Reviews

So maybe the reviews set me up to expect a bad movie. But it's really quite good. We all know that adapting Broadway musicals for the screen is not easy. But frankly this was much better and more believable than most. The critics are right only to the extent that the character of Evan is so flawed - as a human being, not in the writing - that at times it's hard to have sympathy for him. But the music is great, the co stars are excellent, and it's actually a movie that takes good advantage of what you can do on film that you can't do on stage. At the very least, see it for yourself. And I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Crank is basically "MTV-makes-an-action-movie". I wasn't sure if I was watching a movie or the world's longest music video. While it was enjoyable, in the end the "butter-flavored topping" on your popcorn is more genuine and nutritious than this film.

I'm not even sure it's an action movie - maybe we need a term like "action comedy" to describe it. What saved the movie from being a complete bust was the humor; it's very funny in a campy way. The plot is absurd, the cinematography is over the top, and the humor works because it's beyond sophomoric. The humor then is so central to the enjoyment of the movie that in the end I don't care about the main character, his girlfriend, their relationship, or who wanted him dead in the first place. The last point is beneficial, because I still don't know who wanted him dead.

The camera angles were dizzying. "Attention deficit directing" is how I'd describe it. It was difficult at times to tell fantasy from reality - but hey, if the action's happening, who cares? Amy Smart plays the dumbest girlfriend in history, but his condescension toward her is cute and endearing. However, the much-ballyhooed sex scene (which is indeed hilarious) does not seem like an outgrowth of her presence in the movie. Instead it's the other way around - it feels as if they stuck her in the movie so they could have the sex scene.

And that's how it feels for all the characters. They aren't real, they're props. But the movie moves so quickly, you don't have time to realize that there's nothing of substance on-screen.

Do I recommend it? Depends on what you want. It's like cotton candy. Mostly air. No nutrition. But if you're at a carnival, you definitely should have some. So if you want mindlessly entertaining stimulation, go see this movie.

But if you want a movie as smart as "Die Hard" or even "Speed", this isn't it. Because those movies were based on a smart good guy matching wits with a smart bad guy. "Smart" does not describe any of the characters in this movie.

I was not expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. As I reflected on it, I figured out why. This is broad comedy - but broad comedy written and performed by sophisticated people.

Every comic thread in the movie has a social critique behind it. Yes, the movie has more product placements than any movie ever made. But that is just a satire of NASCAR itself, where the cars and drivers are 100% laden with ads. Every square inch of a NASCAR race car has an ad on it - so every square inch of this movie has a product placement.

The movie lampoons the fascination with Applebees that seems to be a part of blue-collar culture in parts of the South (they could have used Olive Garden to the same effect), it lampoons the religious right (the grace scene is absolutely hilarious), and the "invisible" fire shtick is a comedic riff on something that actually does happen (albeit in Indy Car racing). Indy cars use ethanol fuel, which burns clear blue - very hard to see. Years ago I remember watching a race where the driver actually was on fire and hopping around, and the announcers were explaining that you can't see the burning ethanol on TV.

There is actually intelligent social commentary undergirding the jokes.

If you've never watched NASCAR or never spent time in the South, you might not get some of the jokes.

If you're a huge NASCAR fan, you might not realize when the movie is making fun of you and your friends (and you might not appreciate it when you do!)

But if you've watched enough NASCAR to know that you don't like it; if you think of NASCAR as professional wrestling on wheels (complete with "bad guy" and "good guy" drivers), you'll love this movie.

And if you stop to think about WHY the jokes were put in the movie, if you think about the social critique the movie is offering, you won't even have to feel guilty about having laughed as hard as you did!

Living just outside of NYC in NJ, I saw the movie at a theater directly across the Hudson River from Manhattan. Here we're close (too close?) to the topic physically and emotionally.

As a result of the emotional proximity audiences have to the subject, this is a strange movie. I think Oliver Stone, being a great filmmaker, understood that the audience would be bringing a tremendous amount of emotion to the movie, so the movie he made is actually very emotionally flat compared with most films. WE are supplying the emotion to the movie, instead of the other way around.

Sure, there are points where you tear up, but almost any vivid description of 9/11 will do that; that's not the movie, that's the material. The recreations of the ground zero rubble are remarkable, and the opening scenes where the towers have been CGI'd back into the Manhattan skyline are touching. For locals, we remember the weirdness of the first time we drove back to work and didn't see the towers.

Because our wound is still raw, the movie treads very lightly. So lightly that as the wound heals, this won't be the definitive movie on the WTC. I think the definitive movie won't be made for at least another 5-10 years, from a historical, not contemporary, perspective.

Technically, it is very well-done. As the men are trapped, the film does an incredible job of conveying their terror. This is excellent work, but within this narrow plot line the film becomes divorced from the context. Ultimately, this could have been about firefighters in a collapsed building or earthquake survivors.

Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal are more talented than their roles required. There isn't a lot you can do or need to do with the "is my husband dead?" role.

(Spoilers here) If you stand back from the subject and analyze the plot, the story is about brave people who did their job by going into the towers. They are alive because the Sgt. was luckily prudent (they went downstairs to get spare oxygen before heading up) and quick-thinking (diving toward the elevator shaft as the building collapsed). They never even had a chance to actually save anyone before being trapped.

The rescuers were brave and prudent, taking out the one before going back for the other.

In no way would I, in real-life, want to diminish their heroism in any way, as these are braver men than me. But they were, in the realm of movie-making, "ordinary heroes" (if there is such a thing). In other words, they aren't cops like "John McClane" in Die Hard. In real-life, I am grateful for the people who serve and protect; as a movie, John McClane is more interesting to watch.

And we're like water balloons of emotion when it comes to 9/11; the tiniest prick and we're ready to burst, so Stone played it safe and flat. Stone was in a hard place. If the film had been more emotional it would have felt manipulative. Unfortunately, instead we have a film that simply isn't particularly compelling.

Ultimately, when the debate is about whether a movie should have been made rather than about what the movie says, that's not a ringing endorsement.

As with many, the reviews dissuaded me from seeing the movie in the theaters, but as rental, it was a fun movie to spend an evening watching. It kept my attention, and I cared about the lead characters. That's the basis for a good movie.

This is a thriller, not a documentary. Some of the plot elements may be implausible, but all fiction involves some level of a willing suspension of disbelief. Nothing is outlandishly implausible.

The twists and turns are led into subtly enough that they surprise you when they happen. Sure, some of the twists are predictable ... but you need some predictable twists so that the less-predictable twists are more surprising.

Clive Owen acts his role exceedingly well. Roger Ebert says that Clive Owen would have been his choice for the next Bond. I can see that. He can be both charming and tough. Reminded me of Mel Gibson. Jennifer Aniston does a fine job, and I'm a huge fan of hers, but her role could just as easily have been played by dozens of other actresses.

**spoiler hint follows**

The movie is marketed as a breakout role for Jennifer Aniston, who plays against type. But the plot seems to rely on the audience being used to the Jennifer Aniston girl-next-door "type". In retrospect, had an unknown actress played the role exactly as Jennifer did, I would have seen one of the major plot twists coming, because Jennifer played her character with considerable coldness. The surprise was made possible because many of us saw "Rachel Greene" on that train (or at least I did).