Halloween Film Month IV: The Final Chapter, Day 30: The Crow: City of Angels

 

Director: Tim Pope

Starring: Vincent Perez, Mia Kirshner, Richard Brooks, Iggy Pop

Released: 1996

Trailer

 

Well, it’s Devil’s Night. You all what that means: it’s time to look at another film in The Crow series. Tonight’s film is the very first sequel, The Crow: City of Angels. Much-maligned by critics, this film takes the basic plot of the first film and replicates it, changing only a handful of details to make the film different. First, the film’s protagonist, Ashe, does not lose his fiancé, but his son, to a bunch of crazed criminals with their own “pirate nicknames.” The leader of this group of criminals is Judah, who runs a drug operation and practically all of the city, who also has an interest in dark magic and mysticism. Oh, and Sarah is in this film, too, albeit older and serving as a sort of guide to Ashe. Well, at first, anyway.

To be fair, the concept of this film could work. It expands the mythos of the vengeful spirit of the crow. Instead of being a connecting force to just Eric Draven, the crow can also bond with other spirits who cannot rest until their unfinished business is complete. The Dia de los Muertos theme is an interesting departure from the last film’s Devil Night theming, and actually seems to suit the concept of these films better than Devil’s Night. Even including Sarah in the film could be an interesting idea, expanding upon her character while making her a mentor for Ashe.

Unfortunately, none of this adds up into a cohesive whole. The idea of the crow bonding to other vengeful spirits is explored here, but poorly, and as a plot device for the hilariously bad climax of the film where the spirits all dive bomb on Judah. The Dia de los Muertos idea, while visually implemented somewhat well, does not add to the story at all. At least Devil’s Night’s, er, festivities were the reason why Eric Draven became the crow-guided protagonist of the first film. And Sarah…Sarah only shows up every once in a while to stare blankly and act in a dull and wooden manner against her more flamboyantly portrayed costars. Otherwise, she’s pretty much useless.

The best way to describe this film is hollow. It tries to replicate elements of the first film in a far poorer way. For example, the gang of criminals, save Iggy Pop’s character because he is, well, Iggy Pop, are unmemorable and uninteresting, especially compared to the colorful rogues gallery of the first film. Judah is also a joke, never confronting Ashe until the very end of the film and only proving to be a Top Dollar wannabe who eventually turns into a Crow wannabe, complete with smudgy eye make-up.

 

There’s a kind of cool scene involving Ashe suiting up in leather while the film cuts to corresponding footage of the guardian crow flapping its wings about in a similar manner. It’s a shame that this is undermined by the fact that Ashe is a worse character than Draven, and his “transformation” pales in comparison to Eric’s far more emotional change and suit-up scene in the first film.

 

As a final nail in the coffin, the visuals are absolutely unappealing. The action scenes are poorly shot and choreographed, looking amateur and unconvincing. Every flip and stab looks staged, and it doesn’t help that every death scene involves the image of a crow somewhere in the shot, be it by conveniently placed flowers or a conveniently shaped blood splatter on the pavement. At least in the first film, the crow insignia was used only once, and was deliberately created from fire by Eric, not just a result of some happy accident. Even the cinematography of these scenes does not look good, as apparently the director decided to film the entire film with a urine-colored filter for the camera lens.

 

The Crow: City of Angels has so much going for it as well as so much to prove as a film. Unfortunately, its ridiculous and heartless script as well as poorly choreographed action makes the film a chore to sit through, each scene dragging more and more as the film’s story goes on. If one is looking for a good superhero film, this is not it. If one is looking for a decent sequel to the original starring Brandon Lee, this is definitely not it, and should be avoided at all costs.

 

Final Score: 1/10

---

For more reviews, be sure to like this page as well as the Facebook page. For previous reviews, be sure to check out the full directory of reviews. As always, thank you for reading!

