What were the three times?

I felt that the 3 most powerful moments were when the little girl jumps in her father's arms in fron of the gun, when the gun goes off in Phillippe's car, and the scene with Dillon and Newton when he's saving her.

Also, do you think it has any Oscar possibilities at all? I'm really glad that you enjoyed it so much!

1) The little girl
2) Thandie Newton + Matt Dillon
3) When Larenz Tate is all "People, man, people."

Actually, the third time didn't really make me come close to crying, but the first one certainly did.

My heart sunk when the little girl scene happened. Haggis executed that so well, and it gave me a lump in my throat like the one that I had when Hilary Swank asks Clint to *spoiler* put her out of her misery.

I hope he's got one or two of those moments planned for Flags of Our fathers, which I am so very highly looking forward to.

I've been thinking about this comment - really all movies are "smoke and mirrors" anyway, right?

We're just lucky enough sometimes if the magic is done well enough and we are able to suspend our disbelief enough to enjoy some of them...

I guess. It's just that Crash was pushed beyond the limits of credibility in almost every single frame of film.

Depending on the subjet matter though some sense of realism is required. For Star Wars or Lord of the RIngs I can suspend all disbelief, but when a movie addresses an issue I deal with everyday if I have to suspend to much disbelief then what value does the movie have to me? This is not a move meant to enteritan, its meant ot be thought provoking, and for me it wasn't. It aked me to suspend me disbelief to the point where I was bored.

Dillon: Hey black lady, i'm going to trespass and abuse my authority over you while you freak out and swear at me.
Newton: Fuck everyone, this is absurd

Next Day

Newton: Stay away from me, you're evil
Dillon: Liston lady, I got my faults but in the end, I'm hear to do my duty and help you, regardless of my shady past

Newton: Crying, walking away, looks over her shoulder....slight smile...in the end, maybe cops really always do the right thing when it really is a "life" on the line. I guess you're not all bad.

O.J. Simpson trial: How did Mark Furhman get to take the stand?????

Good movie with some interesting performances.

B+

Is it possible some of the disagreement about the storyline with Thandie is a result of Thandie just not being a very good actress? In The Truth About Charlie (remake of the classic Charade) she goes through the movie grinning all the time in completely inappropriate places. It wouldn't surprise me if her smile to the cop was just her doing and not the script.

She was awesome in Beseiged and imho she was also awesome in Crash - I attribute any unfocused aspects of character to the director/writer's TV background - he's got the talent, but isn't giving himself enough time for the full big screen polishing...

Nah, I don't think that's it, I jsut found her beahvior, and to some dergree her husbands behavior unbelievable. It tok them awhiel to get nervous abotu ebig pulled over, they were laughing about getting caught doing this sexual act, when they fact that they wre caught give the police the right to arrest them...this ought to make them nervous. It woudl have been one thing if Howard had expected the cops to recognize him because he was famous.

For me, being black, I don't know when I get pulled over its I am going to be asked about my speeding , given my ticket/warning and allowed to leave..or held on teh side of the road for 2 hours, be accused of stealing my car, drinking, being high, made to walk the line, etc...all for driving 10 miles over the speed limit. The simpel fact that I get pulled over means no matter what I apparoach the cop coming over with a certain respect, I don't care what I was doing, I am not goign to laugh.

If a cop is mistreating you on the side of the road, there is nothing you can do then...except get shot. It seemed illogical to me, that Hewton and her husband did not take in acocunt hta being pulled over is not a game. That it is serious. I realize Newton's character was drunk, b ut she says later she's beenpoulled over many times (and she syas not like this, implying no oen ever raped her before), but for someone who's been pulled over she didn't act like it.

That said, another criticism I'll level at the film is, I cannot remember the name of a single character, in fact I did not know their names while watching the movie. I refer to everyone by the name of the actor playing the role. Why? Because I was never emotionall invested in this movie, I was never cared a bout anyone, I felt like I was wathcing the actors give a lesson on race, not a movie about characters with depth.

Archie, you needed to see how the smile was coached. It was an intentional scene, close up, faint smile through tears, fade to glory shot of cop. I think Newton is actually a very decent actress from what I've seen her in. In fact, i'd say the acting was the peak in this movie. Everyone took it very seriously. And she would have been quite convincing cussing out a cop and getting out of the car to confront him (even though he had said to stay in the car) if I had thought that scene was at all grounded in reality in the first place.

I'm going to make a broad statement that isn't even applicable to race when it comes to that scene. I've never seen anyone cuss out cops when they're pulled off the road late at night. Regardless of age, sex, race, religion, anything. I've been pulled over once. My mom's been pulled over twice. My dad has too. You quickly give them your registration very somberly because at least, you don't want a massive fine, at most, you don't want to be forced from your car, frisked, and pushed to the ground. I don't care who was in that car at the moment, that scene made zero sense. They were joking abd telling the cop to "get real" the minute they were puller over (My husband doesn't drink, he's a buddhist for goodness sakes). It was a silly way to bring about her frisking. Lacked a single once of convincibility. In a surreal "Brazil" world, that wouldn't matter. In fact, it would be encouraged. But Haggis was going for realism, not surrealism, so there's really no excuse for it, or any of the other seriously unconvincing scenes.

dolce, some of your reasoning really makes it look like you're reaching for reasons to not like it. Seriously.

Congrats! Brilliant discreditting of a post, part due!

I could have said the same thing about you reaching for reasons to like it, when you told ripper and loyal that they felt emotion when they quite clearly stated they didn't. Notice how I didn't, and stuck to my actual issues with the movie?

This is the second time you've blatantly tried to discredit my criticism about this movie by calling into question my personal motives for seeing and talking about the movie. Seeing as how I haven't done the same to you, I request you respond to why you thought in the scene was convincing, or why you think the situation did not need to be convincing because it had other demonstrative purposes not tied to "being real," and please leave my character out of it. Thanks. Heaven forbid I talk about this movie in an unfriendly light because I found it to be technically weak, unconvincing, and its content/approach insulting and regressive...

If I wanted to discredit you, I would have asked you why you said that you didn't know Crash was about race and that you didn't think it would generate discussion, when we enchanged PMs on the very subject before it was ever released. Maybe you can answer that? Face it, dolce, you jumped on the Kingdom of Heaven bandwagon, and only had negative things to say about Crash for whatever reason before it was released, and after that little comment, I'm not going to act as if you didn't get any PM from me to save you from looking bad in front of the others.

I shouldn't have to mention Rodney King, who was pulled over, in LA, and started getting lippy with the police who decided to abuse their power on the man. It happens, and it's very naive for anybody to think that it doesn't just because it's never happened to them. One of my best friends was almost arrested for opening his mouth under similar circumstances.

I feel the exact same way.

Sad state of affairs when you can't discuss films at a FILM WEBSITE.

Dolce was not on the Kingdom of Heaven bandwagon, she was disparaging it up until about a week before it came out then decided it might not be as bad as she feared after reading reviews, and was somewhat looking forward to it. That's not being on a bandwagon, that's being able to altar your opinion when reality of a movie is different from what you expect, and it reflects well on her willingness to change if a movie warrants it. I'm not going to get into the Crash debate because I haven't seeen it, but I needed to clear that aspect up.

Mav, I don't know why you have to feel the need to get personal with everyone who has a different opinion with you on something, whether it's about a film or a box office prediction. So we're all mindless herd if I were to see the film and didn't like it? I have been resisting to reply on numerous occasions, but some of your comments showed an overbearing attitude. You did well with several predictions that you made, and I congratulate you on that. However, it's not like you were the only one who got those right. We have a lot of seasoned predictors here, and you still have a long way to go before calling us out if we happen to come up with a different number using each of our own methods. I never saw Ragnarok come out and say all of us should listen to him just because he is the best predictor, or challenge anyone who disagree with his. The respect grows mutually.

Um...you better provide some fucking links after what you just said.

Just in this thread alone, you first said only mindless herd won't like this movie (page 1), then you started calling out Dolce simply because she gave the film a D, even though she detailed the areas in the film that her opinion was based. There are also instances in the MIL thread where you seem to taunt people who don't think it will gross over 25M with the reason that they were wrong and you were right the first two times.

I think that you better seriously look back at this thread, and if you are a good moderator, you might want to point out earlier cases of comments being made. Do you want me to do your job for you, or do you just want to single me out?

I don't care what dolce graded it, but it sounds like she's reaching for reasons. I'm not the only person who has questioned her reasoning, but, again, I'm the one that you singled out.

As stated in the MIL thread, and as stated everywhere else that you have missed in this attempt to signle me out, everybody is wrong, and my "taunts" are not to be taken personally. And you are really making a much bigger deal out of that than it is, but I guess you had to back up your claims that I " have to feel the need to get personal with everyone who has a different opinion with you on something, whether it's about a film or a box office prediction."

Why don't start looking for the real bad guys. :???:

Are you calling xia's mod skills into question? I think he's doing a great job, and I wouldn't have picked anyone else to pick up the position after I stepped off. He brought up a question politely and without feeling the need to go through such measures as issueing a warning or anything of the nature. I think its a fine and diplomatic step to take and I don't think you cussing him off seconds later was appropriate. Its not like he banned you.



Ok, I'll answer that. Why do I not think its a reach? Because Haggis was aiming for realism, and I didn't find it realistic. I had mentioned Brazil because alot of very random "top-heavy" actions take place. "Big-business" always just jumps down and exerts random control on people's privacy, physical beings, actions, etc. None of those are convincing in the realist sense to the least. But that's not the tone Gillian set for the piece. He wanted to beef it up in order to make it dark humor. Crash was not about dark humor. I think the multiple car crashes could have been a great surrealist approach. Make them almost rythmic, happening every fifteen minutes of the movie, use them as an actually uber-urban vehicle for moving the story along. But Crash wasn't that either.

