This is topic Crash (2005) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000920

---

Posted by Stephen LaPadula (Member # 3050) on 05-06-2005, 10:42 AM:
 
Unbelievably great film....no words can describe the emotions you feel watching these characters. Hands down best film so far this year. Each character nailed their part and fit perfectly in their roles.

I had the pleasure of seeing the screening on Wednesday with a panel for Q&A with writer Paul Haggis Don Cheadle and Larenz Tate with a few others not associated with the film.

I bet most of you have seen the trailer and said WTF is this movie about? I saw it many times and could not figure it out, but don't be mislead, GO SEE IT!!

[ 05-25-2005, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Aaron Sisemore ]
 

---

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 05-23-2005, 07:26 PM:
 
I saw this gem over the weekend. Its a piece of art. I enjoyed every minute of it, right up to the end. Reminded me of MAGNOLIA, and REQUIEM for a DREAM. Way too kewl. Two thumbs way up!
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 05-25-2005, 03:16 AM:
 
Oh man... where do I start. I knew this movie was going to be good, but dang it exceeded my expectations. I was moved in so many ways I felt this rush like I wanted to see more. Not because it lacked anything but because its so freakin' awesome. I walked out of the theater wanting to talk about how great it was, but didn't even know where to begin... there were so many cool parts to it. I became inspired in a way to make my own little movies again... that's how good this movie is.... The whole cast is amazing at playing their roles.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-25-2005, 09:45 AM:
 

quote: Jennifer Pan

---

I became inspired in a way to make my own little movies again...

---

quote: Don Anderson

---

kewl

---

quote:

---

I hope this doesn't mean that you're going to start smashing up cars and then, err... well, the less said about what happens next, the better. Rather Holly Hunter than me!

---

Wrong 'Crash'. Leo.

I believe this discussion is about the 2005 movie, not the 1996 one.

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Kelly Skaggs (Member # 1780) on 05-25-2005, 06:14 PM:
 
Seeing a movie this great gives hope for Hollywood. When they subject us to so much crap. Example Jar Jar Lucas' latest piece of dung.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-26-2005, 01:43 AM:
 

quote: Aaron Sisemore

---

Wrong 'Crash'. Leo.

---

Oops! I've just looked on IMDB and seen the entry on the new one.

I wonder if that film will also be released under the title Crash in Britain and Europe. The Cronenberg film caused a huge controversy when it came out here: conservative and religious lobby groups called for it to be banned, in response to which highbrow critics and civil libertarians defended it. In the end some towns did ban the film, including one a few miles up the road from the theatre I was working in at the time. We had packed houses night after night, though quite a few people walked out when they discovered that the film wasn't quite as titilating as they'd hoped. The fuss resurfaced when the video release came along.

I remember a friend in the US telling me that the 1997 Crash was only ever shown in a few arthouse venues and attracted hardly any attention. Presumably that's why another feature film with the same title is being released so quickly. I'll be interested to see if they rename it when it comes out here, given the massive shamozzle caused by the last one.

Jennifer - FYI, the Cronenberg film is based on a weird short story by J.G. Ballard, about a cult of people who are sexually aroused by the injuries caused in car crashes. Some of the scenes of these, err, 'encounters' (both the crashes and what happens after them!) don't leave much to the imagination, hence all the fuss when the film came out. It's a relief to know that you haven't graduated from BB guns to something more sinister!
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-29-2005, 02:27 PM:
 
I actually went into this movie with high expectations and came away a little disappointed. It had a lot of good scenes, but i fault the writer-director for not knowing when to ease up on hammering home his point. I usually am easy to please when it comes to racial dramas but this movie after having nearly won me over at different points, ended up turning me off a little with trying to find balancing bad outcomes where almost every character has to go through a high and a low. Also I hated the lazy use of music with people chanting or moaning in some foreign language (to add atmosphere, I guess). Who directed this - one of the Scott brothers? OK, I was just kidding.

Some of the things I disliked(just pointing out random examples - not necessarily the best ones). THe hispanic guy playing with his daughter in a scene that stretches way too long- I wish the dialogue was a little more subtle instead of like an afternoon school special. The twists were so frequent, I honestly predicted almost every single twist midway through the movie.

I did like the way the movie hinted at an affair between Brendan Fraser and Nona Gaye. That was about the only subtle thing in the movie. Also I thought Ludacris did a pretty decent job. And despite my overall negative review, I do think the movie is very watchable and will not bore you thanks to many good scenes in the movie. I liked the tv director story arc even if Thandie Newton has too much of a spoiled brat vibe in every movie she appears in.

The movie had a very grainy feel. Filmed in super 35. I would have thought super 16MM.

[ 05-29-2005, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Pravin Ratnam ]
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-31-2006, 03:33 AM:
 
I am surprised there are not more reviews on this movie. Did it only play on 16 screens nationwide? Anyway I just finished watching it on the popular DVD format which allows you to view movies stored on a CD-sized disc via space-age technology.

Having seen no trailers, commercials or the like, the only thing I really expected from this movie was a whole bunch of people of different ethnicities yelling at each other. I got a lot of that. Yelling is considered "good acting" in the eyes of Hollywood. As soon as the movie started I became very angry due to the massive influx of different studio logos I had to sit through. Like I care which studios were involved. Am I supposed to keep them in mind as I watch the movie? The story(s) finally begin and I am moderately entertained. I hate it when a movie has a bunch of thin stories and jumps back and forth between them (the last 4 Star Wars movies loved to do this). Some of the stories were good, others not so much. However the second hour got much better. If you can suffer through the first hour, the movie is quite worth the trip. The second hour justifies the existence of the first. I would watch it again and enjoy it. However all is not perfect in Crashland.