Tuesday Night Matinee: Batman: The Killing Joke

Director: Sam Liu

Starring: Kevin Conroy, Mark Hamill, Tara Strong, Ray Wise

Released: 2016

Trailer

 

As always, keep an open mind.

 

One of my earliest childhood memories was watching Batman: Mask of the Phantasm on video tape. I remember watching it so much as a kid, that by the time we retired it in favor of the newfangled DVD technology, the tape was nearly completely worn out.

Why do I mention this, other than the aforementioned film is also about Batman? I mention Mask of the Phantasm because it was the first time I ever saw and—most importantly—heard Mark Hamill as the Joker. Ever since the first day I watched that tape, Mark Hamill has been and always will be the true voice of the Joker.

So, naturally, when I heard that Hamill would be returning to voice the Joker once againin an animated adaptation of the most famous Joker story, The Killing Joke, I was thrilled. Adding to Hamill’s return, having Kevin Conroy return to voice Batman once again further fueled my anticipation. Finally, as the icing on the cake, the film would be a fairly (with only a few scenes added) faithful adaptation of the now legendary story: the Joker’s nefarious plot to not only cripple Barbara Gordon, but also drive Commissioner Gordon and Batman to his level of insanity.

But does this film deliver? Well, yes and no. In order to fairly analyze the film, one must analyze the film in two parts. Why? Because, essentially, the film consists of two different stories: one involving the story appearing in the film’s namesake comic book, and one involving Barbara Gordon’s past as Batgirl.

Before analyzing each part, this reviewer would like to compliment this film as a whole. For a film made to be released on home video, the sound design is fantastic. The gun shots and explosions add the necessary tension to each action scene, and sound great in a theater setting. But the great sound is not limited to just the percussive portions of the film. During the fight scenes, every punch and kick sounds painful and visceral. The action scenes, though the animation is a touch choppy, are well blocked and filmed. Combine the great sound with the great images, and you have some of the best 2D animated fight scenes I have seen in quite a while. While Mask of the Phantasm may be my favorite animated Batman film, the action scenes—while decent—certainly weren’t as stylized or exciting to watch as those in this film.

The Killing Joke portion of the story—the second half of the film—is easily the best part, as it is an incredibly faithful adaptation of the original comic. Some will argue that certain events or bits of dialogue don’t play out exactly as they do in the comic. I for one am a bit disappointed that the transitions between the past and present don’t occur as smoothly in the film, mostly because the comic’s script—written by the legendary Allan Moore—allows transitions to occur through juxtaposed images.

Yes, this difference is disappointing, but one must remember that this is an adaptation, not a direct translation, meaning that there will be occasional changes to fit the medium. What measures the quality of an adaptation is not so much how much of the story is kept as it was in the source material (though it is still important), but how it all is presented and incorporated.

This second half of film is effective in establishing an especially disturbing, creepy tone. Perhaps it’s because of the score which, from the composers’ own words, was modeled after the great scores of Bernard Hermann. Or, perhaps it’s the film’s effective use of the budget limits to create unsettling moments, such as the close-up on Joker’s head as he looks over his freshly-lit carnival with psychopathic glee. Or, perhaps it’s because of Hamill’s chilling performance as the Joker. Every line Hamill speaks crackles with life and a touch of murderous glee—this is a man who seems to have always been meant to play this character.

Hamill also does a fantastic job in the flashback portions as well, garnering sympathy from the audience in scenes that are far too short, mostly because the comic just glances over them rather than delving deeper into things like the relationship between pre-Joker and his wife. This is precisely where liberties could have been taken, expanding upon these flashbacks rather than tacking on scenes that are ultimately irrelevant to the story (we will get to that portion soon).

Perhaps the best part of this film is the song and dance portion, with Mark Hamill singing the creepy and unbelievably catchy, “I Go Looney,” whose lyrics are ripped straight from the pages of the source material. Scenes like this embody the film’s ability to balance between staying true to the source material and also supplementing it. It’s a shame that this second half is brought down by the first half of the film, the portion written almost specifically to pad out the run time.

