In Defense of Crash

There are lots of people who write regular columns in the Sun-TImes and Tribune that I find to be, well, pretty shitty and trivial and hardly worth my time, but I usually read them anyway. I’ll put Roeper at the top of that list; he’s kind of like the light beer of columns.

But then there is Roger Ebert, who most people know as the Thumbs Up guy, or the Fat Guy, or the One Who Didn’t Die. I call him the best writer of either paper, by far. In addition to his movie reviews, which are often better than the movies themselves (see the genius zero star review of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo), he also writes commentary on various topics, including Sunday’s “In Defense Of The Year’s ‘Worst Movie.'”

Apparently there are some critics who found “Crash” to be the worst movie of the year, which is their perogative, but Ebert analyzes the flawed reasoning behind their choice and proceeds to effectively, in my opinion, refute their case. These reviewers are angry at the film, and it’s not because they weren’t entertained to their liking; there seems to be some sort of political undertone to their contempt. Read Ebert’s commentary and be the judge.

Personally, I found “Crash” to be one of the best films I have seen this (last) year.

55 Comments so far

  1. Danny Doom (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 10:10 am

    I’m glad this discussion finally got around to the movie “Crash,” not that I haven’t enjoyed the rest of it. What do you think of the critics who called it the worst movie of the year? I thought Ebert handled them pretty well.

    I don’t think the film is political, Pamela, it just tackles issues of race in a very open and shocking way, at times.

    You are quite perceptive, Euroblogger. I thought he was either very young or very old. 4 sounds about right.

  2. nikkos (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 10:17 am

    Now that I’ve seen the film, I’ll have to go back and read Ebert’s review.

    While I’m doing that, a question, directed at no one inparticular:

    Which parts of this film rang most true for you?
    Which parts of this film rang most false?

  3. Elizabeth (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 11:21 am

    Remember the scene when Sandra Bullock realizes that she has no real friends and decides her housekeeper is her only friend? I found that. . . unsettling.

    I couldn’t so easily believe that the housekeeper returned the affections of the DA’s wife. It seemed to me like just another way that the poor woman was being used, but the tone set up by the filmmakers seemed to suggest something much more pure of heart. I just thought it was presumptious.

  4. nikkos (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 11:25 am

    Yeah, I agree- I kept hoping the camera would pan around to get the reaction shot of the housekeeper- who must have had a “WTF?!?!?” look on her face.

    Yes, the filmmakers suggest a genuine change of heart in this scene while conveniently failing to remember that this is the hired help- she had no choice but to return the hug.

    But to me, that’s what makes this movie so interesting- there’s SO MUCH to talk about.

  5. Jason (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 11:12 am

    I thought that the reasoning for why the rap music industry is an opressive construct of ‘whitey’ was sort of disturbingly sound.

    But, then again, I like conspiracy theories that turn an issue 180 degrees.

    I thought Brendan Frazer was a disappointment, then again, he is Brendan Fazer, what did I really expect…

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.