Unlike the review mentioned here, the New York Times gives Crank 2 a short but solid thrashing, calling it (among other things) “near-pornographic.”  Which, I suppose, is their prerogative.  I understand that the movie is not for everyone — it’s a comic book on film, a self-aware parody of itself in which suspension of disbelief is suspended right along with the rules of nature.

The problem, though, is that either the reviewer is completely unaware of the nature of the movie (it’s really not meant to be taken seriously on any level), or has no sense of humor, or is just not a very good writer.  The movie seems to have been watched completely devoid of context, which makes it out to be the really bad film it is out of context.

Which gets me thinking, though.  I hated The Shining — Kubrick’s version — because it deviates from King’s book on so many levels (including the main thrust of the story, that it’s the hotel that ruins a good man, not that a bad man uses a hotel as an excuse), because to me, that movie will always be an adaptation of the book.  However, when I manage to force myself out of that perspective and watch the movie as a stand-alone entity, it’s a pretty damn fine horror movie that still creeps me out almost 30 years later. The twin girls, the elevator of blood… Kubrick’s sterile, clinical films usually leave me cold (no pun intended), but that detachment works here, exceptionally well. If only Nicholson hadn’t given one of the most over-the-top performances in history…

So context is important, but sometimes so is removing context, at least for enjoyment (I think I just made the lists of four Kubrick fans by thinking that).

Any thoughts?