NOTE IMDb
3,8/10
1,8 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueThe paths of several eccentric and troubled strangers cross one night.The paths of several eccentric and troubled strangers cross one night.The paths of several eccentric and troubled strangers cross one night.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Raymond J. Barry
- Mr. Grand
- (as Raymond Barry)
Kamal John Iskander
- Manny
- (as John Iskander)
Avis à la une
I almost never bother to review films, as there are always plenty of opinions out there already. But this one was so incredibly bad, that for some reason, I feel compelled to say something....
First off, there are so many terrific players in this movie, that I have to imagine they never knew what they were getting themselves into. They probably all thought this was going to be another cult underground hit that they could be associated with. Maybe on Mars....
I kept waiting for something to happen, but it never did. Michael Clark Duncan made this worth it for me to wait till the end, but other than that, it was so patently absurd, that I cannot imagine how many decent movies didn't get made because this waste of electrons, protons and neutrons wasted all that funding.
The script had zero touches of brilliance, which if it had, might have been enough to hold it together and make it at least a mediocre mess. But then, the "director" seemed to decide that the only way to tell this story was to make everything insane. And then finally, the editor, either was the worst ever or the best ever, but we'll never know what they had to start with in terms of raw footage.
All in all, this was a colossal waste of time and effort on everyone's part, especially those who burnt the 2 hours of their lives to watch it
First off, there are so many terrific players in this movie, that I have to imagine they never knew what they were getting themselves into. They probably all thought this was going to be another cult underground hit that they could be associated with. Maybe on Mars....
I kept waiting for something to happen, but it never did. Michael Clark Duncan made this worth it for me to wait till the end, but other than that, it was so patently absurd, that I cannot imagine how many decent movies didn't get made because this waste of electrons, protons and neutrons wasted all that funding.
The script had zero touches of brilliance, which if it had, might have been enough to hold it together and make it at least a mediocre mess. But then, the "director" seemed to decide that the only way to tell this story was to make everything insane. And then finally, the editor, either was the worst ever or the best ever, but we'll never know what they had to start with in terms of raw footage.
All in all, this was a colossal waste of time and effort on everyone's part, especially those who burnt the 2 hours of their lives to watch it
I don't know what right-wing conservative is posting all these reviews but this movie is far tamer than some of the reviews would have you believe.
Yes, there is violence; mostly in the form of people shooting each other. But even these scenes aren't terribly graphic and often alluded to. One scene, a person fires a gun - the next scene, another person is dead with a small red splatter so we all know where they've been shot. Done.
There is very little actual sex in the movie. Again, it is mostly alluded to and it's consensual sex (or sexual contact) between adults. Although one of the threads of the movie involves one character attempting to sell a 17 year old girl to a child pornographer, there is no child nudity or sex scenes involving children and no scenes of violence against children.
Another thread involves a Cuban woman who seeks revenge against the men to gang raped her as a child and left her for dead in a dumpster. She does not go into the event in any graphic detail and the flash back scene is very brief and involves the camera pointing up to two fully dressed men looking down (presumably at the Cuban woman as a then child). This is as disturbing as the movie gets.
Ron Schneider is his usual likable, downtrodden, long-suffering self and really adds the comic balance this movie needs. Jennifer Esposito is not entirely convincing as the revenge seeking Cuban, Carlos. Michael Clarke Duncan is the loyal but mistreated boyfriend of Carlos and does a passable job. Ron Livingston is, as always, Mr. Everyman, a flawed but (aw shucks) pretty nice guy when ya get to know him. Missi Pyle (Gigi the hooker) and Shannon Mathers (17 year old girl) lack subtlety in their performances. The two blonde women are typical of the boring sort of wives you find on TV sitcoms - pretty but not really why you tune in.
The movie is sort of everywhere and no where and you don't really get to know what makes anyone tick. Many of the plot twists are pretty predictable and some things seem to be added for shock value and don't really add to the story. Homosexuality seems to be a go to for the writers to try and keep the audience engaged. The scene with Ron Livingston in a gay bar seems to go on for a while and have no real point. Some of the writing is tired and clichéd i.e. "Money talks and bullshit walks." said with far more drama than a line like that warrants. The speech made at the end of the movie by the father standing under the US flag was silly and contrived.
