraneous zoom-ins do get a little distracting here and there, Nevaldine and Taylor aren't just throwing things at the screen all willy-nilly. This is also evident in the chase through the mall, earlier in the film. At the very least, we can process what's going on. I still hate the pseudo-hardcore "rawker" soundtrack they saw fit to incorporate into every scene, but this is easily a more defensible film. Although, I still can't see anything emotionally moving about Chelios and his relationship with his wife, or his phone call to her in the final scene.

- which all just leads to more questions about what exactly happened, with this one. And Gamer, by all accounts.

[BuffaloWilder]

Additionally, I'm writing a short post about the contrast between the two films, and I might quote this thread a few times.

[Ivan Drago]

As much as I love the Crank movies...sadly I must admit Jason Statham doesn't hold a candle to Chow Yun-Fat. Just saw Hard Boiled for the first time, and like the Crank movies, it was teh AWSUM!!!11 OMFGOMFG :head explodes:

[Scar]

As much as I love the Crank movies...sadly I must admit Jason Statham doesn't hold a candle to Chow Yun-Fat. Just saw Hard Boiled for the first time, and like the Crank movies, it was teh AWSUM!!!11 OMFGOMFG :head explodes:

This is the appropriate response to Hard Boiled.

[megladon8]

Esepcially when Chow Yun Fat swoops down on a the zip line into the middle of that huge deal in the warehouse.

That scene is so baller.

[Ivan Drago]

Esepcially when Chow Yun Fat swoops down on a the zip line into the middle of that huge deal in the warehouse.

That scene is so baller.

Or the part in the morgue when Chow Yun-Fat pushes a stretcher in front of a mobster, who Tony Leung then kicks in the face while laying on that stretcher. But then neither fell out of a helicopter and lived.

Bought and rewatched Crank 2 yesterday. Still trying to put my head back together.

[Dukefrukem]

1. This movie is fun and entertaining.... It opens fast and doesn't ever slow down.

2. The stripper massacre scene is ridiculous. As is the police apprehension scene that follows. Why don't any of them approach with their guns drawn?

3. Why didn't you call me? "I did, didn't get you get my message?" LOL!

4. The dog caller scene... wow.

5. Limo scene... "chicken and broccoli" wow x3

6. The fight scene under the high voltage wires

7. I don't know if I could sit through it again

[kuehnepips]

.. I don't know if I could sit through it again

Sit?

Nonsense.

Have some booze and a woman/man, take your clothes off and

... actually a good idea for tonight ...

[Skitch]

Sit?

Nonsense.

Have some booze and a woman/man, take your clothes off and

... actually a good idea for tonight ...

It's almost embarrassing how hard you are coming on to me right now.

[Ivan Drago]

2. The stripper massacre scene is ridiculous.

The biggest WTF moment from that scene:

When a bullet hits a stripper in the boobs and her implants ooze out.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I watched half an hour of this last night. It has a fascinating ugliness, although I have trouble reconciling its portrayal of minorities and women, especially during the strip club scene. Even allowing that the film is implicitly attacking such views by embellishing them to cartoon size, it's still terribly off-putting and disgusting.

I'm gonna keep watching, because I really want to see what Sven likes about the film. If I squint, I kinda get it.

[Henry Gale]

I watched half an hour of this last night. It has a fascinating ugliness, although I have trouble reconciling its portrayal of minorities and women, especially during the strip club scene. Even allowing that the film is implicitly attacking such views by embellishing them to cartoon size, it's still terribly off-putting and disgusting.

I'm gonna keep watching, because I really want to see what Sven likes about the film. If I squint, I kinda get it.

I don't even think things are even half as insane as they get by the half-hour mark. As a broken up viewing I'm not sure how it feels, but as a straight-through 90 minute one... it's one the craziest things I've ever watched. (Especially when you consider that it opened in 2000+ theatres in North America.)

[Dead & Messed Up]

Weirdly, I came back to this movie for work, captioning it for daytime TV. Amazing how much violence was retained. Anyway, the flick is better than I remember. I still don't know that I'd go so far as Sven does with his appraisals, but the film's go-for-broke insanity (and inanity) and nonstop invention (the video game cues) makes up for the more questionable choices (how Amy Smart exists to be forced into literally crowd-pleasing sex). Chelios whistling the film's main theme, at the same time it's playing, isn't just something other films wouldn't do, it's something other films wouldn't even consider doing.

[Sven]

I just reread this thread and stand by all my opinions. I'm pretty smart sometimes.

[Irish]

I just reread this thread and stand by all my opinions. I'm pretty smart sometimes.

I haven't seen this movie or read your posts, but I still know in my gut that you're wrong. ;)

[Henry Gale]

I have the urge to watch this a lot but never seem to take myself up on it and feel like I'm depriving myself of its majesty and as I write this run-on sentence I'm thinking I'll watch it tonight (but probably won't).

[Dukefrukem]

It's just as good as the first Crank. Where are those Crank guys anyway? Why don't we have a Crank 3 or Gamer 2?

[Skitch]

We had Ghost Rider 2.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeh but nothing since.

[Irish]

They've got a movie called The Vatican Tapes scheduled for 2015, plus an adaptation of the Twisted Metal videogame.

[Ivan Drago]

To this day, this movie is still awesome.