It tried to set off the vignettes as being reality, and in that light, they really weren't convincing. I'll stand by the fact that while Thomas acted as I would expect in such a situation (except for the original joking) Newton did not. It made the scene "not-real." Had they maybe fumbled around and had toruble finding the registration because they were nervous, and Dillon freaked out because of it, that would make more sense, but it wasn't the case. When an armed cop says stay in the car, and you get out to start fighting with him, and you're black woman, unarmed, that's just rediculous. To bump into the same cop after having an accident less than 20 hours later, seems far fetched as well. There are many movies that have continuous "chance-encounters" but their approach was very different than this one. It was not compatible story telling for the tone.

I don't consider the above paragraph as me "searching" for reasons to dislike this movie. That is honestly how I felt about it.

I don't see what the big deal is. I change my mind about movies more than anyone else on this site. I almost cried when hero was finally released here I was so excited. Oh well, I hated it. I thought Interpreter was going to be the greatest thing since chopped liver, I ended up only giving it a B-. I didn't even want to see A Very Long Engagement because I really dislike Juenet and think Tautau is overrated. I thought it was pretty decent afterwards though, and gave it a B. SO I don't think its fair to say that since I had hesitation about the posters and tagline for this movie, that I was biased towards failing it and would never change my mind. The Rodney King comment is a perfect point. I think it was pretty well established by the footage that the cops responded unethically in the situation, and that in fact they had lied about him threatening them first as their excuse for clubbing him to a pulp. The fact that everyone can watch a movie like this and keep believing the myth that black people lip of to white authority and get what's coming to them for stepping out of line, is exactly why this movie failed in its own undertakings. Every single stereotype they had thought to counter was actually reinforced. WHo has guns, who acts out, who in the end is sympathetic and saves the day. Who's english leads to bad conduct, where racism is "justified" and where it isn't.

If Haggis would have wrote the Rodney King scene, and Rodney King had never happened in real life, how "unrealistic" would that have been to you. The world is not a place that is so innocent. It's not just blacks, either. Those things go on plenty. If a priest molested a child or a teacher had sex with a minor, would that be unrealistic to you if the news had never tipped you off that it happens?

You mentioned another sceen as unrealistic, in which Dillon goes back, fights his way back, to pull her from the car. Why is that unrealistic? Dillon was the only one that knew how close he was to getting her out. He'd just cut her free of her belt. The cops pulling him away didn't know that, they only knew it was getting ready to blow. Was she supposed to still hate him after seeing how he came back and risked his life to make sure she didn't die? I would have definitely gained respect for somebody who did that for me, regardless of the past. The past would have been the past after something like that. That would have been my new best friend.

The scenes in question (getting out of the car and mouthing off, only to later smile at the cop after he saved her - and for that matter, most of the other scenes in the film) did not strike me as unrealistic at all. Granted, l'm not a black female and have never been in such a situation...but l know quite a few people who, while intoxicated, would do just what she did. And as for the "smile," maybe l saw (read) too much into that shot, but, to me, that looked far more like a smile of disbelief, or sheer exhaustion - not forgiveness. Kinda like "heh...l cant believe that" But even if it was a genuine, "thank you, cop who just molested me, for saving my life" smile...so what? He just saved her life. Meaning without him, she would be dead. l'm pretty sure being thankful is a very common reaction to such a situation.

So, yes, l have no believablity issues with the film.

BUT...l can't accept these characters as mere characters. The message of the film, the vast array of minorities presented and their actions, and the general plot of the film won't allow me too. It seemed far too allegorical (l think is the word l'm wanting). l don't doubt that these may be very real interactions between minorities in the big city (or anywhere, really); nor do l disbelieve their views and natural stereotyping toward each other. But to have so many, so deeply intertwined the way they were...just didn't sit right with me. It's as though Haggis wanted to cram every race and social class and every stereotype they hold towards each other into 100 minutes. The result is broad...well, stereotypes. So the locksmith may be a real character with real emotions and actions, but not ALL mexican locksmiths in LA are like that. And since all the characters felt this same way - that is, over simplified generalizations - it just failed on some very basic level. Though l'm not sure what that level is. l think what l mean is the individual characters don't match their overall character.

l'm pretty sure that wasnt very coherent, but, as l've said before...l just can't seem to get down on post what l felt about this film. Blah.

Well, I saw it and though I wanted to see it a lot, I was quite disappointed. While most of the acting was great, the film was partly boring. Though I didn't think that was the biggest bad thing, most of it wasn't boring. It was so god damn preachy!!! I still don't have a final rating for CRASH but it will be around the grade I give it right now. I'll probably rent it again on dvd.

7/10 (B-)