Ultimately, this is decent way to kill 90 minutes and you'll grow to like most of the characters and forget them shortly after the movie is over.
Yes, there is violence; mostly in the form of people shooting each other. But even these scenes aren't terribly graphic and often alluded to. One scene, a person fires a gun - the next scene, another person is dead with a small red splatter so we all know where they've been shot. Done.
There is very little actual sex in the movie. Again, it is mostly alluded to and it's consensual sex (or sexual contact) between adults. Although one of the threads of the movie involves one character attempting to sell a 17 year old girl to a child pornographer, there is no child nudity or sex scenes involving children and no scenes of violence against children.
Another thread involves a Cuban woman who seeks revenge against the men to gang raped her as a child and left her for dead in a dumpster. She does not go into the event in any graphic detail and the flash back scene is very brief and involves the camera pointing up to two fully dressed men looking down (presumably at the Cuban woman as a then child). This is as disturbing as the movie gets.
Ron Schneider is his usual likable, downtrodden, long-suffering self and really adds the comic balance this movie needs. Jennifer Esposito is not entirely convincing as the revenge seeking Cuban, Carlos. Michael Clarke Duncan is the loyal but mistreated boyfriend of Carlos and does a passable job. Ron Livingston is, as always, Mr. Everyman, a flawed but (aw shucks) pretty nice guy when ya get to know him. Missi Pyle (Gigi the hooker) and Shannon Mathers (17 year old girl) lack subtlety in their performances. The two blonde women are typical of the boring sort of wives you find on TV sitcoms - pretty but not really why you tune in.
The movie is sort of everywhere and no where and you don't really get to know what makes anyone tick. Many of the plot twists are pretty predictable and some things seem to be added for shock value and don't really add to the story. Homosexuality seems to be a go to for the writers to try and keep the audience engaged. The scene with Ron Livingston in a gay bar seems to go on for a while and have no real point. Some of the writing is tired and clichéd i.e. "Money talks and bullshit walks." said with far more drama than a line like that warrants. The speech made at the end of the movie by the father standing under the US flag was silly and contrived.
Ultimately, this is decent way to kill 90 minutes and you'll grow to like most of the characters and forget them shortly after the movie is over.
Despite the attracting cast which had a quite good reputation as comedians the movie itself is just not good. The story is kinda boring, they clearly didn't think too far to write this comedy. But since it's a comedy I expected some laughs and to be honest I didn't laugh once, and there is nothing wrong with my sense of humor so that can't be it. I should have read the reviews before watching American Crude or at least looked at the ratings as for once the ratings are totally justified.
American Crude was very repulsive with a poor storyline with very unlikeable characters, and the subject matter was crude and offensive. The storyline features numerous references to prostitution, murder, paedophilia, rape, adultery, transvestites, gays and lesbians, and disabilities, this movie was entirely in bad taste. I don't know who approved of this idea to be made into a movie. It is disgusting and totally unfunny. If anyone has any common sense, surely someone would have strongly recommended to change the subject matter.
Michael Clarke Duncan (The Green Mile), Rob Schneider (Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo), Ron Livingston (Office Space), and John C. McGinley (Scrubs) waste their talents in this atrocious load of rubbish.
American Crude certainly lives up to its title, as the entire movie is repulsive and in bad taste. The subject matter certainly does not make a good idea for a black comedy.
Give this a miss.
1/10.
Michael Clarke Duncan (The Green Mile), Rob Schneider (Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo), Ron Livingston (Office Space), and John C. McGinley (Scrubs) waste their talents in this atrocious load of rubbish.
American Crude certainly lives up to its title, as the entire movie is repulsive and in bad taste. The subject matter certainly does not make a good idea for a black comedy.
Give this a miss.
1/10.
..These are some of the movie's plot keys. Yes, you read it right; "some"!
