Screens/Reviews

The Crow
Where: In theatres
What: Movie, 111 mins.
When: Fri., Aug. 23
Genre: Action
Rating: N (out of 5)
Why you should watch: There’s still a lot of nostalgia for the 1994 original, which may make it fun to compare and contrast.

IN DEVELOPMENT hell since 2008, with A-listers like Mark Wahlberg, Bradley Cooper and Jason Momoa all attached to star at various points, The Crow remake has been somewhat of a cursed project. Perhaps the reason being that it was something that truly had no reason to exist in the first place beyond intellectual property exploitation. Based on James O’Barr’s graphic novel of the same name, the 1994 original isn’t exactly a perfect film; after all, the goth kid exterior of it masks what’s basically a conservative pro-family values, pro-cop fantasy. Yet its post-Blade Runner and –Batman production design, coupled with an iconic soundtrack make it, three decades later, still a fun film to revisit. It’s also far easier to appreciate in contrast to the remake. The problem with the new iteration can be summed up in one word: joylessness. The tone is less dark superhero film than grim urban vigilante picture that really emphasizes violence and gore (much of it computer generated) perhaps to cover for a lack of any actual vision.

One supposes the new film deserves credit for not being a beat-by-beat recreation of the original, as it differentiates things by providing more setup. The first act is dedicated to our doomed couple, Eric Draven (Bill Skarsgård) and Shelley (experimental pop star FKA Twigs), meeting in a correctional facility, with the two traumatized people (and implied to be recovering addicts) taking an instant liking to each other after one glance. Living in a brief state of bliss after escaping the facility together, Shelly’s past catches up with her when Vincent Roeg (Danny Huston), a mob boss with connections to the literal underworld (his superpower, some ability to do evil whispering, making him one of the least interesting on-screen villains in decades) comes to reclaim her. Both murdered in cold blood, Eric is soon resurrected and given the chance to save her soul from the depths of hell by going on a mission of revenge against Vincent and his cronies, taking up the mantle of the black-makeup-wearing goth-avenger with Wolverine-like healing abilities.

While it’s a big problem that the film has a difficult time reconciling its supernatural bent with the grimy setting, that’s far from the biggest issue. Perhaps its major flaw is the thudding lack of chemistry between its stars. Skarsgård, decked out like a white Soundcloud rapper, has the right pouty exterior but never really sells the pain of the character; Twigs, while a great musician, is — frankly speaking — a pretty unconvincing actor. The scenes of them in the throes of love, replete with poor attempts at naturalistic dialogue are borderline painful to watch.

While this film spends far more time establishing their relationship than the original, if to right the wrong of Shelley being a cypher whose sole purpose is to die for the sake of the male lead, it still presents about the same level of depth to its characters. O’Barr’s source material, written in response to his girlfriend’s sudden death, for all its maybe-juvenile trappings, is still wracked with melancholia. Perhaps the translation of grief in the comic translated more to sentimentality in the 1994 film, but it was genuine, a quality that feels missing here.

On the technical level, director Rupert Sanders, who was once heralded as the next Ridley Scott or David Fincher, still has a good eye but feels constrained by a limited budget and a poor script. Set in a gritty Detroit yet very noticeably shot in a European city (Prague, to be specific), there’s a lack of specificity to the aesthetic — partly because the film is likely made by a number of people out of touch with the culture it’s depicting. In general, it’s a movie that just projects a lack of enthusiasm from everyone involved. It deserved to stay stuck in development hell.