3 movies you recommend everyone watches

[skindnef]

IMO the Cronenberg version is far superior version. "Visually beautiful" well that's subjective & I'm not disagreeing with you there. The cinematographer Muro did the Haggis film, he's really just getting started transitioning from a camera operator. In the Cronenberg version Peter Suschitzky was cinematographer he also did my fav Star Wars film Empire strikes Back as well as many other "classics" like Immortal Beloved & Dead Ringers. I mean Videodrome, The DeadZone, The Fly, DeadRingers; Haggis wishes he was Cronenberg! Nuff said.

 

[Chesticles]

^trust me you have a very nice taste.

:iorofl:

 

[Line]

Spoilers abound for those who haven't seen Crash.

and i don't understand why you play this off as a bad thing. the social statement it makes with it's characters and how their roles intertwine is not only the motivation for the title but offers an intriguing perspective on how what you do can (greatly) affect the lives of others.

First, what makes it intriguing? Who says it's intriguing? Is this qualified by public interest? What about artistic interest? The reality is that little you state in this opening combats my concise qualms, qualms that you seem to take ostensibly, as if they're the endline of my arguments against the film. Do you really think that as an regularly published film critic that what you say is a revelation to me? The idea of having a social statement in a film is nothing new to the medium and is something I look for in my critiquing. In fact, ideas in general are important to film, as they elevate it above a purely visceral craft. As for Crash, the ideas it represents extend far beyond our actions and how they affect others, which I'll address later. For now, I'll stick to this, saying that literally thousands of films have attempted communicating this portion of the picture's "message" before and have been more successful in doing so? What measures success you may ask? It's simple. Crash puts an overt emphasis on the connections between their characters, all of which are fueled by racism or bigotry. Fine, racism exists, shocking development. What's not fine is how it jams this down our throat, even going to the point where we dramatically see the would-be execution of a child due to a chain-reaction of racial hate. Since when has falsely lulling your audience into thinking a young girl has been murdered, only to reveal she isn't, an acceptable thematic vehicle? This is what Disney or family films do with animal characters; there's always that last minute "Oh no, so-and-so didn't make it," moment in which everyone weeps, the dramatic score booms from the speakers, and then the character lifts its head slowly, indicating it's going to be okay. Now we have that in an R-rated film that borrows the same cinematic movements and, due to the heavy-handedness of the subject material, it does become manipulative. It takes a characters that are poorly developed and interjects them into a situation that the audience can't help resonate with without offering an adequate backgrounds for them first. It's assumptive of Haggis to take something powerful, reproduce it, and assume it to still be powerful. Cinema doesn't work this way. It's like a punch in that regard. Anyone can throw a punch, which is an ultimately powerful thing, yes? However, only certain people can throw an effective punch, yes? There are reasons for this, reasons which stem from identifiable traits that have developed over the course of said puncher's life, yes? Their size, speed, training, strength, all of these facets lead up to a successful punch. Film isn't much different in this regard as Haggis swings weakly at these moments, either landing a weak jab or missing entirely. The movie is about decidedly more than a weblike social structure of interaction and cause-effect. It's about racism and the reality of it. You have to be able to understand the implications of what causes such unjustified hate in people and reflect it against modern day society. Racism can be seen as a living thing, it changes and develops along with culture, our culture. Racism in the late 80's, early 90's is different than in our current decade. Not that I'm his biggest supporter, but why do you think Spike Lee, a world renowned filmmaker, continues his focus on the subject? It's because the material, society is ever-changing and looking at the "evolution" of racial hatred is intriguing as its culturally relevant and important. The types of films he makes (when he makes good ones, I hate about half his work, very much like the other half) are true studies of human interaction, as they take into account how we're changing as human beings and largely parallel the concerns set forth by the ever-accepted Critical Theory. Again, Crash does not.

why you think the city it takes place in has a negative impact on the film is beyond me, but calling the message it gives as "thinly developed" is at the least just unobservant as to how the movie tries to relate each character and blends all these stories into one.

*sigh*

The location has a negative impact because, while the film is so thoroughly rooted in Los Angeles, so emphatic that it takes place there, that it, intentionally or not, does comment directly on the meta-culture that exists there. Hell, in German it's known as L.A. Crash. I had a similar problem with David Gordon Green's 2008 film Snow Angels due to its insistence in representing the downfalls of their characters as exclusively middle class. Green has always been a class-based or class-interested filmmaker though, so it surprised me to see him take on one in such a subtextually critical way. If Haggis had so desired, he could have easily not named the city, making it more of a conglomerate of American attributes, and use this as his setting, a la David Fincher in Se7en or Wes Anderson in The Royal Tenenbaums. It is largely thought that both films take place in a version of New York City, but it's name is never spoken. Thusly, less weight is given to the true identity of the setting, and instead the director can bend and mold it to his will, so it better suits the point he's trying to convey. To be so thoroughly rooted in Los Angeles is a weak move on Haggis' part, as he spends too much energy grounding his film as taking place there when it doesn't need to. It could take place anywhere or, better yet, a place more fitting of his culturally maligned accusations.

