I loved it, and I loved the first one. I find some of the criticism to be amusing, since the movie is clearly intended to be a ridiculous action thrill ride, and not intended to be a serious character piece. io9 called it ‘jackass darwinism’ and that’s an appropriate moniker. I’ve also heard it described as 'Grand Theft Auto the Movie" and that’s pretty fair as well. It’s basically a live action violent cartoon or videogame, with all that that entails. I would describe parts of it myself as 'live action cognitive dissonance". If you are going to judge it, judge it on it’s merits as a comedy/parody and thrill ride, in which respects I have to say it does quite fine. As for the CGi at the end I assume you mean the flaming scene, in which case I found it to be serviceable, and usually I’m pretty critical of bad CGI.
I’m guessing you aren’t able appreciate anything by John Waters or Tarantino either…
I have one merit: Did I enjoy it? And the answer is a rounding “NO!” I don’t give a flying shit what the director was going for–if he set out to make the worst movie ever made, and accomplished that goal, it’s not going to change my enjoyment of said film.
It’s fine to judge it subjectively, but by saying “It’s simply not a good movie” you are kind of contradicting yourself as well as venturing into objective criticism, for which the intentions of the creator do come into play.
I find it hard to imagine given your dislike for movies with “No likable characters, stupid action scenes, plenty of gratuitous violence, no story”.
I liked the first Crank…for the first 45 minutes. If it had ended there, it would have been a really good movie. But the whole concept began to wear thin after that and it felt like it was just oversaturated with intense action.
Did you not see the part where my username preceded my post? Of course it’s subjective criticism–to me, it’s simply not a good movie. I can’t belive you’re making me qualify that.
What the hell’s your problem? Those are just a few of myriad reasons why I disliked Crank. Why are you so damn hell-bent on trying to convince me otherwise?
How many “non-fanboys” are going to want to see this in the first place? The trailer was, unlike so many, an accurate preview of the film. It had me cackling with glee. Not a whole lot of people going to see this film who aren’t looking to see exactly this film. This is a modern “grindhouse” movie.
Subjective is “it’s not my thing” or “I don’t like that type of movie or that actor”. Objective is “the movie was not made well according to one of the universal standards of moviemaking”. Subjective is “I feel…” whereas objective is “the movie is”. You may have meant to be subjective, but your language looked much more like an attempt at objective criticism.
I don’t care whether or not you like Crank. But your OP implied that these qualities implicitly make a film bad, whereas other popular and critically admired movies also share those qualities.
What the hell’s your problem? You are taking this way too personally lol.
My only point was that several people in the thread, not just you, were criticizing the movie for qualities that were intentional. Which is kind of like criticizing Shindler’s List for being too dramatic or Transformers for having too many explosions or a kid’s movie for not having enough sex and violence in it. It’s one thing to say that you don’t like that kind of movie and didn’t know to expect that when you saw it. But it’s another to say it’s something wrong with the movie itself.
Put me in with the group who think “What were you expecting from this movie?”.
If someone dislikes it, well, fine…they dislike it.
But I don’t get it. I expect it to be a cheesy, unbelievable, eye candy, chock full of action movie from the get go. When I go to see a movie (any movie, not just this one), I suspend disbelief. Because, get this, it’s a movie. It’s not real. It’s fiction. It’s made up. Do you expect movies to make sense?
I can never understand people who critisize movies about their plot or disbelief at the storyline. Me, I go to movies and watch movies to be entertained. That’s it. I’m not looking for it to make sense. If it does, that’s a bonus, but some movies’ purpose is NOT TO MAKE SENSE. So if you’re going to sit back and call movies like The Naked Gun “incredibly stupid”, well, yeah! It is incredibly stupid! That’s the whole point. That’s why I like it. Were people who critique it expecting a drama? Crank was very campy and unbelievable. The guy should, by no means, have lived through that long of a drop. Who cares? I mean, it should be obvious just from the trailer (or just from HEARING there’s a sequel alone) of Crank 2 that he, miraculously, survived. If anyone has a problem with that, why go see the film in the first place, then? Obviously its ALREADY being extremly far-reaching in it’s level of belief from that premise alone, so, what, do people go to see it expecting a film that is going to be anything short of lots of gunfire, lots of ridiculous (but awesomely cool) effects and fights and situations?
I already know what to expect and I already know I’m probably going to enjoy it, because I see movies just to be entertained.
I guess one person’s entertainment is another person’s retardedness.
No, subjective is anything that comes out of one’s mouth unless it’s explicitly stated as being objective. I thought it was pretty obvious (though it somehow eluded you) that my stance of it simply “not being a good movie” merely reflected my opinion, and in no way was meant to represent others. Obviously others will enjoy the movie–it wouldn’t be the first time, nor will it be the last time. There has never, nor will there ever be an “objectively” bad movie–it’s always subjective. Now can we please move past this?
As I said before, if a director sets out to make a shitty film and fulfills that goal, that’s not going to make my experience of it any more enjoyable.
Agreed. But Statham has a talent for being able to play the most absurd movie roles completely seriously, and sell it. Crank 2 is ridiculous, knows it’s ridiculous, and Statham plays it straight, and does a great job of making it enjoyable. It’s not Shakespeare, and does not intend to be (if you want a violent action movie that is Shakespeare, check out “The Limey”)
