You all know the story. Chev Chelios (Jason Stathem) survives a fall from a helicopter and has his heart stolen by Chinese gangsters. In order to keep his new artificial heart pumping, he's gotta keep himself electrified. Simple.

Crank: High Voltage is a difficult movie to review as watching it is a very bizarre experience to describe. If anyone's seen the original, they might have a vague idea of what to expect. High Voltage is pretty much 100 times what the original was. There's no use describing the plot, acting or camera work at all. It's more of a matter of putting things in perspective. Crank: High Voltage is not a popcorn action movie, it's not tongue-in-cheek and it's not so-bad-it's-good. It has more in common with movies like Ichi the Killer and Pink Flamingoes than it does Transformers and Shoot 'Em Up. To put it bluntly, Crank: High Voltage is a celebration of violence, mayhem and depravity: a true exploitation film.

I wouldn't say the movie's entertaining. Certainly not to the general public though. The first one has a way better chance of getting away with that label. It's certainly not good either. In fact, a lot of people are gonna hate it; I suppose the same goes for the original. I will say this movie is fascinating. It's fascinating to watch how low it will stoop to spit in the face of the audience who still hasn't stopped watching yet. Seriously. The last shot of this movie makes its intentions all too clear.

That's not to say it doesn't have its moments. There's plenty of hilarity and "wow" moments to be found here and as much as you'd like to believe it is, none of it feels unintentional. Honestly, this movie's got it all. Nipple tape, exploding breast implants, porn stars on strike, Tourettes' syndrome, police brutality, perverted shrinks, a giant Chev Chelios "monster,"¯ a cameo by David Carradine, a cameo by Ginger Spice, a pretty goddamn amazing soundtrack by legendary avant-guarde musician Mike Patton (Faith No More, Mr. Bungle), ridiculous dialogue with such delightful phrases as "pissed-off beaver", "the gay condition" and "cunt-onese," lots and lots of boobs¯ and a whole slew of filthy, loathsome characters that make the Devil's Rejects look like the cast of Gone With The Wind.

Long story short, if you liked the first one, you'll probably like this one. Otherwise, I'd steer clear unless you don't mind the occasional stupid and blatantly anti-PC movie.

Jamesy Jamesy Jamesy... i like movies that are blatantly anti-PC. however i hate movies where little to no thought or effort was made into making it. Both the original and sequel were a mess- not because i didnt "get it" but because the makers were a bunch of talentless twats who deserve to be in the very depths of filmmaking hell. and yes, im satan.

these films arent amusing, theyre just plain stupid.

i think the other thing that bothers me is that many people who like crank and crank 2 defend it tooth and nail. furthermore, they claim to be unique and offbeat simply because the rest of the world doesnt "get" them or their haughty avante-guard personality. which makes me hate these films even more.

obviously this isnt you james, just the mainstream who like these movies.

Personally I really liked Crank - I'd go so far as to say it is one of my favourite movies. I thought it was probably the first mainstream surrealist movie!

The Crank 2 DVD is out here on Monday and I shall be buying it in the hope that it is as good as, if not better, than the original.

I take it that I won't be getting a birthday card next week from you then, Albinopenguin?

The first Crank was stupid, pure, mindless fun. The second one, just stupid.

What I find interesting is Gamer was filmed before this, but was released months after High Voltage.

I didn't see the first Crank but I did see the second one.  It was over the top and parts  of it were really funny, other parts so unbelievable.  It wasn't my first choice to see, in fact, I had seen everything at the theater in weeks prior, so we went to see this. I was entertained but I did leave the theater, like: Huh? They actually made this film and it's in the theaters and not direct to DVD. Harsh maybe, but just a thought.

Quoted from BlazingStar Harsh maybe, but just a thought.

Not really harsh, because there is tons of crap greenlit.

I disagree on the "If you like the first one, you will like this" I'm a big fan of the first one and this one was a complete mess... garbage doesn't even begin to describe this thing.

Chev on fire at the end sums up my thoughts on this thing... poorly done.

The directors during the commentary come off as a couple of idiots who think they can do no wrong and even mentioned a third one.

I'm still baffled as to why Amy Smart wore x's on her nipples. We have seen your tits before in a better movie.

Quoted Text I take it that I won't be getting a birthday card next week from you then, Albinopenguin?

haha every year you get older is one year closer to filmmaking hell. ill be waiting...

Wesley, yes the ending was RIDICULOUS. I freaking CRINGED.

It would be awesome in a Lloyd Kaufman film or an animated film but in this movie with this action star... what the fuck were they thinking?

The joke is on us.

Yeah, this movie was terrible.

The first one was good, this was absolute crap. Oh well.

Quoted from Old Time Wesley I'm still baffled as to why Amy Smart wore x's on her nipples. We have seen your tits before in a better movie.

If i may ask, what was it?  This way I can watch it.

The first movie you get a couple glimpses but Road Trip (Tom Green) she's completely topless with her face so it is not a double.

You can't get naked in that film and go backwards especially when you play a stripper.

Quoted from Aaron Not really harsh, because there is tons of crap greenlit.

That's true. I guess we could start a whole other thread on why that is. In every book that I've read on screenwriting, they tell you that you have to have a fantastic script to even get through the door.  So are the scripts good, but the final product not?  Or are the scripts bad to begin with?

Quoted from BlazingStar   Or are the scripts bad to begin with?

In the Crank series? I've read a little of the first, and I read this one and as you can see in the script thread I thought the script was appalling. Too cartoonish. So in this case yes the scripts are bad to begin with.

Bad script=Bad Movie. Usually.

I'm sure there's another thread for this, but:

Having not seen the first one, it was interesting seeing this with no preconceptions. Haphazardly chose this one at the multiplex one day, and we enjoyed it for what it was. Bordering on the ridiculous, it was entertaining without ever being challenging. Once was enough for it, but probably best viewed through the lens of checking your brain at the kiosk.

Andrew

I liked this one better than the first. Completely mindless and lacking any logic, this film is balls out fun from beginning to end.

~Zack~

Quoted from Aaron In the Crank series? I've read a little of the first, and I read this one and as you can see in the script thread I thought the script was appalling. Too cartoonish. So in this case yes the scripts are bad to begin with. Bad script=Bad Movie. Usually.

Ah, I see. That makes sense.

Finally got round to watching it.

Not as good as the first, I'd admit - perhaps the idea has been too thinly spread over two films, but it still has some laugh out loud moments, Jason Statham is good value as always, and it had some good post modern/self reflexive moments that would probably be hailed as genius if Tarantino put them in a film!

The first film wins over this, I think, because it does have a quite sweet love story at it's heart. Chelios is willing to finally give up his life of crime for a girl (and so allows a man to live, which seals his fate) - his last words are a rather nice message for her (which she never gets, we learn here!). That gives the film a touch of humanity that underpins the pyrotechnics. It's sadly missing here.

Still, it passed the time entertainingly enough.

Quoted from James McClung It's fascinating to watch how low it will stoop to spit in the face of the audience who still hasn't stopped watching yet.

Gotta disagree a little bit here. These films can be taken as..
A. Completely ballsy for trying
B. Completely stupid

I personally think it wasn't trying to stoop low to spit in the face of the audience, I just think they were trying to be ballsy. But they didn't accomplish that.