RDK Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 I generally try to avoid recommending films, but figured I'd make an exception here because this one might be flying under your radar. I also haven't actually seen it yet, but I have read the screenplay and the early reviews have been very positive, leading me to believe that this one has only improved in the process. Crash opens tomorrow and should be one of the better films of the year. The script knocked me out when I read it a year or two ago. It's got a great cast and a compelling, provocative storyline that should generate a lot of debate/discussion. Don't want to give too much away - the plot's difficult to explain in brief anyway - so check out the official site for the trailer and other info. I'm very excited about this one... http://www.crashfilm.com/ Quote
tonym Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 At first I was thinking, 'Crash', from about 6 or 7 years ago???? Then I had a skim thro' the site. Looks good. We'll probably have to wait a bit longer for it here though Quote
jlhoots Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 I'm going to see it Saturday. "Buzz" pre-release has been good. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 So after visiting the website, it sounds like another Magnolia; is that accurate, or is it something entirely different? Quote
patricia Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 (edited) At first I was thinking, 'Crash', from about 6 or 7 years ago???? Then I had a skim thro' the site. Looks good. We'll probably have to wait a bit longer for it here though I thought the same thing, David Cronenberg's very bold "Crash". Although Paul Haggis is indeed another Canadian, this is HIS film and has nothing to do with the earlier film, although they do have the same title. Paul Haggis first came to my attention with his creation of the extremely skillful and witty writing for the series, "Due South", shown both here in Canada and in the U.S. Every single character, no matter how small, was finely drawn and perfectly realized. His writing of the screenplay for Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" was for some the first that some had ever heard of Haggis, but his talent has been evident for twenty years. This is Haggis' directorial debut and it is amazingly good. Check out the review in last week's "The New Yorker" for a great synopsis of the plot and players, as well as a very positive piece. Edited May 8, 2005 by patricia Quote
jlhoots Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 And I thought he directed Leaving Las Vegas, but that was Mike Figgis. Anyway the movie was great. Fantastic ensemble acting. Wonderful direction (IMHO). I understand the Magnolia comparison (except snow falls out of the sky, instead of frogs), but my enjoyment was not compromised. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 The reason I asked if the Magnolia comparison was fair is because I just saw Magnolia recently and was deeply disappointed. Quote
Peter Johnson Posted May 9, 2005 Report Posted May 9, 2005 Phew. Tough watch. Went to see it tonight, and while I'm glad I'm did, I'm left feeling very unsettled, and very sad... *SPOILERS BELOW IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT* One thing i'm VERY glad about is the fact that there wasn't a "kumbaya" moment at the end where everyone held hands and said, "yeah! We don't need stereotypes, we love each other, we can all get along!" That would have been extremely disingenuous, imo--but at the same time, I can't remember seeing a move that left so much un-settled. The acting was terrific--the characters genuinely expressed pain and anguish in a way I haven't seen in a long time on film; but...well, I'm not expressing myself well, but I'm just left..._sad_ by the whole thing. I need to chew on it and revisit this discussion. Quote
wesbed Posted May 9, 2005 Report Posted May 9, 2005 (edited) I had the pleasure of viewing Crash this evening. In short, it was nothing less than a terrific film. Considering this film is still early in its release and considering this film is full of potential spoilers, I will write only in generalities in this post. The film is full of good writing, good acting, good camera work, a good choice of music and good directing. I enjoyed every minute of it. The characters appear genuine and fragile. As a viewer I was concerned about the fate of each character. I 'felt' for each character and wanted him/her to be well even when he/she wasn't doing well. It was interesting and enjoyable to watch each of the characters gain a new perspective on life during the progression of the film. The end of the film is very appropriate. The ending isn't happy nor is it sad. It is filled with a sense of longing for the times that have been and the times that have yet to be. This, to me, is the essence of real life. I departed the theater feeling very uplifted and clear of mind. Edited May 9, 2005 by wesbed Quote
