MovieChat Forums > Crash (2008) Discussion > dumbass review and an explanation of the...

dumbass review and an explanation of the haters mentality


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081017/tv_nm/us_television_crash_1

(I'll also paste the entire text below, since Yahoo news stories aren't archived)


The reason for the hate (and this guy's negative review) can be summed up from this one line in his article: "...the series blasts out a collection of crude, disturbing images without a true unifying theme."

This is a 13 part, slow burn character study. Last night, we only got the first layer of what's probably going to be a very dense story. This guy sounded like he wanted instant gratification and to know every single thing about every single character in the first five minutes. I'd hazard a guess that the reviewer (and a lot of the haters) are all grumpy Gen Xers who have no appreciation for subtlety and pacing. Probably the same bunch- in fact- who complained that you didn't see the monster until the very end of 'Cloverfield' AND that you didn't know the entire backstory of said monster. Part of the MTV inspired dumbing down of America/Americans.

Just for the record, I watched Crash last night even though I fully didn't expect to like it. Two episodes in, I'm curious enough to stick around for the other 11. I'm also willing to be there's going to be a pretty interesting payoff for those who stick around for the full 13.



********

Aiming for burning drama, "Crash" goes up in smoke
By Ray Richmond Ray Richmond
Thu Oct 16, 8:33 pm ET

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – As we have come to learn, there are two kinds of people in this world: those who adored the Oscar-winning 2004 feature "Crash" and those who loathed it.

But even those who found it an outrageously heavy-handed, gratingly simplistic allegory on the purportedly simmering hellhole of violence and rage that is Los Angeles might grudgingly acknowledge a certain poetic symmetry to the presentation. That lyrical quality is missing from "Crash," the new TV series version of the film and the first hourlong scripted drama series on the cable network Starz.

If you have trouble finding Starz on your cable system, well, that's the reason why Starz has gone to the expense of resurrecting "Crash" as a high-profile 13-episode cable entry. Starz Entertainment would like this show to do for it what "Mad Men" has managed to do in helping brand and define AMC.

Paul Haggis, the co-writer/director of the "Crash" film, has said he originally saw his creation as a TV drama rather than a big-screen flick, and he's listed as one of four executive producers on the new project. But this can't be the show he had in mind.

Even more stupefying one-dimensional than the film, the series blasts out a collection of crude, disturbing images without a true unifying theme. No longer an allegory, it has devolved into an excuse to shock and repulse, as demonstrated in the pilot script from Glen Mazzara, Ted Mann and Randy Huggins. It opens as an off-putting, disconnected series of vignettes about rage and evil and insanity and money. The only big name in the cast is Dennis Hopper, who portrays an angry hip-hop producer prone to bouts of fury whose first scene finds him talking to his penis in the back of a limo. Yes, his penis.

The fact that "Crash" was shot in New Mexico -- because the tax incentives are better than those in Los Angeles -- perfectly encapsulates an hour that struggles mightily to be something it's not. Like the film that preceded it, the series wants us to believe there is race-baiting danger and mayhem lurking around every corner of our fair metropolis but lacks even the courage of these convictions. The racial fire is oddly muted, the characters disturbingly undefined, the interaction frustratingly nondescript. It's unclear what the show aims to be other than chaotic and boorish. On those counts, sadly, it succeeds brilliantly.

reply

bump

reply

[deleted]

elijahbarber wrote:

"thanks for the post."


You're welcome. I wish it had encouraged a bit more discussion though...

reply

Why do people keep comparing it to the film? I almost wish the series was named something else.

But I do agree with the OP, wholeheartedly. And since it's on Starz I'm sure we'll get the full season regardless of bad press and see all the reviewers eat their words. I've pretty much enjoyed the first 7 episodes.

reply

[deleted]

Perhaps they should rename the show! Maybe then people will be less critical and more satisfied. COLLISION for the show's new name springs to mind. LOL!

reply

That is what we get as viewers/consumers for letting "reality" TV pass off as worthwhile entertainment. The average mentality of the viewer has been forcefully sodomized by cheaply produced entertainment pioneered by MTV which no longer has anything whatsoever to do with music. You can hardly expect them to understand more sophisticated art-forms such as theater and literature, or the cinematic equivalents of either the small screen or the big screen.

reply

fdpugh wrote:

"That is what we get as viewers/consumers for letting "reality" TV pass off as worthwhile entertainment. The average mentality of the viewer has been forcefully sodomized by cheaply produced entertainment pioneered by MTV which no longer has anything whatsoever to do with music. You can hardly expect them to understand more sophisticated art-forms such as theater and literature, or the cinematic equivalents of either the small screen or the big screen."


Well put. I don't see things getting any better in that regard, but fortunately shows like Crash, Mad Men, and especially Breaking Bad have proven that there's still a market for well written, slowly paced dramas that are character based.

reply

nickdisco wrote:

"People compare it to the film because it took the film's name. If there's no real connection between the two, then it's a cynical marketing ploy. This is why people roll their eyes."

But the haters forget that Crash was *originally* conceived as a TV series. The opportunity to make a film came up instead, and that's what happened. The success of the film brought about the TV series.


"You can see the real dumbing-down of America in comments like the one above; people actually think Crash was a subtle, artistic -- or even good or entertaining -- movie. My god. Did no one see Crash? It was the most ham-fisted treatment of...well, just about everything it treated. A fourth-grader's view of racism, driving its points home with an iron fist. To listen to its admirers bash Cloverfield 'haters', as if that movie's faux indie feel or hand-me-down avant ideas were also high art...blech."

I think it conveyed it's message as best it could considering the under two hours run time. The series presents the opportunity to present the same themes in a more paced manner.

As for Cloverfield, it's strongest point was the pacing- which is exactly what a series like Crash benefits from and is why the people who love it, do. I never said Cloverfield was "high art", but it was damn entertaining. I have no idea what the "hand-me-down avant ideas" you're referring to are though.

reply