Can't vouch for Pathology just yet, but going off Crank alone, I second any credit to those few who can pull off warped and wild thrills like these two have to date.

(That's right, I'm still pretty much going off Crank alone, but even that's on its own remarkable level of guilty pleasure.)

Reply

Well, I appreciate some of the ridiculous ideas in CRANK but that is a terrible, terrible movie. It's the same problem as almost all action movies these days: they couldn't direct a coherent action scene to save their lives. They have something inherently exciting going on, like Statham escaping a hospital on a motorcycle, and then instead of creating an exciting and well staged action sequence they just hit you in the face with six different pans and assume that is a reasonable replacement for filmmaking. Split screen, zoom in, zoom out, spin around, cut to x-ray of heart, slap viewer in the face, include a whoosh or bang sound for all of these, repeat 100 times per second. These fuckers need to calm the hell down. And by these fuckers I don't just mean these two guys, but most people "directing" action movies these days.

And by the way you should explain that by "unhinged sexuality" you mean "the hero rapes his girlfriend in front of a busload of school girls and it's played for laughs".

Like I said though, some good concepts, so maybe they could write an outline for some other writer/director to make an actual great action movie out of.

Reply

I hope that "Pathology" and "Crank 2" lack the blatant mysogony of "Crank". "Crank" was a very decent popcorn flick, but the objectification of the women was something a 15-year-old boy would write into a script.

Reply

I thought Crank was an outstanding cinematic achievement, specifically related to how they executed the aesthetics of the show. I can't quite remember when I've seen the camera used so expressively. It put me right in the mindset/perspective of Statham's character and continued to do so in continually creative and expressionistic ways all the way through. In fact, I was quite surprised to find such successful touches of expressionism in a big modern Hollywood picture. I think these guys are filmmakers who have brought a "youtube technique" (for lack of a better word) to professional filmmaking, similar to the tradition of what Tony Scott has been doing lately (but a step further).

Sure the film doesn't accomplish action sequence marvels that rival but who said it has to. Why do all action flicks have to play by the same rules? This was much more a comedy with action leanings than a full on action flick IMO anyway.

I can understand the concerns regarding the misogynistic tendancy of the material but I saw that as being expressed through the perspective of a "cranked out" mind. In other words all bets are off as his perspective is clearly an unreliable one under the influence, freeing up the film to all kinds of over-the-top happenings. One commenter indicted the filmmakers for the scene of relations on the sidewalk being played for comedy but dark comedy involving gruesome death played throughout No Country for Old Men to great critical applause. I don't see a real differentiation between extremes of violence and extremes of sexual activity being used to the same end. I think it's more about what the film establishes early on and how what happens relates to that. The film clearly wears its premise on its sleeve from moment one. There's no argument to be sure though that this is very dark material! Being a skeptical cinephile in general I was wholeheartedly impressed by the giallo preceedings of what I had assumed would be a lackluster action flick.

Reply

I despised Crank. And, now that I know Pathology is by the same duo, I'll be certain to avoid it (in truth it wasn't even on my radar, though.)

I found Crank to be one of the worst action movies of late. Yes, it was over the top, and yes, it was ridiculous enough and knew not to take itself seriously. But it struck me as the type of thing a ten year old would sit around and think was cool. The near-public-rape scene stood out. Yes, you can argue that it was just more over-the-top, but I found it instead to be awkward and creepy. I'm really one of the last people to say that about something, but the scene was just odd. Maybe because it felt more played for cool than played for laughs.

Admittedly, my viewing of Crank was disjointed and in pieces, but the entire tone felt, well, insulting. It didn't come across as "look how over the top and stupid we are, we get it, it's funny," and instead seemed like "aren't we awesome? Boom! Boobs! Awesome!"

Insultingly stupid popcorn flick.

Reply

An admirable piece, Mr. Novikov. I, too, thought "Crank' and the demented dark bit of madness that was "Pathology", were genre masterpieces. But you seemed to left out the key to both films: the humor. Those who sour on "Pathology" seem entirely ignorant of the fact that despite the plausibility of some of the medical details and anatomical scenarios described, the movie is black comic put-on. An abundance of great sex, graphic violence, and excessive drug use, all played out in a cheerfully amoral tableau of bad medicine and social irresponsibilty. And Mark Weston delivers one of those great lovable psychopath performances, up their with Kiefer Sutherland in "Flatliners"(he even has the hair) and, dare I say it, Jack Nicholson in "The Shining". It's a real piece of work. But for anyone to actually take "Pathology"
(with its morgue fuck fantasies) in earnest, would be missing the point. And "Crank", with its car-mall melee and cocaine climaxes, is just as gleefully absurd and fun. And it features Jason Statham's best comedic performance to date(his best serious role being Guy Ritchie's unjustly-maligned "Revolver"). Neveldine and Taylor are not only guys you would be proud to toast with your buddies on a Saturday night, but they are also exceptionally bright, highly aware of genre conventions, and have the potential to become the stuff of B movie legend. And I say that with the utmost respect. Remember Samuel Fuller!

Reply