Critical response
The film was not screened for critics. Rotten Tomatoes reported a score of 64%, with an average rating of 6.00/10, based on 72 reviews. The website's consensus reads, "Crank: High Voltage delivers on its promises: a fast-paced, exciting thrill ride that doesn't take itself too seriously." On Metacritic, the film earned "mixed or average reviews," with a weighted average of 41 out of 100 based on 15 reviews. Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film a grade of "C−" on a scale of A to F.
Critics assessed the film in comparison to the original, to mixed reactions. The Hollywood Reporter critic Frank Scheck said it "follows the same formula as the first, with one difference: They've managed to ramp up the action and vulgarity beyond the insane heights of the original." Chris Tilly for IGN UK said that "if anything, [the sequel] is even more outlandish and ridiculous than its predecessor." Rob Nelson for Variety wrote, "Yet another D.O.A. for the ADD era, Crank: High Voltage rewards the sizable cult audience of 2006's Crank with more of the same, only stupider." The New York Times critic Jeannette Catsoulis called it "boorish, bigoted and borderline pornographic" like the original. Both Stephanie Zacharek and Alexander Larman criticized how the sequel had dropped the "good-naturedness" of the original in favor of shocking the viewers with excessive profanity and mayhem; Larman said that "the sequel seems content to wallow in mean-spirited unpleasantness, apparently on the grounds that not enough films these days feature, say, graphic genital torture or a man slicing off his own nipples."
Nelson opined that the film is "[n]otable for being perhaps the first pic to feature an anal rape by shotgun (among countless other atrocities)", and called the public sex scene "borderline pornographic". Tilly noted the influence the Grand Theft Auto video game series had on the film due to its bloody violence and mayhem, commenting that "[b]oth the hunter and the hunted kill everything in their sights, resulting in blood-baths all over town." He and Zacharek considered both the anally-inserted shotgun and nipple self-mutilation scenes as some of the most unpleasant moments in the film, though both critics were divided on their reactions to the directors' approach in conveying these images. Tilly opined, "It's as if writer-directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor have seen that people liked the holy trinity of sex, violence and bad language of their first film, and so injected ever-increasing amounts of all three into the sequel"; Zacharek was otherwise critical, writing, "The first time around, Neveldine and Taylor treated the movie's cartoony violence as a sick joke; this time around, it's an applied science, and the strain of their efforts shows." Adam Markovitz for Entertainment Weekly, however, complimented the film as "an eye-popping strobe of flesh and blood" albeit polarizing. Scheck wrote, "From Chev's sticking a shotgun barrel up a bad guy's ass to his final turning toward the camera to give the audience the finger, the film makes clear that subtlety is not part of the equation."
Some critics were displeased with how the film treated minorities. Catsoulis said the film "vigorously abuses Mexicans, Asians, women and the disabled with equal-opportunity glee." Larman pointed out what he saw as "extreme misogyny and racism", citing one usage of the racial slur "chink"; he noted that although "nothing should be off limits in comedy", the film only amounted to "flashy, arrogant emptiness". Zacharek found the homosexual jokes "particularly unsettling", and said the film treated Efren Ramirez's new role "as if he's as worthless as the women". Scheck wrote, however, "What makes [the film] all palatable is the comic lunacy injected into the proceedings, which often take on a decidedly surreal quality."
The film's visuals were also a subject of criticism. Nelson wrote, "As in Crank, high-def video shooting lends a suitably garish immediacy to the frenzied action. [...] The directors are content to replay the same Red Bull six-pack aesthetic — rack zooms, split-screens, and whiplash pans aplenty — with been-there-done-that disinterest." Zacharek complained that the actresses were "made to look as cheap and ugly as possible" by being "shot in hard light that highlights every skin flaw", and that the "choppy" camerawork made Jason Statham barely noticeable. Markovitz, however, said the film "is as visually stunning as it is absurdly offensive."
Zacharek said Statham lacked the energy and charisma he displayed in the original, lamenting that the sequel made him "[look] miserable, as if appearing in this lousy picture just sucked all the heart right out of him." Some critics, however, praised Statham's performance; Scheck said the actor "anchors the proceedings with his simmering charisma and impressive physicality", while Tilly called it one of his best efforts "with little seeming regard for his own physical well-being".
.jpg?width=400)