Was Craig Sheffer, the actor and the movie's director, trying to make a crime movie? Was he trying to make a satire about the "night" of America then thought of presenting it in a comic style? Was he trying to make a black comedy? Was he - oh god - thinking that it's a comedy from the start? Whatever the answer is, that guy made an ugly, disturbing and disturbed movie.
Originally many problems in one night could produce a fine comedy, black or else. But many problems in one movie could produce just a bad movie. It is made in such a poor, primitive and messy way. The script thinks itself a genius, while mixing the genres together, in one night, with many storylines, and absurd spirit. But it lost being anything good or bearable. What it did win though was having a one of a kind silly sense of humor; and it's very natural since it's directed by Sheffer; one of the silliest actors alive!
I bet that none of the movie's cast knew what the main goal was. I guess Sheffer told them that he wanted to make a satiric cross between Pulp Fiction and American Pie. So sometimes it's about bloody crimes, then it's about crude comedy, then it's about both, then it's about the ugliness of America, then it's about just ugliness!
It's "let's put some of the dirtiest matters on screen for the sake of making a satire". It turned into a great satire towards stupid movie-making mainly. Here's a movie that feeds itself, and us, with massive amount of dirt, a monster of a comedy, and low movie-making to torture everyone who sat to complete it. Thus putting the American flag at the top of the movie's presented crimes wasn't something serious about "only in America"; it was rather a try to sell the movie's own crimes as something serious!
Anyway, don't be confused, asking was it a comedy? A satire? A black comedy? A crime movie? A soft porn?? Because, in fact, it is confused. It tried to say that America has become a big toilet, but ended up as a big toilet itself. Thus I won't say "give it a chance and think about it", instead I'll say "don't forget to flush"!
(American Crude) is a dictionary of dirtiness and bad movie-making. It's nasty matters shown in nasty way.
Was Craig Sheffer, the actor and the movie's director, trying to make a crime movie? Was he trying to make a satire about the "night" of America then thought of presenting it in a comic style? Was he trying to make a black comedy? Was he - oh god - thinking that it's a comedy from the start? Whatever the answer is, that guy made an ugly, disturbing and disturbed movie.
Originally many problems in one night could produce a fine comedy, black or else. But many problems in one movie could produce just a bad movie. It is made in such a poor, primitive and messy way. The script thinks itself a genius, while mixing the genres together, in one night, with many storylines, and absurd spirit. But it lost being anything good or bearable. What it did win though was having a one of a kind silly sense of humor; and it's very natural since it's directed by Sheffer; one of the silliest actors alive!
I bet that none of the movie's cast knew what the main goal was. I guess Sheffer told them that he wanted to make a satiric cross between Pulp Fiction and American Pie. So sometimes it's about bloody crimes, then it's about crude comedy, then it's about both, then it's about the ugliness of America, then it's about just ugliness!
It's "let's put some of the dirtiest matters on screen for the sake of making a satire". It turned into a great satire towards stupid movie-making mainly. Here's a movie that feeds itself, and us, with massive amount of dirt, a monster of a comedy, and low movie-making to torture everyone who sat to complete it. Thus putting the American flag at the top of the movie's presented crimes wasn't something serious about "only in America"; it was rather a try to sell the movie's own crimes as something serious!
Anyway, don't be confused, asking was it a comedy? A satire? A black comedy? A crime movie? A soft porn?? Because, in fact, it is confused. It tried to say that America has become a big toilet, but ended up as a big toilet itself. Thus I won't say "give it a chance and think about it", instead I'll say "don't forget to flush"!
(American Crude) is a dictionary of dirtiness and bad movie-making. It's nasty matters shown in nasty way.
Le saviez-vous
- GaffesIn his opening voice-over, the character Johnny Grand (Ron Livingston) attributes the quote "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive," to William Shakespeare. Sir Walter Scott actually wrote that in Marmion in 1808, about 192 years after Shakespeare died. This probably is the quote most often erroneously attributed to Shakespeare.
- Bandes originalesSwing
Written by Jason Solowsky
Performed by The Jason Solowsky Ensemble
Courtesy of JRSBACH Music (BMI)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is American Crude?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 10 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée
- 1h 36min(96 min)
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant