Your girl was recently a guest on the Mastering McConaughey podcast on which I got to talk about Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation for 90-minutes and drink a margarita recipe created by McConaughey himself. I had a blast with these guys and I hope to be joining them again soon. Also, if it’s your first time here because of the podcast, feel free to:
This week I am attempting to write about the absolute murderous chaos that is Crank (2006). This is a movie that isn’t for the faint of heart, literally. (Yikes, I am starting to sound like I write for the town paper.) Hitman Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) wakes up one morning to find that he has been injected with “the Beijing Cocktail”, a synthetic drug that inhibits the flow of adrenaline in the body which in turn will eventually slow the heart down and kill the victim. While there is no known antidote, Chev is determined to seek his revenge and also save the life of the woman (Amy Smart) he loves. To do so, he needs to keep his adrenaline pumping at all times.
Crank is the ultimate “boy movie” and Jason Statham is the only man for the job. In fact, I read this AV Club piece about how Chris Rock, Johnny Knoxville, Gerard Butler, and Brad Pitt were all considered for the role of Chev Chelios and couldn’t wrap my head around it. What makes Crank work is Statham's signature deadpan delivery. He takes everything in stride, including the fact that he is actively dying. Chev’s rage even feels somewhat contained though it is boiling deep and without limits. His composure set against the multiple styles of energetic and wild filmmaking gives the movie some desperately needed grounding.
The best way I can explain and encapsulate the filmmaking of Crank is to call it guerrilla, but it really is so much more than that. Shot in HD cameras rather than on film, watching it now on a 4K TV felt like watching someone’s student film (in a good way). The motion and commotion are upfront and personal: the cameras go everywhere Chev goes. They flip and turn and shake and are mobile in a way that cinema rarely is. Compare Crank to something like the Fast & Furious franchise which is so polished and moneyed at this point I’m waiting for the APR details on the cars to pop-up. Crank is dirty, wild, crude, violent, and a little nauseating.
Co-writer and director Mark Neveldine once said, “We have ADD, and so do seventy million other Americans. And we wanted to make a movie that was just like a video game.” They succeed of course, creating what looks like a cross between a skateboard reel and Grand Theft Auto cutscenes. You shouldn’t be surprised to know that there are times that Chev is on massive amounts of drugs to keep his adrenaline up and heart pumping, and in these moments the filmmakers choose to break the fourth wall or simply break some filmmaking rules as we know them. I’m specifically thinking of the moment that Chev is speaking to a man in the elevator with subtitles, the subtitles remain where they are even as the shot changes and Chev reads them himself. See what I mean here:
Moments like these can be alienating for some viewers, but despite that, Crank was a box office success, pulling $42 million on a budget of $12 million.
The plot of the movie is simple, which I typically love, but there is just one thing that bugs me: the generic motivation of our “villain”, Verona (Jose Pablo Cantillo). Rather than just break into Chev’s home and shooting him, Verona chooses to inject him with a slow moving poison. Presumably this is to punish him and give him a painful and panicked death, but it still doesn’t sit right with me that Chev wakes up, watches a DVD about his impending doom and then launches a revenge campaign. It seems to me Verona would (or should) know of Chev’s capabilities and determination and know better than to take him out the slow way. If you can suspend your disbelief on this key plot point, you’ll have a good time. I just struggled with it because I tend to nitpick character motivation.
Verona’s choice feels like every villain since the dawn of time -- elaborate death plans for our hero that he can ultimately escape. Like James Bond for example. Now, we can make the argument that this is a nod to spy films of the past, which is a nice touch, but the rest of the film is so new, so fresh and inventive, a nod like this doesn’t seem right. Filmmakers Taylor and Neveldine are trying to break the mold of action movies with Crank, not pay homage to them. I’m conflicted so if you have a strong opinion either way, hit me up in the comments!
Also, if you plan on watching this movie now, I definitely have to say that there is no way a movie like this could be made today. It’s offensive to just about everyone except for white men, and is so boldly and unapologetically. In fact Brian Taylor, in an interview with ComicBook.com, even said that there is no way a Crank 3 would ever be made (Crank 2 is even more wild and was even more successful than the first) because the "’disrespectful, politically incorrect quality of those movies’ makes production difficult.” I’m not saying it is egregious in this way, a lot of it does make sense in the context of Chev’s world, but since this movie is from 2006 it’s sloppily done.
I would suggest watching Crank as a study into filmmaking. And perhaps for the Glenn Howerton appearance as an ER doctor. I really have not seen anything like it before and may not again? (If only because I am wary of getting motion sickness again.) This movie captures the Grand Theft Auto generation (which is, whether I like it or not, my generation) in a talented and creative way that I imagine will be studied in films of the early 2000’s classes sometime in the near future.
I will leave you now with this incredible helicopter stunt that Jason Statham performed on his own and remains a choice he calls “stupid” to this day:
I've randomly never seen the first but can say for sure Crank 2 was one of the wildest cinematic experiences of my life. Wild we never got a three(3D)-quel!