bashing Crash (again)
Because someone asked me over the weekend, here's why I thought "Crash" was such a bad movie:
1) It beat you over the head with its point. I was just stunned to read that the movie is only 100 minutes, because it feels much longer. The movies constantly makes its points in a way that's about as subtle as the filmmaking in a sequel to a bad Vin Diesel movie. Compare it to the far more elegant unfolding of themes demonstrated in some of this year's other message films--"Good Night and Good Luck," "Munich" and "Syriana" all being good examples.
2) Its point isn't very original. We meet characters who appear to be evil, but actually also have some good in them. (Good and evil in the context of the movie being largely defined by how they view other races.) And we also meet characters who appear to be good, but are actually flawed. This is only a revelation for people who are so narrow-minded and naive that they see the world as being completely black and white.
3) Despite the fact that the film has been (in my opinion at least) boosted as an Oscar nominee because it was swept up in this year's crop of politically aware films, "Crash" doesn't even have a positive message. Just because the film deals with the issue of racism doesn't mean that it contributes anything helpful to the conversation. Again, the film's point is that even people who seemingly aren't racists are at least a little bit racist, and people who are blatantly racist can also have redeeming qualities. While the point is fair, it's not overly positive or helpful to society; the film essentially argues that racists aren't so bad, and everyone is a racist anyway. Is that really a "Brokeback Mountain"-esque message of tolerance, as Academy voters seem to think?
4) It's contrived. The film is full of bizarre coincidences, without which the story would not tie together at all. I know that with any multi-character film like this, you're going to see some flimsy excuses to tie the characters together. But "Crash" is a worst case scenario. Without giving too much away, the storyline involving Matt Dillon's character stretches plausibility, to put it mildly.
5) This doesn't directly relate to "Crash," but there were so many better movies this year. "The Squid and the Whale," "Cinderella Man," "Match Point," and "King Kong" all would have been worthy choices. I didn't love "Walk the Line," but it would have been a reasonable pick. To put it in slightly more scientific terms, rottentomato.com compiles film reviews from all over the country, and gave "Crash" a lower composite rating than any of the other nominees, or any of the five alternate choices I just suggested. In fact, "Crash" ranked 56th among the movies rottentomatoes.com covered in 2005--it's composite ratings were worse than movies like "Red Eye," "Pride and Prejudice," "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Serenity."
So there you go, that's why I didn't like it, and hate that it was nominated for Best Picture.
1) It beat you over the head with its point. I was just stunned to read that the movie is only 100 minutes, because it feels much longer. The movies constantly makes its points in a way that's about as subtle as the filmmaking in a sequel to a bad Vin Diesel movie. Compare it to the far more elegant unfolding of themes demonstrated in some of this year's other message films--"Good Night and Good Luck," "Munich" and "Syriana" all being good examples.
2) Its point isn't very original. We meet characters who appear to be evil, but actually also have some good in them. (Good and evil in the context of the movie being largely defined by how they view other races.) And we also meet characters who appear to be good, but are actually flawed. This is only a revelation for people who are so narrow-minded and naive that they see the world as being completely black and white.
3) Despite the fact that the film has been (in my opinion at least) boosted as an Oscar nominee because it was swept up in this year's crop of politically aware films, "Crash" doesn't even have a positive message. Just because the film deals with the issue of racism doesn't mean that it contributes anything helpful to the conversation. Again, the film's point is that even people who seemingly aren't racists are at least a little bit racist, and people who are blatantly racist can also have redeeming qualities. While the point is fair, it's not overly positive or helpful to society; the film essentially argues that racists aren't so bad, and everyone is a racist anyway. Is that really a "Brokeback Mountain"-esque message of tolerance, as Academy voters seem to think?
4) It's contrived. The film is full of bizarre coincidences, without which the story would not tie together at all. I know that with any multi-character film like this, you're going to see some flimsy excuses to tie the characters together. But "Crash" is a worst case scenario. Without giving too much away, the storyline involving Matt Dillon's character stretches plausibility, to put it mildly.
5) This doesn't directly relate to "Crash," but there were so many better movies this year. "The Squid and the Whale," "Cinderella Man," "Match Point," and "King Kong" all would have been worthy choices. I didn't love "Walk the Line," but it would have been a reasonable pick. To put it in slightly more scientific terms, rottentomato.com compiles film reviews from all over the country, and gave "Crash" a lower composite rating than any of the other nominees, or any of the five alternate choices I just suggested. In fact, "Crash" ranked 56th among the movies rottentomatoes.com covered in 2005--it's composite ratings were worse than movies like "Red Eye," "Pride and Prejudice," "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Serenity."
So there you go, that's why I didn't like it, and hate that it was nominated for Best Picture.
posted by Zackattack at 3:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home