My gripes:
--Don Chandelier or whatever his name is looks completely unnatural with a cigarette. I don't understand why his character even smoked. It added nothing to the movie. In fact it detracted from it because it looked so odd. Hollywood is just obsessed with cigarettes. Losers. I hope that whoever decides that cigarettes need to be in movies gets lung cancer. In both lungs. One right after the other, not simultaneously.
SPOILERS
--It seemed completely out of character for the young cop to shoot the black guy. Also the car he set on fire was his own, and surely it can be traced back to him, charred or not. Dumbass. I hope he gets bird flu.
--I liked the soundtrack, but I feel that perhaps it was overused. Did we need to hear the same dramatic and emotional music when Sandra Bullock sprains her ankle as when we think a 5 year-old girl tragically gets shot? I think not.
END SPOILERS
--Many scenes were quite grainy. When two people in the same car were talking, the passenger would be grainy, but the driver would not be. I swear if I was able to read I'd look at the credits, find out who the DP was and write him a strongly worded letter!

Also, the DVD itself pissed me off. There were many scenes that looked like they were shot on video. Quite a few scenes had interlacing artifacts (as noticed when watching in state-of-the-art progressive scan). Either 1/6th of this movie was shot on video, or this DVD was poorly authored. I'm betting the latter. I do not understand this. It is NOT HARD to author a 24fps DVD. It is NOT HARD to make it so there are no interlacing artifacts ever. I do it all of the time. But then again, I know far more about DVD authoring than Hollywood. It is quite obvious that they know very little. Bunch o' amateurs, that's for sure. I hope they all are forced to pass a kidney stone the size of an apple with the texture of Edward James Olmos' face.

Also the DVD box said and I quote:

quote: Crash's DVD box

---

---

quote:

---

SPOILERS
--It seemed completely out of character for the young cop to shoot the black guy.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

So in conclusion: Good movie, crappy DVD.

---

• First Blood
  Rambo: First Blood II
  Rambo
  T2
  Running Man
  Basic Instinct
  Red Heat
  Dirty Dancing

Just to name a few.
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 03-31-2006, 12:10 PM:
 
Wow Joe, I'd never believe that you would ever have watched this movie.

For me... it was such a wonderful experience to watch it in a theatre rather than DVD. I tried recommending it to friends when it was still in the theatres but no one listened... they would say "I'll wait until it comes out on DVD." ..... HAHA HA HA

It is not often that I would really recommend people to catch it before its gone for good to DVD. People should really listen...
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-31-2006, 01:22 PM:
 
Theater = $8 plus crappier sound and sometimes crappier picture than my TV.

DVD = $0 (my friend is manager of a Blockbuster) with much better sound and sometimes picture.

DVD wins every time.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 03-31-2006, 01:30 PM:
 
Aren't these "afterlife" issues?
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 03-31-2006, 01:33 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

DVD wins every time.

---

Well, obviously not this time. There are a lot times that yes a DVD would make a better movie going experience... But not always. And of course getting to watch it for free on DVD is great... that's where it helps to have someone in the same city with theater ticket hook ups.

quote: Joe Redifer

---

So in conclusion: Good movie, crappy DVD.

---

 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-01-2006, 03:57 AM:
 
Yes, this time. No commercials to sit through, better sound, and an untouched wallet.
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 04-01-2006, 07:27 AM:
 
Yeah, forbid you ever touch your wallet...

Anyways, back to the movie... I'm glad it won best picture, even if everyone else says differently. I was cheering for it all the way... they don't make movies like this often.
 

---

Posted by Jason Winn (Member # 3568) on 04-03-2006, 01:25 AM:
 
I just saw this movie for the first time earlier tonight on Showtime. All I can say is "Damn! This movie is awesome!" From the moment this movie started until the credits rolled, it had me on the edge of my seat. It was like a 2 hour roller coaster ride. I loved every second of it. I actually cared about all the characters, which is rare in most movies nowadays. I even cared about the gang bangers! I think everyone should see this movie.

I wish I saw it in theatres. I'm sure it would've had a bigger impact on the big screen than it did on my piece of crap 19" Magnavox TV.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-18-2006, 03:30 AM:
 


Ok, this is a near-Afterlife post, but Joe started it. Just a quick question: WTF does this MEAN? What are the two graphics supposed to be showing? The box on the left labled "Standard TV" is not 4:3. The box on the right labeled "16:9 Television" might be, but that's not 1.85:1 which they then say is what the original theatrical release was, which it wasn't. Is this how they are trying to expain the difference between letterbox and DVD anamorphic? Are they tring to say you are going to get anamorphic image that produces 1.85:1 with this DVD? If so, then what does the line mean that says "Formated from the original 1.85:1 version in which the film was shot." To me that implies that they somehow CHANGED what you are going to see on the DVD from the original format, like when they announce (as if it is something to be proud of) at the beginning of films on broadcast tv, "Edited for time and content and formatted to fit your tv screen." If this DVD is in the original theatrical aspect ratio (1.85:1 ISN'T the original theatrical version, 2.39:1 is....small error, what?), then you don't need to change or "format" anything. Unless you are a jackass and don't know what you are doing, which the producers of the DVD evidently are.

DVD producers SUCK. So do their ass-wipe menus.
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 04-21-2006, 02:44 PM:
 
I watched it on shotime a few weeks ago. Was it good? Yes. Was it good enough to deserve best picture, no.

The best line in the movie is when the girl from Taxi just got mad at don cheadle for telling his mom that she was white. She then replies that she is aztec, mayan blah blah blah. Then don cheadle says "who got all those cultures together and taught them how to park on their lawn." It is funny because its true.

[ 04-21-2006, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Chris Hipp ]
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 04-21-2006, 04:31 PM:
 
I liked this movie, but it wasn't "Best Picture". It only won that because Walk The Line wasn't nominated.
 

---