Yes, before the excellent second half, we have the Batgirl portion of the film, which has garnered a lot of controversy for…a particular reason that this reviewer won’t disclose here. Oddly enough, my biggest issues with this part of the film do not involve the controversial scene in question, though it does come out of left field. It’s not even with the story itself—Batgirl and Batman hunting down a criminal named Paris Franz, who has an unhealthy obsession with Batgirl—which could honestly be a movie of its own. All in all, it’s this portion of the film’s sloppy handling of its limited animation budget and voice acting as well as its lack of cohesiveness with the second half that brings the film as a whole down.

While the second half hits it out of the park despite its animation limitations, the first half stumbles because of these same limitations.   For example, there are many scenes that become distracting because characters in the foreground seem to be staring out into space while one character is talking. This wouldn’t be a bad thing if these scenarios were relaxed, non-combat situations. But these often occur during scenes of high tension, where physical combat is imminent.

The voice acting is also not as great here. Tara Strong as Batgirl is especially disappointing, as a great deal of her dialogue is delivered in an unusually restrained manner that proves distracting. Strong does do a lot better with the character in the second act, however, so this lack of reasonable vocal expression in the first act is baffling to this reviewer. Conroy’s delivery as Batman in this first act is also similarly restrained and monotonic, as though he weren’t entirely comfortable with the lines he has been given. But who can blame him when a great deal of Batman’s lines in this half come across as pretentious teenage poetry about darkness, especially when compared to Moore’s more mature dialogue in the second act?

But those two issues aside, the biggest issue is the lack of cohesiveness between these two acts. It is incredibly clear that these portions of the story were conceived by two different writers, and almost feels like two completely different films crammed into one. This reviewer can see that the screenwriter, Brian Azzarello, is trying to not only craft a parallel between Batgirl’s potential “fall into the void” and the same fall Batman and Gordon potentially face, but also to give Barbara some character before she is attacked in the second act. And this character development would be fine if it amounted to anything in the long run.

By remaining faithful to the source material in the second act, the film ultimately negates the character development that came before. Instead of trying to make Barbara more than a pawn in the Joker’s plan to break Gordon and Batman, this character development just emphasizes rather than fixes the biggest flaw of both versions of The Killing Joke—Barbara is not a character, she is a catalyst. Despite all of her backstory and all that she has done both in this film and in the more expansive comics, she is relegated to nothing more than a victim and a plot device. And the fact that, despite its best efforts, this film maintains this aspect rather than subverting it, defeats the purpose of even having these additional scenes and makes this reviewer question whether or not the original story is really as deserving of the praise it gets. And this is the worst sin an adaptation can commit.

If one ignores the first act, The Killing Joke is an excellent adaptation of the original comic. But with this first act, the film is brought down a bit. Perhaps if there was a better bridge between these two stories, this could have been a better adaptation, at least in this reviewer’s eyes. Or, if portions of Alan Moore’s story were expanded upon more, rather than tacking on additional bits of story that dissipate once the main action involving the Joker begins. All in all, this film is not as bad as a good deal of critics are saying, but it certainly could have been better. As for this reviewer, this film was worth seeing in the theaters, but future watches of the film will include skipping the first act entirely and watching Mark Hamill’s magnificent return to his iconic character.

 

Now, this will be different than the final scores of other films in the past. Instead of just calculating the film in its entirety, this final score will also include the scores of each act of the film, as they are essentially two different films. There will also be a deduction in the final total, as the lack of cohesiveness between the two parts warrants a penalty.

 

Act One Final Score: 7/10

Act Two Final Score: 9/10

Final Score: 6/10      

---

For more reviews, be sure to like this page as well as the Facebook page. For previous reviews, be sure to check out the full directory of reviews. As always, thank you for reading!

