Crank 2: High Voltage – Blu-ray Disc Review
August 24, 2009 – 10:33 PM - Posted by: Justin SlussTags: Amy Smart, BD-Live, Bonus View, Brian Taylor, Clifton Collins Jr., David Carradine, Dwight Yoakam, Efren Ramirez, Jason Statham, Lionsgate, Mark Neveldine, MoLog
has an average rating of 6.7 on IMDb
1080p in AVC MPEG-4 on a 50gb disc
DTS-HD 7.1 Master Audio
are ALL in Hi-Def with Digital Copy
– 
– 2009
– 95 minutes
– Lionsgate
– 
This uses 22.7GB for the movie out of 43.8GB total.
Street Date: September 8th, 2009
Overall Verdict – A High Recommendation
Buy it for $19.99 @ Amazon.com
— Review written by: Justin Sluss —
The Movie Itself is the sequel to “Crank” obviously as the new title being used on home video suggests — although it did run theatrically under the title “Crank: High Voltage“. Regardless, it’s the much-anticipated sequel to one of the most unique, offensive, intense action film’s I can honestly say I have seen in a very long time. With anticipation comes much hype and sometimes much critic disapproval of the sequel or just downright film itself, which this would definitely be the case. A large majority though, seem to honestly think this was a great sequel and some even consider it better than the first film. Now with that stereotypical “movie critic” B.S. out of the way I can tell you about the film itself. It starts off exactly where the first film left off literally. “Chev Chelios” (played by Jason Statham) falls from the sky onto a car and we presume he is dead — just as we saw in the end credits of “Crank“. As soon as his body hits the street, a vehicle pulls up and people retrieve his body before paramedics or emergency vehicles respond. He’s been taken into custody by the Chinese mob who want his now famous heart for a 100-year-old man by the name of “Poon Dong” (played by the late, great David Carradine) to revive him or something of that nature.
Anyone who’s seen the last film knows that Chev isn’t one to stick around when a bunch of Asian men are trying to dissect him especially when he sees on a diagram that the boss wants them to retrieve his penis first. This leads to Chev going, well for lack of a better term “ape-shit” and killing (or incapacitating) the assailants and leaving the vicinity after first acquiring some clothes and causing chaos (as usual). He soon discovers and remembers from flash backs (of what we saw earlier) that his heart was removed and replaced with an artificial heart hooked to a power source (battery) on his waist (belt). The power lights on it indicating charge are already looking low so he must find a way to keep his heart going in the form of new sources of energy — namely electricity. This is very much the same plot to the last film except it’s not as much about sex and drugs this time around as it is keeping energy going to his artificial heart. With that being said, there is no lack of sex or nudity in this film what-so-ever and there is in fact a sex scene that almost tops the one in the first film between Statham and Smart. The said sex scene is again in public, but this time it’s smack dab in the middle of a horse race right out on the dirt track with the crowd cheering them on with each thrust. I’ll end it there with the mention of that scene before this turns into a fucking romance novel or some shit.
In closing, “Crank 2: High Voltage” is a pretty enjoyable, laughable experience if you were a fan of the first film. Be warned that they, the filmmakers here, did not take themselves seriously at times and it’s really that silly spontaneity that makes for some laughs and some parts that will likely leave a few in disgust. It’s a film much like the original where you either love or hate it, so take it for that. The cameos here are great, you’ve got Dwight Yoakam reprising his role as the doctor, Amy Smart reprising her role as the girlfriend and even Efren Ramirez back as his character’s twin brother — just to name a few. Fans of the original film will not be let down one bit, that much is for sure.
Video Quality on this release is in full 1080p using the AVC MPEG-4 codec on a BD-50 (50 gigabyte, dual-layered Blu-ray Disc) in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio. It’s uncertain exactly what cameras were used to film this but judging from the last film I’m guessing it was a mix of digital (HDTV) and 35mm source material which makes for a very impressive Hi-Def transfer and presentation. The black level is perfectly solid as you’ll be able to tell from the start of the film when the opening credits in old 8-bit videogame style graphics transition to real video. The fleshtones are accurate with the lovely Amy Smart almost baring all here to serve as a very sexy example. The amount of detail present at times is amazing, you could likely count all the little pieces of beard stubble on Statham‘s face during close-ups if you really felt the need and/or had the time thanks to this excellent Hi-Def presentation.
One thing to remember here is that this is a very, very, very fast paced film and that can be very much something that requires the encode to be able to keep up with the constant action happening on screen and never have compression problems. I’m happy to report I saw no problems in the video presentation (encode) in terms of compression or any use of filters that weren’t intentional by the filmmakers or caused by the camera they shot the film on. This earns a very impressive, honestly perfect aside from limitations of the camera it was shot on, “5 Star Rating” for overall video quality and joins what is now becoming many Lionsgate titles on Blu-ray Disc to receive this rating.
Audio Quality on this release is presented in DTS-HD 7.1 Master Audio. Just like the original film on Blu-ray this contains a 5.1+ mix, meaning it has more than 2 rear channel tracks. In the case of the last film it was 6.1 and here it’s DTS-HD 7.1 Master Audio giving you a complete immerse sound experience. The minute the film starts you’ll begin to notice that the sound mix is kick ass and definitely calls for you considering maybe cranking up your volume. The original music done by Mike Patton (of Mr. Bungle and Faith No More) and the film’s Soundtrack including such awkward yet somehow fitting songs like “Heard it in a Love Song” by Marshall Tucker Band during a very provocative scene in the film all sound great and make great use of the 7.1 soundscape. Sound effects, gun shots, explosions, so forth — all sound excellent here and even do the occasional 180 degree pan across the 7.1 channels, which is amazing. This mix fits the film’s unique style perfectly from start to finish (when the credits roll). Excellent rear channel presence and thunderous bass at times (delivered through the subwoofer). Dialogue is delivered perfectly and for the most part is delivered through the front center channel but has some front right and left usage. Volume adjustment will definitely not be a problem here unless you have some loud friends watching the film with you, in which case I’d sadly have to recommended something I honestly hate on English films — subtitles. Given you’re in a environment without noisy people or if you just CRANK the volume enough, this will blow you away and earns itself a perfect “5 Star Rating“. Kudos to the folks at Lionsgate for delivering yet another excellent “demo material” audio presentation and make great use of the DTS-HD MA format.
Bonus Materials are presented in High Definition using AVC MPEG-4 and Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo sound @192kbps.
- BD-Live or “LG LIVE” as Lionsgate calls theirs is available on this release, which requires the user to be on a “Profile 2.0” internet capable Blu-ray Disc Player. Once online you’ll first notice this title has a set of gadgets and dashboard of sorts using BD-Live to retrieve your local weather (tempature) and time in the form of a digital clock. Also displayed above the menu bar you’ll find streaming headlines of Lionsgate related movies and Blu-ray Disc releases. BD-Live isn’t just limited to this though it’s split up into some other sections of “LG LIVE” which I’ll explain in detail below.
- Digital Copy is included on a DVD-ROM disc and is compatible both with iTunes & Windows Media (Mac & PC). This copy lasts for exactly one year after the release date of the home video release, in this case September 8th, 2010 it will expire.
- “Crank‘d Out Commentary” gives you the choices of “High Voltage Mode” or “Traditional Mode“. Pretty much the first choice is a really elaborate PIP (Picture-In-Picture) presentation using Bonus View (requiring a “Profile 1.1” or higher capable Blu-ray Player) while the second option is just a smaller traditional PIP (Picture-In-Picture) commentary — again using Bonus View. Pressing the BLUE button on your Blu-ray Player remote will switch back and forth between the two modes. This commentary is hosted by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor who co-wrote and directed the film itself. You’ll be treated here to tons of behind-the-scenes footage which is very entertaining. If you enjoyed the film and have a player capable of doing this, give it a watch!
- Audio Commentary with Writers/Directors Neveldine/Taylor is presented for those of you against using Bonus View (PIP) or not capable of doing so.
- “Making Crank 2” (51:23) is a very thorough “making of” featurette and is in 1080i video quality which is always a plus.
- “Crank 2: Take 2” (4:03) has the two writer/directors discussing having to shoot on a cramped time frame and budget. These are “fuck ups” as the guys claim and they hope you enjoy them.
- “Wrap Party Gag Reel” (3:26) was shot doing the wrap party on the last day of shooting the film. Pretty funny stuff.