In terms of it being "thinly developed" and your criticism of my use of it as a criticism, you only really aided me with your response. Films that have such a large ensemble cast are tough ones to make, even tougher ones to make properly. Sure, Crash manages to tie all its characters together, but does so with little depth. I'm not saying it's rushed, but trivializing. People are complex beings and relating more than a few of them calls for either: A) a unique narrative approach (no, nothing unique about Crash's), or B) more time to aptly relate things. To cram the social shockwaves of what(?), 12 people into less than two hours is overly ambitious and something must be sacrificed. Something is, and it's depth. For reference on movies that have taken their time and executed this idea better, see: Magnolia, Boogie Nights, The Godfather films, MASH, Nashville, La dolce vita, L'avventurra, Fanny och Alexander, Zodiac, Dogville, The Rules of the Game, Traffic, et cetera. Funny, not only do all these films adequately tie-in their characters' stories but they all execute it and convey their purported messages better than Crash. Like I said, having multiple, interacting, intertwining characters was hardly a new idea when Crash hit the scene, especially when its predecessors (and some more recent films) have done what it intended better.

cheap? the storyline/message may be a little cliche, but it doesn't take away from the actual story or it's characters. i don't get the manipulative comment at all, but i can see how you say it is a little preachy.

I've already mentioned one instance of extreme manipulation and could list more, like when Matt Dillon saves the life of the woman he molested, emotionally crushed, seconds before her car goes up in flames. In a setting heavily invested in realism, the movie still uses these "only could happen in a movie" moments in order to greatly and immediately change our perspective on a character. If these revelations were done with subtlety (not my favorite example but it was handled much, much better in American History X) it would be passable, but it's not. It creates a cinematic imbalance by not providing an adequate intellectual backbone to support the emotional resonance it aims for. Ultimately, it collapses on itself.

well yes it does have a ton of sterotypes and i can see how it may no allow you to identify with the characters if there just portrayed as such.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here and whether or not you're supportive or not of its stereotype pastiche.

i've noticed with you that if a movie, such as this one, tries to delve into an issue such as racism, and doesn't offer anything overly expansive or different than it's predecessors that have also covered the same topic, you instantly dislike it. several times i remember reading some reviews by you and you mention "it doesn't offer anything new" (essentially) and it's a significant negative score against the movie for yourself.

Ah, yes, criticizing the critic, the favorite sport of the average moviegoer. First, I never instantly dislike anything. I appreciate ambition to a large degree when it comes to film, if it is indeed ambitious and not just ostensibly so. Crash gives the impression of ambition, but never delves into the nuances or true causes of racism, just blanketing ideas. In return, as mentioned above, it tries to really evoke an emotional response from its audience, be it compassion, hatred, whatever, but only tries to tap into us on these levels viscerally. To address your other concern here, should movies be different then what's come before it? Yes. Film is an artistic medium. It is. Does this mean all movies should strive for the highest levels of artisan achievement? No, because it's an impossibility. Art or not, there's still an industry that needs to be supported in order for our rare filmic gems to be made. Still, cinematic progression is an important thing as it marks the medium as being progress and socially relevant. Retaining this relevancy is key, as is trying new things to see where film is capable of taking us. When a movie reexplores or, more appropriately, rehashes what has come before it, then what's the point? Will someone enjoy it? Probably. But when a movie takes itself very seriously and costs millions to make, is it then worth it? When you've seen half as many movies as I have, you'll start to get tired of repeating plot lines, visual motifs, and thematic undertones, especially if they're not explored in a new or relevant way. All movies have a message. They do. The problem lies in the communication of this message though. If it continues, we lose film as we know it. Studios are already panicking, hence the introduction of 3-D and now "rumble seats" to make the moviegoing experience more gimmicky than introspective. That's fine, people like being entertained, but you have to realize this is being done as a direct result of these recycled movements. We need filmmakers that constantly challenge and explore new cinematic possibilities aside from upping the technological ante. It's important to the survival and evolution of the art. The main problem seems to stem from the difference in perspective and scope between you and I when it comes to film. You don't seem to be seeing the "bigger picture" which is understandable, as it comes with time and research, something a casual movie fan has little interest in investing and doing. I love film. I'm passionate about it. I love to see good movies. I love loving movies. Still, there's a limit. I no longer look at whether or not the film merely "conveyed a message" but how realized a message it is; how it was portrayed. Whether it's fleshed out and provocative or whether it formally bores. You can't truly think you and I are on the same level in regard to movies, can you?

i don't see it that way. that's not to say i like repetitive movies that all say the same thing, but this movie tastefully and intricately shows the lives of these people and how they are affected by violence, racism, etc. it's not the most original movie ever, but it's done much better than other movies with the same message. the content may not be different, but the quality is.