Tuesday Night Matinee: Captain America: Civil War

 

Directors: Anthony & Joe Russo

Starring: Chris Evans; Robert Downey, Jr.; Scarlet Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Chadwick Boseman, Elizabeth Olsen

Released: 2016

Trailer

 

I guess one could say my love affair with Marvel started with Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man. Yes, I had read some of the comics—well, more skimmed through whatever issues I could find at library book sales—and collected the action figures (many of which I still have). No, I am not ashamed.

I guess one would call it more of a flirtation/fascination with the universe. But what ultimately pushed me into the Marvel Universe was Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man. For the first time in my life, I saw one of my favorite superheroes on the big screen. Yes, there were films like X-Men and Blade before that, but neither grabbed me like Spider-Man did. That, and Blade came out when I was less excited to see a horror-themed film. Hard to believe, I know.

After that fateful day in 2002, I dove into the comics, reading whatever I could find, Spider-Man comics in particular. But in my exploration, I read about The Punisher, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Captain America, Iron Man…so many different characters. Too many characters to make films for, I thought.

If someone were to tell my younger self that there would eventually be not only movies for each of these characters, but a series of films and television shows that would actually link together, culminating in crossover films like The Avengers and even today’s film, I probably would have geeked out or just straight-up disbelieved. But here it is, 2016, and I’m reviewing a third ensemble Marvel film.

Captain America: Civil War is a continuation of the titanic Marvel Cinematic Universe and further developments of characters established in Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The Avengers: Age of Ultron. While the world attempts to create a registration act for the Avengers, Captain America once again tries to help his friend, Bucky, recover from his torturous programming, putting him at odds with Tony Stark. Plotting behind the scenes is a man named Zemo, who may or may not have a connection with the film’s heroes. Friendships are tested, enemies are made. Oh, and characters like Spider-Man and Black Panther make their debut.

The story is a touch overstuffed, but still engaging. The plot ultimately feels like two different films intertwined with each other—another Avengers film and another film in the same vein as The Winter Soldier. As a result, the film does feel disjointed at times, going from a tense, politically charged film to a comedic, no-holds-barred action adventure film at the drop of a hat. Both elements of the film are done well, but sometimes this makes the film waver in what tone it’s trying to set. Only in a film like this can the story go from a fun fight scene involving Spider-Man and a giant version of one of the characters to a tense sequence where one of the returning characters may or may not die due to the negligence of another character.

One particularly weak aspect of the film is Zemo’s plot. Ultimately, the steps of his plan seem to change on a whim and seem flimsy at best. Also, these steps hinge on Zemo knowing the psyches of every single Avenger for the plan to even remotely work. And once it’s revealed who Zemo is and why he’s doing this, the odds of him actually understanding the Avengers’ minds and motivations seem more and more unlikely. In the end, Zemo feels like a weaker version of The Dark Knight’s Joker character.

The introduction of Black Panther in this film is actually well executed. The character is interesting and has an engaging character arc. And considering how many heroes are in this film, this is a huge compliment on the writing of this character. Chadwick Boseman does a fantastic job as the character, and I look forward to seeing him in a standalone film. Another compliment to this film is how the filmmakers actually made the Black Panther costume look cool on the big screen. It would have been so easy to make the costume look ridiculous—after all, this is a man dressed as a giant black cat we’re talking about here. But the costume looks great and intimidating, especially whenever the character draws his claws.

On the other hand, Spider-Man’s introduction is both hit and miss. First, the bad. Unlike Black Panther, Spider-Man’s introduction feels purely like fanservice, and serves to distract the audience from the main story. One could completely excise Spider-Man’s scenes from the final product and not have too much change. In fact, the story would more than likely feel more focused than the final product.

On the other hand—IT’S SPIDER-MAN! Every time I saw Spider-Man onscreen, it was like it was 2002 all over again. My favorite superhero on the big screen. Yes, he’s a bit young, especially compared to the two actors who played the character before. But he actually looks and sounds like a high schooler this time, and is far closer to the comic book character than the last two films, especially considering how many little easter eggs are included in the film, including one in the after-credits scene that I won’t dare spoil. Even though he’s wholly unnecessary to the plot, it is great to see Spider-Man once again.

But ultimately, it’s the action scenes that bring the audiences in, and this film does a great job with all of them, especially the airport fight scene that is heavily featured in the trailers. Seeing all of these characters fighting with their particular styles is fun to watch, especially whenever Ant-Man is involved.

Though the choreography and blocking is well done, the camera work could use some, er, work. The cinematographer tends to use a lot of shaky cam and quick cuts in some of the action scenes, which takes away some of the impact of the many fights in the film by almost giving the audience a headache.

Overall, Captain America: Civil War is not the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe roster, but it’s still engaging and filled with a sense of escapist fun when it’s not being deadly serious. This reviewer cannot wait to see where the series goes now that Spider-Man and Black Panther are major players in the universe. Only time will tell.

 

Final Score: 7/10

---

For more reviews, be sure to like this page as well as the Facebook page. For previous reviews, be sure to check out the full directory of reviews. As always, thank you for reading!

Halloween Film Month: The Sequel, Day 27: Darkman

 

Director: Sam Raimi

Starring: Liam Neeson, Larry Drake, Frances McDormand, Colin Friels

Released: 1990

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L58rdhCfDIU

 

In my review for Phantom of the Paradise last year, I said:

During my middle school years, I had what many call a “Phantom Phase.” For three years, I was absolutely obsessed with the Phantom of the Opera, beginning with the famous Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, then the original novel by Gaston Leroux, followed by the many movies based on the story.

One of those films was Sam Raimi’s Darkman, the story of Peyton Westlake, a scientist—one who is researching artificial skin, to be more specific—who, through an unfortunate series of events, ends up being tortured and left for dead by criminals led by the sadistic Robert G. Durant. Westlake survives, but he is horrifically burned and infused with incredible, rage-fueled strength. Using his imperfect artificial skin formula, the scientist begins to impersonate and set up the men who wronged him.

This is by no means a great film. The pace of the film is incredibly rushed (the film clocks in at 90 minutes, and crams in a lot of story in that time). As a result, most of the characters (with the exception of Westlake) are simply written, with little to no character arcs to speak of. Had the film’s running time been a half hour longer (at least), perhaps the film could have taken some time to let the audience breathe and get to know the characters between the action scenes. That said, the action is really good, especially for the time the film was made. The helicopter chase toward the end of the film is perhaps the best part of the film, allowing for some pretty thrilling sweeping shots of the city as Westlake dangles from a cable attached to Durant’s helicopter. With the exception of some obvious green screen shots, the scene is quite enthralling.

The two best characters in the film are easily Westlake and Durant, played incredibly well by Liam Neeson and Larry Drake, respectively. Liam Neeson is able to capture the insanity and the pathos of the Westlake character in every scene, especially the “Dancing Freak” scene where Westlake loses himself to his rage after failing to perfect the synthetic skin yet again. As for Drake, though he isn’t given much to work with in regards to Durant, he makes the character intimidating and charismatic, especially whenever that cigar trimmer comes out to play. The opening torture scene involving that trimmer (though no blood is seen) perfectly shows how sadistic Durant really is, just in the way Drake has him systematically cut off parts of the torture victim and end the scene with a quip before (presumably) continuing the torture.

The cinematography is unmistakably Raimi, at least before he worked on more mainstream films like Spider-Man. There are a couple of montage scenes (a Raimi staple) that are effective in showing the passage of a great deal of time. There are also quick montages whenever Westlake becomes enraged, showing some pretty surreal imagery as well as garish reds to (albeit pretty obviously) symbolize that he has lost control of himself. As far as other techniques, when a rivet gun is fired at Westlake during the climax of the film, Raimi chooses to shoot the action scene (no pun intended) from the perspective of the rivets flying toward Westlake.