- Theatrical Trailer (2:32) is included.
- “LG Gadgets” allows you to toggle the gadgets mentioned earlier on or off. This gives you the option to toggle on/off news, weather and clock.
- “Twitter / Facebook Integration” sounds stupid to most, I know but I gave it a try. Here’s my tweet — HERE. Pretty cool if it remembers this for all my Lionsgate BD-Live enabled Blu-ray Disc titles. I didn’t try Facebook but I assume it looks just the same, updating your status with “watching movie title in hi-def” or something of that nature.
- “Ringtones” again, sounds stupid to most and I actually have to agree here. There’s quite a few ringtones available and there are reportedly no feeds for this feature if you are on AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Cellular One, Sprint or T-Mobile.
- “Wallpapers” again is pretty stupid and not something I’d personally use or see many using. It allows you to get wallpapers for your mobile phone and again, just like it says with ringtones — reportedly no fees apply for this. I’ll let you try and be the judge of that though.
Blu-ray Disc packaging:
Screenshots:
NOTE: The full-sized 1920×1080 files are in a .PNG file format and uncompressed. Bare with the slow loading times, keep in mind these files are at least 1MB (1 megabyte) in size each.
19 Responses to “Crank 2: High Voltage – Blu-ray Disc Review”
This movie is the epitome of “sensory overload” and I absolutely loved every second of it. Fantastic sequel, and a fantastic brain-dead action/comedy flick.
Can’t wait to see this on BD!
By James Segars on Aug 24, 2009
I absolutely loved the first one simply for it’s all around insanity and lack of ever taking itself seriously. Here’s hoping this one is just as good!
By Brendan Surpless on Aug 24, 2009
Got my screener copy in this afternoon and watched it after dinner.WOW!A simply top notch demo disc if there ever was one.The movie itself is all kinds of kick ass and is the most enjoyable time I’ve had watching a movie at home or in the theatre this year.Lionsgate is on fire with their releases.
By Gerald Orr on Aug 25, 2009
I want. I want.
Now I’m curious to check out Gamer…don’t hate me.
Justin – One complaint, a few too many screen caps. IMO there’s one spoiler I didn’t want – the sex scene. It looks hilarious.
Great review, I will definitely be picking this one up.
By charle on Aug 25, 2009
I feel the strong need to object to the video-rating for a simple reason:
The entire movie was shot on Canon HDV consumer-/prosumer-camcorders (XH A1 primarily).
Link: http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/7771/tcid/1
Therefor the source material was already heavily compressed (HDV=mpeg2) and the actual resolution of HDV is 1440×1080, not 1920×1080!
I know this because I have been shooting with the same camera for three years now.
The image looks only as good as these limitations allow it to look. Through digital sharpening, the image might appear sharp but is actually nowhere near real 1080p detail.
Don´t get me wrong, I love this camera, which currently costs around 3500 dollars. It is maybe the best camera within it´s price-range. And the makers of “Crank 2″ got great images out of it.
But to give an HDV-camcorder image a five star rating (=perfect!) tells me that the reviewer, Justin Sluss, probably didn´t look too closely. I am looking at the screenshots on my 1080p monitor and I can´t say that I feel like I´m able to “count all the little pieces of beard stubble on Statham’s face”. “No problems with compression”? Well maybe not besides the heavy HDV macroblocking. Check out Statham´s left cheek in the eleventh screenshot! The wall in the 12th! The 13th is almost a macroblocking nightmare.
Is this a faithful representation of the original source material? Yes.
Is it perfect 5-star demo-material? Not even close.
Maybe if you can´t tell the difference between digital sharpening and actual detail.
This is the reason why Paramount will be able to get away with a sloppily sharpened ugly old Gladiator master.
Sorry about the whole rant but this had to be said.
By Roland Öller on Aug 25, 2009
Roland, you’re entitled to your own opinions man… thanks for the personal attacks too… those made my day. LOL
By Justin Sluss on Aug 25, 2009
P.S. go bash Blu-ray.com too, they gave it a 4.5 for VQ.
By Justin Sluss on Aug 25, 2009
UPDATE: “I’m happy to report I saw no problems in the video presentation (encode) in terms of compression or any use of filters that weren’t intentional by the filmmakers or caused by the camera they shot the film on. This earns a very impressive, honestly perfect aside from limitations of the camera it was shot on, “5 Star Rating” for overall video quality and joins what is now becoming many Lionsgate titles on Blu-ray Disc to receive this rating.“
By Justin Sluss on Aug 25, 2009
It’s limitations of the camera itself here not the encode. It’s the filmmakers fault and not the studio if there is any problem in this case. I see no problem but apparently you do. You stick with your opinion and I’ll stick with mine. When it streets and people see it we’ll let them be the judge. Don’t attack me or any of my staff personally EVER in a comment. Leave constructive criticisms if you will but keep it above the belt!
By Justin Sluss on Aug 25, 2009
In conclusion, I’ll add that I personally own a Canon HD camcorder myself and they are great cameras… Sure it’s not the ideal camera to shoot a major motion picture on or something you’d expect to earn a “5 Star Rating” in terms of video quality but the way it was used here it does and works SUPERB!
By Justin Sluss on Aug 25, 2009
Well, I can’t complain about those Jason pics (NSFW)!
By Peter on Aug 25, 2009
Roland:
I also use the XH-A1, and I agree, it is heavily compressed, being an HDV-based camcorder, but it also achieves great results as a 1080i unit. Sure it’s not true HD, but does it really matter? The end result still looks great, and we both know that there are going to be issues with compression down the line if your source is not uncompressed 1920x1080p.
However, taking all of that into consideration, I’m willing to bet that this is the best the film will ever look, and I don’t think that the encode is to blame, so why would we take it out on Lionsgate?
Bear in mind, we debated about the artifacts, but decided that they were inherent limitations with the video source (though we didn’t know which camera was used at the time of writing) and it wasn’t appropriate to dock the disc’s VQ score.
Also, you should take the screenshots for what they are, and try not to invest too much stock in them, one way or another. They’re a reference, nothing more. Oftentimes, film’s don’t look all that great when they’re paused, or in this case with a screengrab, but they look perfectly fine in motion. Whether it’s frame interpolation, film grain, or source noise, screenshots have a way of making the presentation look slightly less appealing in some cases. Therefore, my suggestion is that you wait to see the disc when it comes out, and make your own assessment based off that.
Lastly, it’s unnecessary to attack us. After all, we’re working day and night to inform you , the readers and fans of the films, which discs are worth your time and money. We’re here to help you. So please keep that in mind the next time you aim to insult one of our reviewers. Like Justin said above, try and keep the comments here constructive.
By James Segars on Aug 25, 2009
Well put James, well put.
By Justin Sluss on Aug 25, 2009
I understand your reasoning and I hope that you will accept my sincere and honest apology that my comment came out too harsh. I didn´t choose my words wisely. (That Gladiator-comment was completely uncalled for!) I guess that I was just a little too shocked that an HDV-image could get a perfect rating.
Of course I do understand the argument that you were only reviewing the “encode” on the disc. This however (to me) seems to be difficult in this case. Would a movie that was shot on a cellphone get a 5-star rating if the encode on the disc was flawless? Where do you draw the line? That´s what´s bothering me here and there is no easy answer.
!
My constructive criticism of your review would be that the INHERENT flaws of the source are not sufficiently mentioned.
!
I guess this is a question of personal taste and “definition” of the five-star-rating. The Crank 2 Blu-Ray IS a perfect representation of the original source and that is more than a lot of other Blu-Ray releases can claim. In that way, the five stars are justified.
!
However this is not the best, Blu-Ray can be and therein lies my problem.
!
So again: I am sorry, that my first comment on this site was such an (overly) negative one. I visit highdefdiscnews very frequently and I enjoy what you guys write and offer. Keep up the good work and don´t hold my first comment against me in the future. We are all enthusiasts but I´ll keep it more civil from now on.
Roland
By Roland Öller on Aug 25, 2009
I have to admit, that one frame on pic 11 doesn’t look that good. But on a few of the pics you can count the stubble.
I wish they would have stuck with the Cameras for the first 1, but I don’t mind as much since they seemed to want to bring the “crazy” big time for this one.
Here’s a little article on the cameras and why they were used.
http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/7771/tcid/1
By charle on Aug 25, 2009
Roland: Apology accepted.
By Justin Sluss on Aug 25, 2009
Roland:
I really appreciate your followup and your apology.
The fact of the matter is that you’re right about the quality of the encode vs. the quality of the presentation. Oftentimes we don’t run into these predicaments because the source medium (film/video) is rarely the culprit — which is not to say the present master. However, in the case of films like “28 Days Later”, “The Blair Witch Project” and any other video based film, we as reviewers have to make a judgment call for better or worse. Thankfully, “Crank 2″ was shot in HD so it translates better than the other SD/mixed media films formerly mentioned. And while “Blair Witch” hasn’t come out on BD, that might be a blessing in disguise considering the overwhelming distaste and rejection that “28 Days Later” received when it was released on BD.
The point being that when the source is limited, our expectations are managed (lowered), but as is the case on occasion, on top of the already low expectations, we’re hit with pervasive edge enhancement, and countless digital artifacts (28 Days Later), and so the disc can’t possibly achieve high marks in the video quality area.
That is not to say that 28 Days Later could have received a 5-Star Rating if the digital enhancements weren’t there, because it will never be an eye opening visual presentation, as far as detail and clarity are concerned, which brings me to another point.
I myself do not adhere to an “Absolute Scale” when it comes to judging the video quality. Instead I prefer a relative scale that takes into account the age of the film, the source, the master, any restorative efforts, and the encode on the disc, as well as previous releases, if any. It’s a far more complex grading scale than comparing the disc against other Blu-ray discs, and determining where it fits in the overall tier. In addition to that, I think its also more helpful to the fans interested in the movie. For example, I recently gave Assault on Precinct 13 a near perfect score for video quality. I have no doubt that there are people out there that would argue against that rating, but I also know that there are people out there that don’t think the Godfather restoration is worthy of 5-Stars either — which it most certainly is.
This is becoming long winded, but the point I’m trying to make is that if you take every Blu-ray on a case by case basis, I think you’ll be able to enjoy more titles — even though they might not be the sharpest and most eye-popping presentations — because you can appreciate the overall picture quality inherent to the individual film, as opposed to the Blu-ray catalog at large.
Furthermore, I’ve tried to make a distinction in my reviews when it comes to “Demo Quality” or “Reference Quality” vs. “Demo Disc” material. I found the audio on “Shall We Dance” to be absolutely perfect, and worthy of 5-Stars, but it would be one of the last discs I ever chose to pop in to demonstrate the Blu-ray format for a friend/family member. Do you see where I’m coming from? Does anyone see where I’m coming from?
By James Segars on Aug 26, 2009
I absolutely see where you are coming from.
I have been thinking about the star-system some more and besides the fact that it´s nit-picky to argue about such things, I realized what´s most important about it:
If people go through the “trouble” of seeking out reviews of a Blu-Ray, and want to buy it, enthusiasts mostly wonder: “Is it safe to buy or not? Is something wrong with this disc?”
When the format launched, I was somewhat naively expecting that studios would always do their best to release movies in the best quality possible. That is not the case.
People want to be warned of “Gangs of New York”-catastrophies.
And everything in between so they know what to expect.
Chances are that if you want to buy Crank 2, you are probably already aware of the way it looks. All you want to know is: Does it look as good as it can and is it “safe” to buy?
And that´s what the five (or four or four and a half) stars tell you.
Everything else is a difference of opinion. I just had a big difference of opinion in this case.
By Roland Öller on Aug 26, 2009
James,
I’m right with on your comments buddy.I base my reviews the same way.Too many reviewers nowadays think every film is supposed to have no film grain or that it should look shiny.That is not the case.As I stated in my “The Last Starfighter” or “Ghostbusters” reviews,this is the finest quality these films have ever been presented on the home format and yes they do have grain and don’t have that “3-d pop” that so many look for with the Blu-ray format.But for my money I would rather see atrue representation of the film source than a plasticy looking mess throughout caused by DNR.
I enjoyed reading everyone’s comments and think it is nice that the discussion was kept constructive.It nice to hear from various points of view.I look forward to hearing mnoe from our readers.
Take care everyone.Have a good day.
By Gerald on Aug 26, 2009