As a film enthusiast who has spent countless hours immersed in the rich tapestry of cinematography, I must say that my experience with “The Crow” was nothing short of disappointing. It’s like a dismal raincloud looming over the vibrant, colorful landscape of cinema.
One of cinema’s most rewarding elements is the reminders artistry can flourish under any circumstances. Powerful creativity informs so many movies with threadbare budgets and minimal resources at their disposal. There is no cynicism in these low-budget productions. Just a desire to get specific visuals, ideas, and characters out into the world. Earlier this year, I witnessed a comedy named Fantasy A Gets a Mattress. Made for $3,800, this Seattle-set tale is full of memorably wacky characters, oddball jokes, and creative filmmaking. It’s a deeply inspiring enterprise, a reflection that striking cinema, as Anton Ego, would put it, “can come from anywhere”. While rich filmmakers wax poetic on the “virtues” of A.I. cinema devoid of humanity or aloof shareholders declare theatrical movigoing dead. indie efforts full of vibrant creativity are more important than ever.
Peer into the independent film world, and you’ll discover numerous contemporary movies (like ‘Hundreds of Beavers’, for instance!) that boldly push the limits of what films can visually, audibly, and emotionally achieve. There’s always a touch of creativity and ingenuity lurking just around the corner, reminding us why we cherish cinema. However, if you watch enough movies, you might encounter the polar opposite of ‘Tangerine’ or ‘D.E.B.S’. A dull movie forged through a cynical lens with an excess of funds at its disposal. In 2024, we have ‘The Crow’, the latest film by director Rupert Sanders. This is a reimagining of James O’Barr’s comics (previously adapted into a 1994 Brandon Lee feature). ‘The Crow’ has a substantial budget of $50 million, but unfortunately, it seems to lack any imaginative flair.
The screenplay by Zach Baylin and William Schneider for the film titled “The Crow” starts off with young Eric witnessing death for the first time as his beloved CGI horse dies. Later, a young woman named Shelly (FKA Twigs) learns from her friend Zadie (Isabella Wei) that she has a video implicating a powerful crime lord, Roeg (Danny Huston), who is known to be one of Satan’s minions, along with their former superior Vincent Roeg. It seems quite surprising that just one video could potentially bring down someone with supernatural powers at his disposal. However, possessing this video has made Shelly and her allies a target for Roeg’s dangerous followers, such as Marian (Laura Birn). To avoid being found by them, Shelly seeks refuge in a rehab center, where an older Eric (Bill Skarsgard) is also currently residing.
In this tale, I find myself entwined with another soul who’s known their fair share of pain. After a daring breakout from the recovery facility, we enjoyed a brief, blissful period together. However, our happiness was cut short when Roeg’s minions brutally ended our lives.
Previously, director Rupert Sanders stripped the fantastical elements from Snow White in Snow White & The Huntsman and toned down the most fantastical visual effects in the American live-action remake of Ghost in the Shell. Following this pattern, Sanders gives The Crow a somber, detached visual style with little emotional investment. The muted colors and melancholic tone hint that this new version of The Crow is aiming to transform both 2000s edgy fans and Hot Topic enthusiasts into the iconic Rick Dalton pointing meme. However, one may wonder why his treatment of all the angst in this film feels generic and filled with half-measures?
In simpler terms, Sanders’ work and the script appear overly self-aware, failing to meet their intended aesthetic. Emo music, such as My Chemical Romance songs, proudly displayed scars, while Fall Out Boy titles subtly rebelled against authority. The emo and punk scenes were characterized by confidence. However, The Crow lacks this self-assuredness. The movie is so carefully planned that it can’t decide specific names for its afterlife destinations. The theology of The Crow is vague, mirroring its characters. Regrettably, the screenplay burdens viewers with excessive exposition and unnecessary explanations about the title character’s background.
In a nutshell, Eric’s portrayal of The Crow in the final scene deviates from the original 1994 film. Instead of using his girlfriend’s makeup, he uses tattoo ink from his deceased friend. This scene is prolonged and seems to serve as a means to address potential audience discomfort about Eric’s character, suggesting a heterosexual narrative. Moreover, this movie follows the disappointing trend of superhero films by delaying the donning of the elaborate costume until near the end, which goes against the spirit of a punk/emo film that typically defies convention.
In my opinion, “The Crow” falls short in several areas for me as a fan. Instead of feeling fresh or engaging, scenes are either too complex or merely resemble other films I’ve seen. The climactic swordfight between Eric and his adversaries, accompanied by classical music, was particularly tiresome. What truly drags the movie down is the awkward portrayal of Eric and Shelly’s relationship prior to her demise. It seems like Sanders and the script struggled to handle such intimate subject matter convincingly. Filmmakers like Nicole Holofcener or JT Mollner have a knack for portraying romantic dialogue in a way that oozes authenticity. They capture the allure of budding connections between two souls, and this captivating portrayal resonates with the audience.
As The Crow interferes, Eric and Shelly’s blossoming romance is turned into a mediocre knock-knock joke and some love-themed montages. After her death, Shelley’s brief screen appearances remind us of the outstanding Caitlin Reilly video. Their histories and personalities are so generic that it’s hard to understand what attracts them to each other. They are simply two good-looking individuals who continuously utter phrases about “true love” that sound like they were copied from angsty 2011 Tumblr posts. Once he becomes a superhero with powers, Skarsgard battles to project a unique personality that viewers can relate to. This actor has demonstrated his talent elsewhere due to his eccentric choices. However, his role as a forgettable anti-hero leaves this casting choice perplexing.
As a dedicated moviegoer with over two decades of film criticism under my belt, I must say that watching “The Crow” was like enduring a grueling slog through a gloomy, buttoned-up landscape. The humor, such as Madame Web’s now infamous line about not having a neuromuscular disorder, fell flat and felt out of place. If you find yourself stuck in the theater with this production, you’ll likely find yourself tapping your foot impatiently, eager for the credits to roll.
If I’m discussing the unremarkable trivia surrounding upcoming films, it’s hard to believe that “The Crow” could captivate audiences with anything substantial or intriguing. It’s astounding to consider, given that this movie took 16 years and $50 million to produce – over four times the budget of “If Beale Street Could Talk.” Such a significant investment and effort seems wasted on a film that lacks even a fraction of the creativity found in low-budget projects like “Fantasy A Gets a Mattress.” The world of cinema offers countless examples of its vast creative potential. There are always individuals working tirelessly to create something fresh and captivating within this art form. Opt for watching films such as “A Town Called Panic” or “Mandy” for reminders of the medium’s boundless creativity, and steer clear of “The Crow.”
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-08-23 21:15