Probably the best-shot scene in the film is not any of the action scenes, oddly enough. It’s the scene in Chinatown where Durant and Westlake disguised as Durant bump into each other in a revolving door and stare at each other for several seconds. The fact that this part of the scene as well as the rest of the scene weren’t shot with CG is quite impressive.

The make-up for Westlake post-attack is fantastic. Though it occasionally looks like latex and rubber make-up, the way his face looks is still repulsive and hard to watch whenever it’s onscreen. Although, it does pose some problems when he has no lips, yet he can not only control the lips of his synthetic faces, but also enunciate consonants like “B,” “M” and “P.”

The score composed by Danny Elfman is also quite good, though the main theme for Darkman has a Batman-esque quality to it. The strongest piece in the soundtrack is definitely “Woe, the Darkman…Woe!” It perfectly captures the turmoil that Westlake feels upon realizing how much of a monster he has become. It is both terrifying and brooding in its sound. The occasional blasts of pipe organ in the piece add a nice Phantom of the Opera touch to the music. Other than that piece, there’s also “Rage,” which plays whenever Westlake loses control. It is pretty cacophonous and all over the place sound-wise, but it perfectly captures Westlake’s loss of control.

Overall, Darkman feels dated, rushed, and campy, but the good scenes in it definitely overshadow the bad manifold. While I do wish that the film had a bit more to it than what Raimi ultimately presented (perhaps using the novelization of the film by Randall Boyll as a template), what is there is still entertaining to watch. While not Raimi’s best work (his Evil Dead series is probably his best work overall), Darkman is still worth a watch for Raimi fans.

Final Score: 6/10

---

For more reviews, be sure to like this page as well as the Facebook page. For previous reviews, be sure to check out the full directory of reviews. As always, thank you for reading!

“The Crow” Vs. “The Crow: Stairway to Heaven”—Which is the Best?

Series Pilot: The Soul Can’t Rest

http://www.hulu.com/watch/12585/the-crow-stairway-to-heaven-the-soul-cant-rest  (Full pilot episode here)

Originally published November 5, 2010

Edited March 11, 2014

 

How did this TV show become a hit?

And why did it even need to be made?

A simple review of this is definitely not going to do it this time around. In order to fully grasp the terrible nature of the pilot episode, one must analyze every aspect of it. Let us begin the play-by-play.

The show starts off with our protagonist, Eric Draven (Mark Dacascos, who actually has a passing resemblance to the late Brandon Lee), splashing in some body of water that is never specified (Sound confusing? Try watching it for about a minute or so). He eventually comes across a rope bridge that stretches across a very deep chasm. And who is there to meet him but Eric’s dead wife, Shelley Webster (Sabine Karsenti). They talk about being together forever in what I presume is heaven until a crow shows up to spoil the moment. Shelley has a complete mental breakdown, telling Eric briefly about the legend of the crow before backing away and vanishing into thin air. Eric, for some reason beyond my understanding, stands on top of the “rail” of the rope bridge and leaps into the chasm.

Meanwhile, during a Dia de los Muertos celebration, he falls through–and I’m not exaggerating here–a rip in the space-time continuum. This scene would have been interesting if it didn’t look like a bunch of extras crammed into a place designed to look only somewhat Mexican. He looks around and sees–for some odd teason–some guy inexplicably painted up like Eric in the original film.

What purpose does this serve? The pilot doesn’t take time to explain, and moves on to another plotline. Sarah Mohr (Katie Stuart) and Officer Daryl Albrecht (Marc Gomes) are at Eric’s grave one year after the incident that claimed his life and Shelley’s. The next scene is… Eric walking through the city? I suppose the writers didn’t feel that it was important to include how Eric got out of Mexico and into the city.  He confronts a random man on the street and proceeds to beat him senseless in broad daylight. The utter ridiculousness of this scene is baffling. It’s amazing that he didn’t get arrested on the spot. But, I guess it’s just part of living in Detroit.

Then (veering away from Eric), Daryl confronts one of the criminals responsible for Draven’s murder, Tin Tin. Daryl harasses Tin Tin and sends him off after a minute or so. Then, it’s off to the main villain’s lair, where the bad guys watch the video tape of Eric and Shelley’s death. It’s not clear why they are doing this, but apparently it’s not that important because the head honcho, Top Dollar (John Pyper-Ferguson) tells his henchmen that Daryl has been snooping too much, and that they need to kill him.

At his old apartment, Eric has a flashback of the murder, and basically destroys the scenery. He cuts his hand on a mirror at one point, only to see it heal itself. Then, perhaps the most improbable thing that happens in the show (and that’s really saying something), Eric feels this black liquid falling from his eyes until it forms the make-up we remember from the film.

After that, Eric goes to the pawn shop, where he finds his old Gibson guitar and his engagement ring. He confronts the owner, only to be shot in the stomach by the owner’s shotgun. But because he’s a ghost, he heals and…that’s about it. This was the point where I stopped watching, because I just couldn’t take it anymore.

Which brings me to my previous question: why did they even need to make this show? From what I’ve seen so far, it’s poorly acted and poorly produced. How so?

1. Eric Draven/The Crow—While the actor bears a passing resemblance Brandon Lee, that’s about where the similarities end. He’s very monotonic throughout the episode, and when he does use voice inflection it does not sound natural. Also, the fact that he’s built so muscular takes away from the character. In both the comic and the original film, Draven is tall and skinny, and looks like some sort of human skeleton or corpse. When the character looks like he’s lumbering through every scene, it takes away from the terrifying nature of the character. Another issue with the character is how the markings come to be on Draven’s face. Granted, in the original graphic novel, how the markings came to be on Draven’s face is never explain, but in the original film, Eric looks at a mask that he had on the mirror that he used to playfully tease Shelley, then uses that mask as a basis for the makeup he smears on his face. There was a reason behind the make-up in the film: a symbol of his love for Shelley and a reminder to those responsible that he is coming for them. In the pilot episode, the markings just appear with no real explanation, and any emotional significance of these markings is completely gone.

2. Shelley—She just is not that great a character in this version of the story. Though the film version of Shelley appears in only a minute or two of screen time with barely any dialogue, her relationship with Eric resonated more than the relationship shown in the pilot episode. It does not help that the pilot tries to depict the same relationship with more dialogue that comes across as melodramatic and corny.

3. Sarah— I remember hearing complaints about the actress who played Sarah in the original film. Honestly, she isn’t that bad, especially when one compares her to the pilot’s actress. For the most part, she sounds like she is trying too hard to impersonate the original actress. All of her lines sound stilted, and it’s very difficult to become invested in this character as a result.

4. Daryl—In the pilot, he is bland and uninteresting, and also unnecessarily abrupt toward people. He ignores protocol and harasses a street punk, and he is very cold toward Sarah. These two characters do not share the close friendship they had in the original film, which is to the pilot’s disadvantage. Rather than being very good friends, their relationship mostly consists of Daryl harping on Sarah to get to school. Ultimately, Daryl in the pilot lacks the charm of the original Officer Daryl (played by Ernie Hudson), and it painfully shows throughout this poorly-done episode.

5. The henchmen—What happened here? The original movie’s henchmen were excellent because each one had a distinct look, voice, and style to their characters. Tin Tin was memorable because he just LOVED TO KILL things with his knives. There was this sick sense of joy in his eyes as he killed Eric and Shelley, and later when he tried to kill Eric again. In the pilot episode, Tin Tin just looks like a regular street pimp, nothing at all distinctive about his character. The same goes for all the other characters. Each one had a certain personality in the film, while in the pilot, they’re all just the generic henchmen to Top Dollar, who admittedly is not too bad in the pilot. Not exactly the creepy guy from the film, but still intimidating enough to be a potentially good villain.

