One thing is foremost: this new version of ‘The Crow’ is, above all, a failed film. Unlike other remakes or sequels of dubious morality, it does not limit itself to living off the profits but rather attempts to propose an alternative and find its own way. It fails to do so, largely due to its own fault, but it is at least appreciated that, unlike, for example,’Borderlands ‘, it is backed by some kind of concern that is not just commercial and also has some scenes as worthy of mention as the opera.
What’s more, it’s not a disaster even though it takes half the film to get going, and the construction of Eric Draven’s character and the development of his love story leave something to be desired. In fact, taking into account its own idiosyncrasy, this is one of the two things that end up holding it back: its lack of romanticism and passion, resulting in a soulless and cold film about any old avenger. The 1994 film highlighted its soul through its aesthetics, whereas the 2024 film has no soul, much less style and definition.
Rupert Sanders knows how to film, as he has already demonstrated with the first episode of Foundation or Ghost in the Shell ‘, the latter film with which he has in common his exquisite but distant audiovisual calligraphy. Sanders knows how to film, and it is more than possible that throughout his life he has filmed wonderful commercials, but he does not seem to know how to tell a story, give life to a snapshot, or project material above words. Despite his noble predisposition, ‘The Crow’ is an evident and beautiful empty shell.
A very 21st century-looking but fairly generic film that never makes its excessive $50 million budget worth it. ‘Kill Boy’, starring Bill Skarsgard himself, didn’t even cost half that, and it looks like it cost more than twice as much. The aforementioned film by Moritz Mohr is also much more to the point and feels much more comfortable and relaxed in its condition, whereas ‘The Crow’ only really comes into its own in its final stretch, when Eric Draven finally decides to go for the game, when in a certain way Laura Birn’s character saves the show.
And the actress, who repeats with Sanders after ‘Foundation’, gives life to the only character that ends up transmitting something (and causing the two best scenes of the film), this being the second thing that ends up weighing it down: the lack of presence, definition, and substance of its theoretical villains. If ‘The Crow’ is an evident and pretty empty shell, it is because it is an empty and soulless revenge. Its climax scene, the violent and bloody carnage in the opera, so indebted to the ‘John Wick‘ franchise, is nothing more than a gratuitous slaughter.
This is a very welcome film, but even at its best, it defines a film that conveys nothing. A failed film, not a disaster or a rip-off that, with very low expectations, is watched with a certain curiosity. Sanders is not a useless man like Eli Roth, responsible for ‘Borderlands,’ and ‘The Crow’ has a minimum of intentionality and dignity. Of course, like the rest of the sequels, it does not stand up to comparison with the 1994 film, but that was something that was going to happen in practically all imaginable scenarios.
And 30 years later, not even Alex Proyas, who was also responsible for ‘Dark City’, one of my favorite films of the 90s, and who, with two balls, criticizes this remake so much after having directed ‘Gods of Egypt’, is now filming as it was filmed back then. Seen in this way, ‘The Crow’ of 2024 is still a product in keeping with the times in which it has been touched to live. A brand that had to be resurrected because you have to live off something, something that has been done with as much respect and fear as it has a lack of personality or determination.