wolff Posted September 10, 2005 Report Posted September 10, 2005 (edited) What an accurate, funny and yet human flic. The cast, many of whom are disrespected, finally got a decent script and showed their stuff. Growing up in this environment, the scenes were nothing new to me, and therefore it was like reliving 5 or 10 years of my life. But, when I look around my current environment, I hesitate to recommend this film. I doubt they will get it. Very, very provocative film. For me it provoked thoughts of pre and post Watts riots So Cal race relations. At any rate, this film was written, directed, acted and produced by some very knowledgeable and responsible folk. Well done!!! And, I absolutely love the picture of the governor of Cali in one of the scenes. Keep smokin' those Habanos, Arnie. Edited September 10, 2005 by wolff Quote
jazzbo Posted September 10, 2005 Report Posted September 10, 2005 Pretty good movie. I wasn't completely floored. There were some things that seemed less real to me than I imagine they could be, but overall one of the best movies of the last few years. Quote
MartyJazz Posted September 11, 2005 Report Posted September 11, 2005 My latest Netflix rental and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The title is apt as the characters and their (mis)conceptions about various "others" continually crash creating situations that also reveal in quite a few instances our common humanity. Provocative, great script and well done with especially good performances by Matt Dillon, Thandie Newton and, perhaps surprisingly, Ludacris. An excellent ensemble performance evocative of one of the better Altman films. Quote
Soulstation1 Posted March 21, 2006 Report Posted March 21, 2006 i'm confused WTF happened when the store owner went to shoot the guy who repaired his door? nobody was killed after he shot the gun?? wrong size bullets?? Quote
Quincy Posted March 21, 2006 Report Posted March 21, 2006 i'm confused WTF happened when the store owner went to shoot the guy who repaired his door? nobody was killed after he shot the gun?? wrong size bullets?? They were blanks. The kind that are used for starter pistols at track meets. No bullets, they just make a bang. Quote
(BB) Posted March 21, 2006 Report Posted March 21, 2006 i'm confused WTF happened when the store owner went to shoot the guy who repaired his door? nobody was killed after he shot the gun?? wrong size bullets?? The daughter just randomly chose the bullets when she bought the gun and she picked a box of blanks. Quote
Soulstation1 Posted March 21, 2006 Report Posted March 21, 2006 thanks i remember she got a free box of bullets w / purchase did they say in the movie it was starter pistol bullets if they did, i missed it Quote
sal Posted March 21, 2006 Report Posted March 21, 2006 Aside from Terrance Howard's performance, who I think is a fantastic actor, I absolutely despised this film. It didn't sit well with me at all from the opening shot, but the funny thing was that I had a really hard time putting into words why I felt this. It was very frustrating because it seems like everyone and their mothers likes this movie, and I got (and still get) alot of shit for not liking it. But then I came across this article, and after reading it, I feel like the author and I are kindred spirits. Its like he pulled the thoughts out of my head that I had such a hard time verbalizing, and gave them life. Enjoy! Oscar misfire: 'Crash' and burn Easy lessons for average people By Erik Lundegaard MSNBC contributor March 6, 2006 Talk about ruining a perfect evening. Jon Stewart was funny, George Clooney was sharp, Salma Hayek looked to-freakin'-die-for, Philip Seymour Hoffman won in humble-but-lovable fashion and Ang Lee, the director of one of the best movies of the year, became the first non-Caucasian to win the Academy Award for best director. Then Jack Nicholson, presenting the best picture winner, ruined everything. He didn't say "Brokeback Mountain"; he actually said..."Crash." No, he didn't. Did he? He did. My god. This is the worst best picture winner since "The Greatest Show on Earth" in 1952. It may be worse than that. "Greatest Show" was a dull, bloated romance set against the backdrop of a three-ring circus but at least it didn't pretend to be important. "Crash" thinks it's important. "Crash" thinks it's saying something bold about racism in America. But what is it saying? That we all bear some form of racism. That we all "stereotype" other races. That, when pressured, racist sentiments spill out of us as easily as escaped air. Here's my take. Yes, we all bear some form of racism - that's obvious. Yes, we all "stereotype" other races in some fashion - that's obvious. (Particularly obvious in the Los Angeles of "Crash," where so many characters are stereotypes.) But, no, we don't easily give voice to our racist sentiments. And that's why "Crash" rings so false. Last month I wrote an article on the best picture