6. Poorly remade versions of good scenes—There were just so many good scenes in the original film. But just because the scene works on a cinema screen, that does not mean that it will necessarily work on a TV screen. Cases in point: the transformation scene and the pawn shop scene. In the pilot, when Eric is remembering everything that happened before, he smashes a mirror, punches a wooden beam, and screams and shouts a lot. Also, we get an awfully redone version of Eric’s death. It is very poorly choreographed and comes across as unintentionally humorous rather than wrenching and dramatic. In the original film, Eric’s death was shown in quick flashes of brutal detail. The damage that the guys did to him as they stabbed him, shot him, and threw him out of a window to his death was incredibly brutal and visceral. Also, Eric seemed to relive the attack as he stumbled about the apartment and leapt out the window, which added an extra bit of intensity to the scene. In contrast, Eric’s transformation is poorly done in the pilot episode. Rather than the dramatic image of Eric slamming his forearm into a mirror, painting his face, and “suiting up” for vengeance, we instead see Eric punch a mirror for no apparent reason, Eric’s face transform into the Crow face we know (Bogus, in my opinion), and an awfully done flashback. Not only is it poorly shot, but this scene lacks all of the edginess and drama. It is a hollow recreation, nothing more. (Still need proof? Watch the transformation scene in the pilot, then watch this one, from the original film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmi5kuwUw6c.)

But before that, Eric walks around the city as if nothing happened, even going as far as to beat up a man who is abusing a woman (In broad daylight, no less) and to speak coherently with both of them. What was great about Eric’s first appearance in the film was that he was confused, like a baby recently thrown out of the womb. This transformation was meant to symbolize Eric’s rebirth as a force of vengeance. In the pilot, however, all of this symbolism is lost, as if the writers of this script didn’t pick up on this symbolism and because of the director’s choice to film the scenes in broad daylight. This use of bright lighting takes away from the supposed “darkness” of the scene, the idea of the darkness within Eric’s reborn soul.

Another scene that lost its impact on the small screen was the pawn shop scene. In the original film, Eric slides open the gate, looks through the window, smashes through it, walks in, and assaults the pawn shop owner. This scene is intense and intimidating because of the electric guitar flares throughout the scene, the chiaroscuro lighting, and the intensity of the sound and visuals. When he smashes through the window, Eric looks like he’s going to kill the owner of the shop, just from the simple gesture of smashing the glass and sending it flying everywhere. As Eric walks into the room, the camera zooms in on his face as he taunts the owner and destroys things, what little light causing shadows to form on his face and give him the appearance of a living corpse. The shop owner’s shouts of anger and fear also help to build up tension as Eric beats him and stabs a knife through his hand. (Here is the original clip from the film… not the complete scene, but all I could find on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxkFWCn_-FE.)

In the pilot, like the apartment scene, all dramatic tension for this scene is lost. The lighting is awful; you can see pretty much everything in the building. There’s hardly any music in the scene; and, if there was any music, I couldn’t tell. Even Eric’s entrance lacks the necessary power to intimidate the shop owner. When the central character is lumbering about awkwardly,  the drama of the scene tends to be considerably diminished. Even the exchange between the owner and Eric seems very forced and wooden, lacking all of the urgency and all of the potential for tension.

So, in summary, this show should not have been made. It’s amazing that the show made it as far as it did. The episode lacks the drama of the original film, the acting is awful, the script is poorly written, and the show seems to constantly and poorly ride on the coattails of the original film. This would have been somewhat forgivable if the show had chosen someone other than Brandon Lee’s Eric Draven as the central character. But because Eric is the “protagonist” in this awful pilot episode, I squirmed in my seat as I watched the elements I loved from the original film become twisted, mangled, and destroyed. The original film best portrayed the Eric Draven character, and this was the film that the editors and producers had to throw together because Brandon Lee died while filming his character’s death scene!

Needless to say, this Crow is a turkey. Skip it and stick with the original.

---

For more reviews, be sure to like this page as well as the Facebook page. For previous reviews, be sure to check out the full directory of reviews. As always, thank you for reading!