Posted by In 1994, Alex Proyas directed an adaptation of James O’Barr’s 1989 comic The Crow. Following the story of Eric Draven, a young man resurrected after his and his fiancee Shelly’s murders to claim vengeance, it was embraced by 90s Goth, goth-adjacent, and even general audiences to a degree. Brandon Lee’s resurrected Eric Draven outfit and make-up became instantly iconic and a true Pop Culture Figure. Lee’s on-set death due to a blank malfunction put the title in the annals of film history. Luckily the movie was damned good, earning a reputation on its own, outside the tragic accident. The film was followed by four sequels, all using the idea in different ways to various degrees of success (until now the 2005 Wicked Prayer was the nadir), and a one-season TV show adapting the original story.
After the failure of Wicked Prayer, the powers that be decided the best route would be rebooting the franchise. After many many many years of production hell, with countless up-and-comer actors and directors attached and ultimately detached, The Crow finally crash-landed into theaters this weekend, written by William Schneider and directed by Rupert Sanders. The Bill Skarsgard-led film trips out of the nest so awfully, it shows perhaps the reason why The Crow had such an awful trip from idea to screen a second time. Proyas’s 1994 take was perfectly realized and still relevant, thus any attempt to do it a second time is a moot point.
Yes, this new version of The Crow is technically not a remake of the 1994 film, but another adaptation of the James O’Barr comic. A reviewer, generally, should look at any new take or entry to a property on its own merits (or demerits if need be). But here’s the thing – the Alex Proyas film is so ubiquitous, to the title and to pop culture, it can’t help but be compared. Everyone sitting down to watch 2024 will be reminded and comparing to 1994 themselves. Especially since that one is great, and this one is terrible; a comparison based on what Rupert Sanders’s take lacks is apt and a way to expound on why this version fails to take flight. Three main facets are lacking in the film, preventing the rise from multiple production deaths to achieve its own vengeance on the naysayers.
Things I miss in the 2024’s The Crow.
- “It can’t rain all the time”
This quote is from the original film but is of tantamount importance in making it work. The visual component of the rain-soaked neo-noir Detroit immediately gave the world of 1994 an iconic look. The visual acuity sets a tone and feel for the film, even if the rest didn’t work. (Proyas’s follow-up of Dark City, one of my favorite movies, is similarly built on look to also create a compelling story). The film is built on vibe.
For Sander’s version, he opted for Bland – much akin to how he shot Ghost In The Shell & Snow White. On brand I guess. This complaint isn’t really about the rain-soaked world, but the bland shot choice and lighting that could be any film. This story begs for an interesting visual style. I’m not saying it has to match the original, not at all. I don’t want a carbon copy but give something. On the quote – so much of the first half, now in LA, is bright daylight and sunshine. It does rain sometimes, but it seems like the “it just rained that day on the set” chance, rather than the production design. Same with night versus day. It’s weird, some scenes start on a bright day and continue on a rainy night like it just happened in a blink akin to Plan 9’s “fuck continuity.” Almost as if the shoot went on so long, that everything changed but no one cared. Just get it done and we can home. It looks cheap. Even the bad sequels tried, but why not the big-budget theatrical go? The limbo area does bring a little life in the undead world, but that’s about it
2. Characters, especially characters with chemistry.
Brandon Lee and Sofia Shinas have a palpable chemistry. Their love feels real and lived in. We like them and feel for them when it all falls out, even if we only spend a little bit of time with them before the tragedy. Bill Skarsgard and FKA Twigs barely feel like they know one another’s names, despite the first 50 minutes devoted to their “love story.” They give nothing to one another to work with. There is such an anti-chemistry that I’m waiting to hear stories of “oh they did NOT like to be in the same room so we had to work around it” to come out (not saying that’s true, just the vibe). My apologies to Twigs, but I’m putting most of it on her. Her performance is like she just woke up and is still very high from the night before. Skarsgard is much more himself when against anyone else.
As for the other characters, both good and evil? Cardboard. I couldn’t tell you their names, let alone a single thing about them. The pair’s friends just show up and act like we are supposed to know them. (Cue a sudden shift of a whole bunch of folks we’ve never met having a lake-side getaway.) Even Danny Huston’s villain, Roeg has nothing. Top Dollar is replaced with a… let me check my memory… vampire businessman? Yeah. It doesn’t work as this adds nothing to the story, and is barely a thing.
Having only read the comic once and 25 years ago, I don’t recall if Detective Albright and Sarah are in the source, but they are needed to make the story work, giving a larger world and grounding it. These characters give more life to Eric and Shelly, contextualizing who they are. They live through Sarah and Albright. In 2024, the people we are meant to care about are as much ciphers as their friends.
3. A cohesive story.
Man, this is a mess. I hope you’ve seen the 1994 film coming into this one. It’ll fill in the details needed to create a basic understanding of what is happening on the “why Eric is back and how this works” end of things. On a wider stance, the narrative flow is awful. It’s disjointed and underdeveloped. There aren’t set-ups in the first half to be paid off in the back end, in character or action. Things happen just because. Characters know things they shouldn’t, they show up in places they shouldn’t know about. The extended set-up for Eric and Shelly’s meeting and “falling in love” is overly long and unnecessary, undermining the power of their relationship, and rendering the whole moot. How no one said “Cut the whole rehab thing and just have them together at the start. It’ll save us a whole set and everything covered can be done better.” Further muddling the timeline, Eric and Shelley’s relationship seems to be a matter of days, a week or two at most. But the villain side of things makes it clear this takes place over what seems to be a very short period. It’s hard to sell “deep, true love” if we’re thinking “These two just met and have spent most of it high as fuck.” All the story chicanery means no oomph. There is little to stick an emotional hook into.
I will say one positive – the single action scene, a John-Wick-like attack at an opera house, is pretty well done when taken out of context. It’s also a strangely empty lobby for a sold-out opera – no latecomers, staff, other people around (this sort of thing bothers me), and a must-be deaf audience in the auditorium not to hear everything happening feet away even with an opera on stage. This scene also highlights an issue – while Draven does occasionally take down people involved in his and Shelley’s deaths – a one-eyed driver, a big Russian Dude, a Tilda Swinton clue – most of the baddies he takes down are hired security goons. Sorry guys, you had nothing to do with him, just contracted employees, but enjoy a word in your eye!
The new adaptation of The Crow is an unnecessary retelling of a story told so incredibly well 30 years ago it hasn’t faded from cultural memory. From a bland look to chemistry-less characters to a simply poorly told story, The Crow is an empty pile of dirty feathers.
D