What movies of the same message? I want examples. I've cited films that dwarf Crash. Also, describing Crash's methodologies as being done "tastefully" and "intricately" is exactly what the film does not do. It's not intricate and its preachy, manipulative manners are not tasteful. Racism can exist without someone having had something bad happen to them as a result of another race's actions. It's more complex than that. Much more complex. To brush off the more deeply-rooted causes of its effects is irresponsible filmmaking, given the air of importance the film exudes.

i just wanted to bring to your attention how silly you sounded calling that film "tripe"

I stand by it completely. You recalling The Academy as your reputable source is what's silly. The Oscars, while entertaining, provide little meaning anymore. It's too politically and fiscally motivated to be taken seriously and every year it staggers closer to irrelevancy. It's a novelty for film fans, really, and nothing more. Of course, I assume you're an expert on its inner workings as well so I'll say no more.

*sigh*

Please. You're young and insist on your correctness in possible topic. Sure, everyone stands behind their opinions, as they should, but you have an opinion about everything, oftentimes issues you're not well versed on. Still, you press on though.

i didn't see any issues with the acting. of course some of the roles were one dimensional, but this should fall under your issue with the sterotyping not with the acting.

Actors can elevate poor writing to an extent and its not done here. Also, please don't tell me where my issues should fall. I'm fairly well read when it comes to these movie thingies.

if your told to act like a ghetto thief or like an uppity spoiled housewife, you do what your told. since the film was covering so many different lives at once it was hard to delve into the characters at a deeper level. that's not the actors' fault.

Yes, because inflection and emphasis hardly adds weight to what a character says. The point is, no one stood out or did anything aside from going through the motions. You can still immerse yourself in a role and be convincing, regardless of the material you're given to work with. Brendan Fraser and Sandra Bullock were both terrible. Terrible. Dillon was nothing special and hadn't it been for his fatherly subplot, he would have gotten no attention from The Academy. Pena was the true star of the film. Still, look again at the movies I mentioned above. I can't think of a poor performance in that bunch of movies but, at the same time, I can mention a handful of exemplary ones.

and again with the lensman ship, i thought it was a visually beautiful film to watch so

Haggis' shots are arbitrary, give little bearing to the scene, and fail to communicate anything visually. Even from an aesthetic standpoint it isn't particularly charming or good-looking. See Michael Mann's Collateral, which was released one year later I believe, if you want to view how LA can and should look. Now, this comes with a disclaimer as well, because I don't feel that all films with the same setting should be identical or even similar in appearance. That being said, Mann used the city and its elements to his advantages, using the night sky as a backdrop. He also understands the gravity of camera movements and plays with the idea of physical space rather well. Haggis' camera is flat and generic. It's passable, sure, but hardly an instrument of beauty.

IMO the Cronenberg version is far superior version.

They're not versions of each other though. They just are like-titled. Still, his is a far better movie.

"Visually beautiful" well that's subjective & I'm not disagreeing with you there.

It appears its becoming less and less subjective as scientists continue to experiment with the golden ratio and how there's a significant link to it and perceived beauty. That being said, I wouldn't tell someone that something looks good because it's in 1:1.618 and something looks back because it's in 1:1.621, you know? Anyway, my main point is that cinematography is about more than making pretty pictures, which anyone can do.

The cinematographer Muro did the Haggis film, he's really just getting started transitioning from a camera operator. In the Cronenberg version Peter Suschitzky was cinematographer he also did my fav Star Wars film Empire strikes Back as well as many other "classics" like Immortal Beloved & Dead Ringers. I mean Videodrome, The DeadZone, The Fly, DeadRingers; Haggis wishes he was Cronenberg! Nuff said.

I don't think Haggis wishes he was Cronenberg, as he's a fairly disturbed man deep-down lol. I get what you're saying though. Cronenberg is the far better craftsman, which is really what all this is about, at least in talks of photography. He's the better artist too, for what it's worth.

 

[Pickle]

^holy mind fuck