The Crow: Wicked Prayer

Felix Vasquez started his review by saying, “Rule number one: Casting one of the most irritating actors of all time in a sequel to one of my favorite movies of all time is not a wise move, and is right earning of an old fashioned smack down. The newest horrific sequel to one of the best films I’ve ever seen earns itself a place in my hate list casting Eddie Furlong as the hero.” Furlong is just not meant to be a protagonist, and that’s one of the many mistakes of “The Crow: Wicked Prayer,” released in 2005. It’s bad enough everyone here looks uninterested, but Furlong’s character Jimmy Cuervo is a boring man who has no portrayal.

We don’t know a lot about him except that he’s in love with Lilly, played by Emmanuelle Chriqui, and really lives in a trailer. That’s all we find out before he is murdered. Jimmy is a boring protagonist being played by a boring actor, and everyone else from Chriqui, to David Boreanaz, to Tara Reid looks as if they’re just following what is written, and nothing more. Their reaction to Jimmy showing up again is painfully underplayed and facepalming. “I don’t believe it,” says one guy in a delivery with no feeling. Furlong has practically no screen time, hence his transformation as the crow is not engaging as is the rest of the film. The good thing is we don’t need a remake of “The Crow” after this. We’ve already had three that did nothing but repeat the first and never tried to explore new areas of this story.

Vasquez mentioned, “But “Wicked Prayer” is the most blatant of the cribbing taking the entire story of Eric Draven and dropping into the Mexican setting, while Cuervo ends up as the more feminine counterpart to Eric Draven possessing make up that makes him look like a darn KISS fan boy. There is the hero in a suit rising from the grave, looking into a mirror, flashbacks in shades of red, his smashing of his furniture, destroying all his past mementos and his dramatic walk with the crow.” Everything is completely boring and safe, and there’s yet to be a new original idea with the story and concept, which is a complete shame.

Not to mention Boreanaz (famous for playing Angel in “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and the spin-off “Angel”) as “Death” possessing the power of the crow without dying is also very unoriginal of the trashy sequel “City of Angels” yet was somehow done with a much better effect because that villain was very scary, while Boreanaz is boring. Vasquez noted, “The mystique and Gothic mood is all but disintegrated, but that’s moot in a pretty wretched piece of trash such as “The Crow: Wicked Prayer”. Don’t worry, Brandon, your film has yet to be tarnished or touched high on the throne, so rest easy; Furlong, you gave it your best shot, now it’s time to hit the road.” “The Crow: Wicked Prayer” is a garbage disposal because it’s just a third remake of the first film, and it fails in repeating what made the first film so fantastic.

The villains are people who call themselves by the names of the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse or “Plagues of Armageddon:” Death (Boreanaz), War (Marcus Chong), Famine (Tito Ortiz), and Pestilence (Yuji Okumoto). Even the late Dennis Hopper is in here as “El Niño.”

I’m sorry guys, but we have reached the lowest of the low in this franchise. This is the worst film in the franchise, hands down. If you ever get the chance to pass up this heinous movie, do so, and even bother to even think it was created. Just stick with the first movie and never try to ever see the other sequels in the franchise because it will make you just wish the franchise stayed at one film.

Oh, thank goodness I’m done with this month. I’m sorry all of you had to sit through how progressively worse the franchise got, but you had to know. Now that you know, we have ended “The Crow Month.” Stay tuned to see what I will review next month.

The Crow: Salvation

The best you can say about “The Crow: Salvation,” released in 2000, is that it’s not another bad redoing of the first movie. That doesn’t mean that it’s unwatchable in any way, but at least it has a new and original plot. Gena Radcliffe said in her review, “We’re back to murdered lovers, but here their deaths are related to an extremely complicated (and completely moronic) police corruption ring that also involves underground adult clubs, drug smuggling and secret taxidermy/torture rooms. With much of the plot hinging on a mysterious man with a scarred arm, it’s more of a limp spin on The Fugitive than a Crow movie.”

Like the last movie, the boring protagonist, played by Eric Mabius, is joined with a ridiculous cast of actors, including “Ghostbusters” villain William Atherton, “Murphy Brown’s” Grant Shaud, Walton Goggins, Fred Ward, and Kiristen Dunst, in between her popular roles in “The Virgin Suicides” and “Bring it On.” She’s bad in this one, but to be far every person is in some way. Fred Ward at least looks like he knows what kind of garbage he is, while everyone else seems to be playing it straight.

Because the story changes a little in each movie, this one has a magical locked that gives the Crow his powers and invincibility. On top of that, he can fly, which comes right out of nowhere.

This sequel is probably the least bad of the sequels, which is low, and absolutely should not be meant that this film is good. Radcliffe noted, “With its youthful lead (Mabius co-starred in Cruel Intentions just a year before) it seems like it might have been marketed towards a younger audience, as if the earlier movies were big with the Matlock and Metamucil crowd.” Like the last sequel, the audience is told that they’re supposed to care about the two lovebirds and what’s happened to them, when everything they see is told through a series of rough flashbacks, and no sense of who they are as people. Radcliffe ended her review by saying, “It omits any sense of heart or soul, coming off like an extended music video, one in which the audio is regrettably provided by Static-X and Kid Rock.”

As previously mentioned, this one is not as bad as the last movie, but it is still a pain to sit through. Why did filmmakers feel like there were more to be told in this franchise? Could they have not just left it off with the first one? That was one of the greatest comic book adaptations ever. There was no need for these painful sequels! Just avoid this one because you will not find any redeeming factor in this at all.

Well everyone, hold on to your seats because next week we’re going to finish off “The Crow Month” with the last attempt they tried at this franchise.

The Crow: City of Angels

Tattoo artist Sarah (Mia Kirshner) has frequent nightmares of a traumatic incident on a dock, where death and destruction occurred by criminal kingpin Judah Earl (Richard Brooks), who rules her town with drugs and prostitution and fear. Mike Massie said in his review, “Away from this “city of angels,” which is basked in a permanent darkness and filth, Sarah believes that there’s a purgatory of sorts, a place where restless souls wander, waiting for a chance to right the wrongs in their lives. And Judah has a wealth of comeuppance heading his way.”

The victim in Sarah’s nightmares was Ashe Corven (Vincent Perez), who was shot, tied in barbed wire with his young son (Eric Acosta), and thrown into the river. However, thanks to the powers of the Crow, and the undying want for revenge, Corven is revived. Through the guidance followed by the large black crow that visits Sarah’s home, she wants to find Ashe and give him a place to stay.

Massie noted, “Based on James O’Barr’s comic strip and comic book series, this sequel retains the morbidity, violence, and BDSM themes from the original – along with contrasting religious components, which actually play nicely against the unrelenting deviances. Sadly, it also retreads plenty of familiar ground, telling about the same story through choppy flashbacks and blurry visions. It’s every bit as weird and somber, with the same pairing of a young woman and a pasty vigilante tracking down a hierarchy of villains, all of whom dress in black leather and clownish makeup as rock music thunders in the background. Plus, there’s even an Asian villainess (Thuy Trang), twinning Bai Ling’s supporting role from 1994 – an odd selection to duplicate.” “The Crow: City of Angels,” released in 1996, is basically a remake.

“We killed you, man!” Massie mentioned, “As before, this pitch-black, neo-noir superhero flick bears a resemblance to Tim Burton’s “Batman” pictures, in which the larger-than-life feats and bright colors have been swapped out for bloodshed and general aberrance. Here, the torture and nudity are a touch more extreme, but the absence of comic relief, the goth wardrobes, and the muted palette are unmistakably similar.” It’s even difficult to not think of the Crow’s stylings with the Joker.

However, purposeful humor finds its way into the emptiness, mainly when Thomas Jane, as henchman Nemo, mimes abusing himself for nearly a minute in real-time. Massie noted, “Likewise, a major portion of the film is reiteration, predominantly through repetitive flashbacks, which stretch out the overly simplistic revenge plot.” Besides, there aren’t that many enemies. Ashe doesn’t have much interest in doing anything except finding those who killed him.

“How do you stop a man who’s already dead?” Massie said, “Admittedly, there’s a modicum of entertainment value to be found in a ruthless protagonist mercilessly tormenting and executing a band of exceptionally unfeeling antagonists; but it’s certainly not enough to warrant a feature-length film.” Obviously, this isn’t the first time all of this is happening, with these same characters in very similar situations.

As all of you have noted, this sequel is just plain garbage. Why did they feel the need to make a sequel? Especially since the first one left off with no indication that there will be a sequel. The first movie stands on its own perfectly, so there was no need. This is just a slap in the face for those who loved the first one so much. If they thought they could do it over again, they failed miserably. Especially since there is a very small part for Beverly Mitchell, who you might remember as the middle child in that overly Christian sitcom “7^th Heaven.” Just do yourself a favor and never see this movie, it’s atrocious.

Sadly, the torment doesn’t end there, as they made other horrendous sequels. To know what I mean, stay tuned next week to find out in the sad continuation of “The Crow Month.”