nominees (called "Anything But 'Crash'") in which I talked about how the most potent form of racism in this country is no longer overt but covert. Once upon a time, yes yes yes, it was overt, which is another reason why "Crash" sucks. It's doing what simple-minded generals do: It's fighting the last war. The "Crash" quiz Here, let's take a little quiz. Say you're an Asian woman who has just rear-ended the car in front of you. What do you do? Do you... Wait in your car until a police officer arrives Exchange licenses with the driver of the other car Notice that the driver of the other car is someone who looks like Jennifer Esposito, immediately assume she's Mexican-American (as opposed to, say, Italian-American), and then tell the African-American police officer that "Mexicans no know how to drive." How about this one? You're talking to a bureaucrat on the phone about getting extra care for your father who is having trouble urinating, and she is not helpful. You ask for her name and she tells you: Shaniqua Johnson. You still need her help. What do you say? "Shaniqua. That's a beautiful name." "Shaniqua. You could do a better job of helping my father, who is in pain. "Shaniqua. Big f---ing surprise that is." One last one. You've just been told by your hot, hot girlfriend, with whom you're lucky to be sleeping in the first place, that she is not Mexican as you presumed; that her mother is from Puerto Rico and her father is from El Salvador. What do you say? "I'm sorry, honey. I'm surprised I didn't know that. Now come back to bed." "Really? How did they meet?" "Who took [all Latinos] and taught them to park their cars on their lawns?" And on and on and on. Every scene. Put a little pressure on somebody and they blurt simplistic racist sentiments. Right in the face of someone of that race. Worse, none of it feels like sentiments these characters would actually say. It feels like sentiments writer/director Paul Haggis imposed upon them to make his grand, dull point about racism, when a more telling point about racism might have emerged if he'd just let them be. "Crash" is like a Creative Writing 101 demonstration of what not to do as a writer. To the Academy this meant two things: Best screenplay and best picture. The Sandra Bullock/Ludacris scene A few readers objected to my column last month - and will no doubt object to this one. They felt "Crash" taught them something important about race. More's the pity. They said they learned that even good people do bad things, and even bad people have moments of compassion. Sorry they didn't already know this. They felt like "Crash" was a movie the average person could support. "Average," I guess, is the key word here. Some agreed with me that the most potent form of racism today is covert rather than overt; but they added that this was a movie, after all, not a book, and in a movie you can't show characters thinking. Ah, but you can. Paul Haggis even did it in "Crash" - in the scene where Sandra Bullock's character grabs her husband's arm as two black men approach. Her move toward her husband is silent and instinctive, and Ludacris' character suspects she does what she does because he's black, and she's scared of him, but he has no evidence. We only get the evidence later, from her, when she argues with her husband about the Latino locksmith. And even this scene is handled ineptly. She should have argued with her husband upstairs, away from the help. But Haggis wanted her to complain about the Latino locksmith within earshot of the Latino locksmith - because apparently that's how we all do it. Lord knows if I don't trust someone because of their race and/or class I raise my objection within earshot of them. Doesn't everyone? The main point is that you can dramatize our more covert forms of racism. But here's how bad "Crash" is. Even though the Bullock/Ludacris scene is one of the more realistic scenes in the movie, it is still monumentally simplistic. I have a white female friend who lives close to the downtown area of her city. Usually she walks home from downtown. If she does this after dark, and two men are walking towards her, she'll cross to the other side of the street to avoid them. But if the two men are black? She won't do this, because she's afraid of appearing racist. That's how much of a conundrum race is in this country. "Crash" didn't begin to scratch that surface. Losing Jim So why did it win? There are rumors that older Academy members shied away from even viewing "Brokeback Mountain" for the usual homophobic reasons. Lionsgate also pushed "Crash" on Academy voters; it handed out a record number of DVDs and advertised heavily. I don't know which explanation bothers me more. All I know is I feel sick. It feels like the '72 Olympic basketball finals, when the Russians cheated and won; it feels like the '85 World Series when a blown call in game six tilted the balance towards the Royals. It feels like the good guys wuz robbed. My friend Jim is more interested in the Academy than anyone I know who isn't involved in the industry. (He's a chauffeur in Seattle.) By early summer he's already talking up possible nominees. The discussion reaches a fever pitch in November and December when the prestige pictures are rolled out and critics make their "best of" announcements. He goes to see these films. He talks about them. He actually cares. Not anymore. "Crash's" win did him in. The Academy, he said afterwards, "is not a serious body of voters who vote rationally. If they're influenced by a DVD sales pitch, they're not worth my time." Are they worth anyone's time? Once again, they showed themselves susceptible to something other than a legitimate search for "the best." Once again, marketing appears to have won. The Academy is 78 years old and acting every bit of it, and last night they took another doddering step towards irrelevancy. Quote
RDK Posted March 21, 2006 Author Report Posted March 21, 2006 i'm confused WTF happened when the store owner went to shoot the guy who repaired his door? nobody was killed after he shot the gun?? wrong size bullets?? The daughter just randomly chose the bullets when she bought the gun and she picked a box of blanks. It wasn't random - she chose the blanks. (But is a bit ambiguous, which led to a spirited debate here in the office.) Quote
RDK Posted March 21, 2006 Author Report Posted March 21, 2006 Sal, you're not alone. Though i thought Crash the best (or at least my favorite) film of the year, I know many people who disliked it. That it is so polarizing is, to me, one of the things that makes it so interesting and compelling. I disagree with much of what the critic you quoted said about it, just as I disagreed with a local critic who disliked it because she felt the story very contrived because everyone kept "running into each other" over the course of the film - an idiotic criticism, imo, on par with not liking Star Wars because it's set in outer space. Quote
sheldonm Posted March 21, 2006 Report Posted March 21, 2006 Aside from Terrance Howard's performance, who I think is a fantastic actor, I absolutely despised this film. It didn't sit well with me at all from the opening shot, but the funny thing was that I had a really hard time putting into words why I felt this. It was very frustrating because it seems like everyone and their mothers likes this movie, and I got (and still get) alot of shit for not liking it. But then I came across this article, and after reading it, I feel like the author and I are kindred spirits. Its like he pulled the thoughts out of my head that I had such a hard time verbalizing, and gave them life. Enjoy! Oscar misfire: 'Crash' and burn Easy lessons for average people By Erik Lundegaard MSNBC contributor March 6, 2006 Talk about ruining a perfect evening. Jon Stewart was funny, George Clooney was sharp, Salma Hayek looked to-freakin'-die-for, Philip Seymour Hoffman won in humble-but-lovable fashion and Ang Lee, the director of one of the best movies of the year, became the first non-Caucasian to win the Academy Award for best director. Then Jack Nicholson, presenting the best picture winner, ruined everything. He didn't say "Brokeback Mountain"; he actually said..."Crash." No, he didn't. Did he? He did. My god. This is the worst best picture winner since "The Greatest Show on Earth" in 1952. It may be worse than that. "Greatest Show" was a dull, bloated romance set against the backdrop of a three-ring circus but at least it didn't pretend to be important. "Crash" thinks it's important. "Crash" thinks it's saying something bold about racism in America. But what is it saying? That we all bear some form of racism. That we all "stereotype" other races. That, when pressured, racist sentiments spill out of us as easily as escaped air. Here's my take. Yes, we all bear some form of racism - that's obvious. Yes, we all "stereotype" other races in some fashion - that's obvious. (Particularly obvious in the Los Angeles of "Crash," where so many characters are stereotypes.) But, no, we don't easily give voice to our racist sentiments. And that's why "Crash" rings so false. Last month I wrote an article on the best picture nominees (called "Anything But 'Crash'") in which I talked about how the most potent form of racism in this country is no longer overt but covert. Once upon a time, yes yes yes, it was overt, which is another reason why "Crash" sucks. It's doing what simple-minded generals do: It's fighting the last war. The "Crash" quiz Here, let's take a little quiz. Say you're an Asian woman who has just rear-ended the car in front of you. What do you do? Do you... Wait in your car until a police officer arrives Exchange licenses with the driver of the other car Notice that the driver of the other car is someone who looks like Jennifer Esposito, immediately assume she's Mexican-American (as opposed to, say, Italian-American), and then tell the African-American police officer that "Mexicans no know how to drive." How about this one? You're talking to a bureaucrat on the phone about getting extra care for your father who is having trouble urinating, and she is not helpful. You ask for her name and she tells you: Shaniqua Johnson. You still need her help. What do you say? "Shaniqua. That's a beautiful name." "Shaniqua. You could do a better job of helping my father, who is in pain. "Shaniqua. Big f---ing surprise that is." One last one. You've just been told by your hot, hot girlfriend, with whom you're lucky to be sleeping in the first place, that she is not Mexican as you presumed; that her mother is from Puerto Rico and her father is from El Salvador. What do you say? "I'm sorry, honey. I'm surprised I didn't know that. Now come back to bed." "Really? How did they meet?" "Who took [all Latinos] and taught them to park their cars on their lawns?" And on and on and on. Every scene. Put a little pressure on somebody and they blurt simplistic racist sentiments. Right in the face of someone of that race. Worse, none of it feels like sentiments these characters would actually say. It feels like sentiments writer/director Paul Haggis imposed upon them to make his grand, dull point about racism, when a more telling point about racism might have emerged if he'd just let them be. "Crash" is like a Creative Writing 101 demonstration of what not to do as a writer. To the Academy this meant two things: Best screenplay and best picture. The Sandra Bullock/Ludacris scene A few readers objected to my column last month - and will no doubt object to this one. They felt "Crash" taught them something important about race. More's the pity. They said they learned that even good people do bad things, and even bad people have moments of compassion. Sorry they didn't already know this. They felt like "Crash" was a movie the average person could support. "Average," I guess, is the key word here. Some agreed with me that the most potent form of racism today is covert rather than overt; but they added that this was a movie, after all, not a book, and in a movie you can't show characters thinking. Ah, but you can. Paul Haggis even did it in "Crash" - in the scene where Sandra Bullock's character grabs her husband's arm as two black men approach. Her move toward her husband is silent and instinctive, and Ludacris' character suspects she does what she does because he's black, and she's scared of him, but he has no evidence. We only get the evidence later, from her, when she argues with her husband about the Latino locksmith. And even this scene is handled ineptly. She should have argued with her husband upstairs, away from the help. But Haggis wanted her to complain about the Latino locksmith within earshot of the Latino locksmith - because apparently that's how we all do it. Lord knows if I don't trust someone because of their race and/or class I raise my objection within earshot of them. Doesn't everyone? The main point is that you can dramatize our more covert forms of racism. But here's how bad "Crash" is. Even though the Bullock/Ludacris scene is one of the more realistic scenes in the movie, it is still monumentally simplistic. I have a white female friend who lives close to the downtown area of her city. Usually she walks home from downtown. If she does this after dark, and two men are walking towards her, she'll cross to the other side of the street to avoid them. But if the two men are black? She won't do this, because she's afraid of appearing racist. That's how much of a conundrum race is in this country. "Crash" didn't begin to scratch that surface. Losing Jim So why did it win? There are rumors that older Academy members shied away from even viewing "Brokeback Mountain" for the usual homophobic reasons. Lionsgate also pushed "Crash" on Academy voters; it handed out a record number of DVDs and advertised heavily. I don't know which explanation bothers me more. All I know is I feel sick. It feels like the '72 Olympic basketball finals, when the Russians cheated and won; it feels like the '85 World Series when a blown call in game six tilted the balance towards the Royals. It feels like the good guys wuz robbed. My friend Jim is more interested in the Academy than anyone I know who isn't involved in the industry. (He's a chauffeur in Seattle.) By early summer he's already talking up possible nominees. The discussion reaches a fever pitch in November and December when the prestige pictures are rolled out and critics make their "best of" announcements. He goes to see these films. He talks about them. He actually cares. Not anymore. "Crash's" win did him in. The Academy, he said afterwards, "is not a serious body of voters who vote rationally. If they're influenced by a DVD sales pitch, they're not worth my time." Are they worth anyone's time? Once again, they showed themselves susceptible to something other than a legitimate search for "the best." Once again, marketing appears to have won. The Academy is 78 years old and acting every bit of it, and last night they took another doddering step towards irrelevancy. ...you deserve shit, you don't even like Hank Mobley!!! your friend, m! Quote
