Rating: 
Summary: Horse [poo]
Review: Horrible movie!! After worshipping James Spader from films like: Less than Zero, The Secretary, Sex, Lies, & Videotape and even the TV show "The Practice"--what is there to say? Complete disappointment, horrible script, horrible acting, horrible film altogether. Had no direction and no substance. Do not buy this, if you a bit curious like i was then rent it...
Rating: 
Summary: Promising, erotic material sinks under its own weight...
Review: If any of you know anything about Crash, it's probably about as much information as you can get from the front cover of the DVD. In hazy black-and blue, it shows James Spader and Holly Hunter 'passionate' in what looks like the inside of a car, and a quote from film critic Janet Maslin that reads, "...sex and car crashes." A little more about the film: it was released in 1996 under an NC-17 rating (virtually meaning death to the film's gross), and stirred up mucho controversy among critics and viewers. Its plot concerns James Ballard (the king of weirdo sex movies, James Spader), a man who survives a near-fatal car crash but then develops an erotic attachment to crashes that unites him with a 'unique' group of people who share his fetish. He is somewhat-happily married to Catherine (Deborah Unger), but throughout the course of the movie, he (and she) ends up knockin' boots with just about everyone in their little 'club' that's imaginable. Sound like a porn? Well, without some interesting character dimensions and some possibly-effective thematic material, Crash would be. Then again, the movie crosses a line occasionally between morbidity and simply being offensive, and that's where I'm not sure it works all the time. Within the first three minutes of the film, we see how faithful James and Catherine are to each other: she's seen having sex against an airplane with some anonymous guy, and James (a movie producer) is gettin' it on with a camera girl on the set. What makes it so odd - instead of, "Honey, how was your day?" after 'work' is over, they both quiz each other on their sexual conquests. Spader and Unger play the couple with a detached, mechanical quality that summons notions of a mindless automobile (I guess that's the point). They make love to each other like it's a function that must be performed, like changing the oil every so-many thousand miles, and even when James is laying in a hospital bed with pins in his leg (after a horrific accident), Catherine relays details of the totaled car and the dead victim with a breathy tone that implies she's getting really hot over it. James eventually meets the other survivor of the crash, Helen (Holly Hunter), and she guides him into the group of crash enthusiasts - that is, after they've done it in the airport parking garage. The movie's most inspired, effective scene takes place during a chilling-yet-intriguing reenactment of the famous James Dean crash. We meet Vaughn (Elias Koteas), the prophetic leader of the group, and see his visceral excitement with the act of the crash. The moments leading up the the crash itself are intense, and then those two cars joining together - the smashing metal and breaking glass - well, Cronenberg makes you see how people might be aroused by this. Then again, Cronenberg's dedication to relaying that fetish can take the movie to the heights of offensiveness. One scene in which Vaugh, Catherine, and James all peruse the graphic scene of a brutal accident (involving a small dog - animal lovers beware), taking pictures and caressing the debris comes off as simply too revolting and unsettling. In fact, it is more off-putting than some of the movie's more disturbing sex scenes. I'm sure that Cronenberg was just trying to push his audience and show how far these people really go with their obsession, but I felt used. Crash also takes turns into some prophetic message about man vs. machine that it is trying to make, but I don't think it ever becomes clear because of the movie's graphic sexual content. The bizarre eroticism of the film is enough to keep you interested in the film, but Crash's attempts to actually make a point founder. There were moments when I really felt that Cronenberg's film was going somewhere with its idea that, for these people, the crash itself has become the height of sexual fulfillment, but then there were times when I knew that Cronenberg got tired of reaching for greatness and just decided to move on to more sex. And somewhat-gross sex, too. A few moments in particular had me closing my eyes, and I consider myself a pretty big troupa' for any movie. I like James Spader and Holly Hunter, and I think that both work perfectly in the film. Unger, in particular, couldn't have been a better choice for the demanding, brave role of Catherine. You expect deviant sexuality from Spader, but seeing other people pull it off is more impressive. I do not, though, think that I enjoyed the film. I was intrigued by it, puzzled by it, but was never taken by it. The resolution of the film, if anything, serves to reinforce the fact that these are destructive characters in whom you can never take a true interest. But above it all, I feel respect for director Cronenberg and his cast for having the 'fervor' to attempt and, in some moments, pull off such a gutsy move. Then again, a cinematic risk does not a great movie make. Grade: C+
Rating:
Summary: David Cronenberg marries James Spader
Review: David Cronenherg. A name synopsis with creepy, scary and very unusual films. This movie is no exception. CRASH is disturbing. A surreal experience of sexual overdrive involving cars, crashes and extreme sex. David is quite a director. However, would you feel the same way about David's past films if his name were really Sally Cronenberg? I think not. Gives you something to ponder on though, doesn't it.
Rating: 
Summary: Rate the movie not the subject
Review: Do people have such a hard time seperating the subject of a movie from the quality of the movie itself? Most of the bad reviews I read here about this movie focus on the disturbing behavior of Hunter and Spader's characters. They complain that injury and scars are not sexy. Duh! This is a movie exploring abnormal psyches. The characters because addicted to their near death experiences. There is no reason or logic to addiction. If all you want to see is happy movies about normal people then avoid this movie. I found it a fascinating look at obsession and addiction.
Rating: 
Summary: ...Interesting...
Review: C'mon now...Are people really watching this for titillation? Does anyone really think the director of Naked Lunch, Scanners, and Dead Ringers set out to make some bizarre porno? Or maybe, just maybe, like the novel it came from, the setup is all about analyzing the nature of fetishes by inventing a new one, that in all likelihood doesn't really exist. It's a frank film that looks at fetishism (lusting after a non-living object), and the great lengths individuals who have a fetish will go to achieve gratification. It is an insanely interesting film; surreal, uncomfortable and disturbing.
Rating:
Summary: Why oh Why...
Review: OH MY GOD I hated this movie! I love Holly Hunter, I love James Spader...how could such talented actors and David Cronenberg (who's latest movie Spider is phenomenal) go so wrong? I don't know...but somehow they managed to. And I managed to fall into the age old trap a movie lover says to themself: "It's got 2 great stars, and a great director...how bad can it be?" Well it can be this bad. And just as quickly as I bought this movie, I sold it. Someone here recommended it for fans of great sex scenes. I don't even see how the sex scenes worked. Ooh...scars, and broken bones, and wounds, and braces...how sexy...in bizaro world maybe.
Rating:
Summary: The car civilization is producing a new species of men
Review: Cronenberg explores in this film an essential problem : « the reshaping of the human body by modern technology ». In fact the body is reshaped in many ways but what is particularly scrutinized is the shift from psychology to psychopathology : the fact that a man or a woman who is the victim of a car accident does not see the world and himself/herself as a « normal » man or woman but as a being of another type, a being that has been in close contact with death, which determines in him a fascination for this in-between zone, hence his psyche is dominated and defined within the limits of psychopathology, a new branch of psychology. The transformation is explored in very precise and accurate details. The person becomes morbid, attracted by car accidents, car victims and the narrow escape from death and this becomes an addiction : the necessity, the impulse to try again, to go into this very narrow zone between life and death. The conclusion we can draw from this film is that the development of car transportation has changed the human being in his fundamental psyche, and this is also in phase with the fact that this car transportation has changed the landscape with highways, the everyday environment with parking lots and subterranean zones where cars are parked away like some modern mechanical cattle or horses. The human being is no longer in touch with animal or natural life but penned up in a totally man-made and machine-dominated life. This is both fascinating and frightening, if not even sickening. This film is a must to understand our modern living, or is it post-modern ? Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Rating: 
Summary: broken bores are not erotic, you morons.
Review: While I can give a moderate rating for the acting, and the film work is better than many other Cronenberg films, the idea of finding near fatal automobile accidents erotic is utterly perverse. This is voyeurism for idiots who have never been seriously physically wounded and know nothing about real physical pain. Break your femur and see what that does to your libido, you morons.
Rating:
Summary: Sexy but stupid
Review: If you expect to buy this DVD to have a good movie experience in terms of good story, acting and directing, you are looking for a wrong title. However, if you want to buy this title just because you loved hot sex scenes but wanted much than just porno. Bingo! You got one.
Some reviews said the movie is good some said it sucks. I'm not studying in movie or directing so it's not fair to judge. But it's really not close to a good movie by common senses in anyway. On the other hand, the sex scenes are very explosive and intensive. Depends on what you're looking for, it could be 1 star for good movie buyer and 5 star for sex scene lover. Again, I took the average and gave it 3.
Rating:
Summary: Dark, edgy with few worthwhile scenes
Review: Those who play this off as some "deep" psycho drama on portraying sexuality based on car crashes and mechanization of society...
I never made that leap... Aside from the scene where they recreate James Dean's car crash (very Tarentino'ish) I thought the movie was a waste of time. It's more of a masochistic fetish softporn??? The dialog is weak and the acting is even WEAKER Hint: Arquette is in it. I wouldn't even recommend renting this. If you want a dark, edgy and sometimes funny movie check out "the Salton Sea" or re-watch pulp fiction ...again
If you're jones'n for some Cronenberg, the new Criterion release of "Naked Lunch" is excellent as well.
|