The Crow

For this entire month, I will be looking at “The Crow” franchise. Granted, I never read any of the comics that this was based off of, so I’m not familiar too much with the character. I just remember Nostalgia Critic mentioning this briefly and the Angry Video Game Nerd mentioned the movie a little when he reviewed the Sega Saturn game. Now let’s jump in with the first “The Crow” movie, released in 1994.

This is the movie where Bruce Lee’s son, Brandon Lee, was making when he was accidentally shot dead during the filming of a scene. I don’t think it is ironic that the story involves a hero who returns from the dead – just as, in a way, Lee did when the film was released. Roger Ebert admitted in his review, “It is a stunning work of visual style - the best version of a comic book universe I've seen - and Brandon Lee clearly demonstrates in it that he might have become an action star, had he lived.”

The story starts with a resurrection from the dead. A rock star named Eric Draven (Lee) is murdered, along with his fiancé (Sofia Shinas), on the night of their wedding. His soul is transported to the next world (which is what the narration said) by a crow. However, when a spirit is unhappy there because of unfinished business on earth, sometimes the crow will bring him back again. Cut to a year later, on Halloween Eve, Eric reappears on earth, seeking vengeance on those who murdered him – and the evil kingpin who tasked them.

That’s about the entire story. Ebert noted, “Flashbacks recreate the original murder, and then Eric, led by the crow, tracks the mean, rainy, midnight streets on his lonely quest. He has fashioned for himself some death's-head makeup, and since he is already dead, of course bullets cannot harm him (except sometimes - which is always the catch in comic book stories).”

The story exists as a reason for the production values of the film, which are amazing. The director, Alex Proyas, and his technical team have made a realm that will remind audiences of the lonely urban wilderness in “Blade Runner” and of the Gothic luxuries in “Batman,” yet this world is dirtier and more forbidding than either. It’s not often that movies can use miniatures and special effects and sets and visual tricks to create a realistic place, rather than just a series of obvious sets, but “The Crow” does.

The visual styles, by cinematographer Dariusz Wolski, obviously pays a great deal to the look of comic books (or “graphic novels,” as they like to be called). Ebert noted, “The camera swoops high above the city, or dips low for extreme-angle shots. Shadows cast fearsome daggers into the light. Buildings are exaggerated in their architectural details, until they seem a shriek of ornamentation.” The superhero comic books of the 1940s, especially “Batman,” were around the same time as film noir, and borrowed some of the same visual language. However, comic books were not simply art forms of film noir. Ebert noted, “For one thing, the films tended to use their extreme-angle shots for atmosphere and storytelling, and would hold them for a time, while comics are meant to be read quickly, and give the equivalent of cinematic quick-cutting.” “The Crow,” with its fast pace and its countless camera set-ups, reminds comics much more than the more good-looking but more relaxed “Batman” movies. Ebert said, “It also reflects a bleak modern sensibility, with little room for the comic villians in "Batman."” The actors are adapted in appearance to this graphic noir version. Their appearances are as exaggerated as the shots they appear in. Ebert noted, “For example: The bosoms of women in comic books always seem improbably perfect but sketched in - drawn by a pen, not made of flesh - and the villainess Myca (Bai Ling) in this story has the same look.” As the half-sister of the villain, she represents a drawn image, not a person, and so do many of the other characters, including a thin, gaunt Brandon Lee behind his makeup.

The soundtrack is consisted of hard rock (The Cure, Stone Temple Pilots, Violent Femmes, Pantera, Nine Inch Nails, etc.).

At times the film looks like a violent music video, all image and action, no content. However, if it had developed more story and characterization, it might not have had as much of a success in creating a world where the strange reality, not the story, is the point.

The scene where Brandon Lee was accidentally shot is not in the film, but his death cannot help giving a miserable subtext to everything he does on screen, and to every one of his speeches about death and revenge. It is a sad irony that this film is not only the best thing he had done, but is actually more of a screen success than any of the films his father did.

Both careers were really short just as early potential was being seen. Ebert ended his review by noting, “There was talk of shelving "The Crow," but I'm glad they didn't. At least what Brandon Lee accomplished - in a film that looks to have been hard, dedicated labor - has been preserved.”

This is a great movie that everyone should see. If you’re a comic book movie fan, then definitely don’t skip this one. It is dark, edgy, violent, and definitely the epitome of what a comic book film should look like. Check it out, and see the last film Brandon Lee did before his horrible accident. I promise you; you will like it.

Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for the sequels. If you want to know what I’m talking about, look out next week when I look at the first sequel in “The Crow Month.”