Quincy Posted March 21, 2006 Report Posted March 21, 2006 The daughter just randomly chose the bullets when she bought the gun and she picked a box of blanks. It wasn't random - she chose the blanks. (But is a bit ambiguous, which led to a spirited debate here in the office.) The way I remember it (which may be wrong) was that she says something like "just grab any old box of bullets off the shelf. How about those over there." The owner, with whom she was arguing with, asks "do you know what type of bullets these are?" She says yes, but I got the impression that she really didn't, that she just wanted to get out of there. I'd have to see the movie again to see if she's really looking at the box that she picks. Quote
RDK Posted March 21, 2006 Author Report Posted March 21, 2006 The daughter just randomly chose the bullets when she bought the gun and she picked a box of blanks. It wasn't random - she chose the blanks. (But is a bit ambiguous, which led to a spirited debate here in the office.) The way I remember it (which may be wrong) was that she says something like "just grab any old box of bullets off the shelf. How about those over there." The owner, with whom she was arguing with, asks "do you know what type of bullets these are?" She says yes, but I got the impression that she really didn't, that she just wanted to get out of there. I'd have to see the movie again to see if she's really looking at the box that she picks. Well, her "yes" makes it ambiguous. Does she realize that they're blanks, thus suggesting that she's purposely giving blanks to her trigger-happy father, hoping that this will prevent him from actually shooting and killing someone (which it does). Or is she unaware of what they are, making it mere chance that her father doesn't kill anyone? (If i recall, the woman herself works in the coroner's office, so i'd think she knows a bit about bullets and the harm they caqn do.) Either way, i think it leads to an incredibly moving scene in the film and a provocative discourse afterward. Quote
Quincy Posted March 21, 2006 Report Posted March 21, 2006 Well, her "yes" makes it ambiguous...(If i recall, the woman herself works in the coroner's office, so i'd think she knows a bit about bullets and the harm they caqn do.) Oh, I forgot about that. Hmmm.... Either way, i think it leads to an incredibly moving scene in the film and a provocative discourse afterward. That it does. I understand why some don't like it, but I did. As for worst Oscar winner since ______, I'm amazed at the number of critics who are letting Kramer Vs. Kramer slide on by. Though maybe that's more a case of Oscar injustice for winning over Apocalypse Now. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted March 22, 2006 Report Posted March 22, 2006 I don't think it was that bad of a movie, but I'll certainly agree with "simplistic" and toss in an "overrated". Quote
md655321 Posted March 22, 2006 Report Posted March 22, 2006 (edited) I think Crash is unquestionably one of the worst Oscar winners of all time. I despise the film as well, and consider it be a simplistic piece of trash. In a way, it CELEBRATES racism more than it criticizes it, and deals with racism on such a sophomoric level that it would be impossible to create a positive dialogue on race from its 'statements.' Like Sandra Bullock's little rant, are we supposed to sympathize that her racism was 'justified'? Or the gun store owner who just suddenly started calling a customer bin Laden? That is not how racism works, atleast not since 1923. The problem with racism in this country has virtually nothing to do with petty personal animosity, nor is racism often (ever?) manifested in such blatant ways. I know racists who thought the movie was good, largely because they dont know they are racists. It is basically for people to watch and say 'oh, i am glad i am not racist.' Im also a bit shocked that there is a debate about the bullets. The daughter clearly bought blanks on purpose and they practically flashed a neon sign telling the audience they were blanks. And to be sure, they told us AGAIN after the 'shooting' Ive seen more subtlety in Keanu Reeves movies. The shooting itself was also completely unneccesary and designed purely for an exaggerrated emotional effect, as opposed to any exhibition of real emotion. So far the only good I have heard about the movie is that it is about race, I have yet to hear a cogent argument that otherwise supports the 'brilliance' of this film. I apologize for this tone, but I am AMAZED that this film is viewed the way it is, and it makes me weep for race relations in this country. Does it surprise anyone that it was written by a middle-aged white guy? Edited March 22, 2006 by md655321 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.