लॉस एंजिल्स के नागरिक, जो अलग-अलग जीवन जीते हैं, रेस, नुकसान और छुटकारे की कहानियों में आपस में टकराते हैं.लॉस एंजिल्स के नागरिक, जो अलग-अलग जीवन जीते हैं, रेस, नुकसान और छुटकारे की कहानियों में आपस में टकराते हैं.लॉस एंजिल्स के नागरिक, जो अलग-अलग जीवन जीते हैं, रेस, नुकसान और छुटकारे की कहानियों में आपस में टकराते हैं.
- 3 ऑस्कर जीते
- 66 जीत और कुल 112 नामांकन
Thandiwe Newton
- Christine
- (as Thandie Newton)
Eddie J. Fernandez
- Officer Gomez
- (as Eddie Fernandez)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I can't believe all the reviews I'm reading. And not just on IMDb but in the printed press too. People seem to love this movie, and I don't understand.
I felt it was a solid movie with excellent music and cinematography. Yet, if that was all that mattered, Phantom Menace would be an Oscar winner.
It seemed to me that there were very few original ideas in the script. The racial plot lines were done better in "Grand Canyon", "Do the Right Thing" and "Boyz n the Hood".
If you haven't seen any of the above movies, perhaps "Crash" will open up your eyes to the depths of the racial divide in this country. Otherwise, you're better off with something a little more subtle and original.
I felt it was a solid movie with excellent music and cinematography. Yet, if that was all that mattered, Phantom Menace would be an Oscar winner.
It seemed to me that there were very few original ideas in the script. The racial plot lines were done better in "Grand Canyon", "Do the Right Thing" and "Boyz n the Hood".
If you haven't seen any of the above movies, perhaps "Crash" will open up your eyes to the depths of the racial divide in this country. Otherwise, you're better off with something a little more subtle and original.
"Crash" is a superbly made film. The actors are first rate, the camera style is engaging, and production value is tops. And despite all this, I would never recommend it to anyone. Why? I'll explain in my 4th paragraph but first let's talk about the story.
This film follows the lives of a dozen or so people over the course of 2 days all living in Los Angeles. The opening scene gives us the aftermath of some ambiguous tragedy (the titular "crash"), and the next scene flashes back to "yesterday" and shows us the events in these people's seemingly unrelated lives, leading up to that opening moment. If you've seen "House of Sand and Fog" (the #1 Feel Bad Movie of the 2000s), you'll recognize an identical sort of chronology and foreboding tone--so similar that I wonder if the Crash filmmakers were somehow involved in House as well. Both films are very powerful and effective at what they aim to do, and that is, simply put, to disturb us.
Disturb us it does. Within the first 15 minutes, we see things that are so disturbing to the pit of our souls that I almost shut the movie off twice. Racism, hate, justified racism, justified hate, brutal stereotypes. The film masterfully shows us not only the worst quality of humankind but it scrutinizes the reasons why humans are this way. There's no good guy/bad guy; it's all bad guys. The first 15 mins is designed to make us hate almost every character, if not every race. By showing the atrocity that each race supposedly inflicts on the other, it paints us a Hatfield-McCoy cycle of hatred that has no known origin. It just exists and burns hotter. Non-whites are subverted by white society, so they exact revenge by committing crimes against white people which in turn causes the white police to hate and abuse non-white people who in turn become criminals against white people. The cycle of hate is not only explained but validated in a well-crafted, brutally told, highly disturbing way.
Which leads me to the 4th paragraph where I explain why I would never recommend this film. It's because IT JUST MAKES YOU FEEL BAD. For nearly 2 hours you get the same feeling you get when you watch too much cable news. And just as psychologists warn that watching too much news leads to depression, I would say the same can be said of films like this which, like the news, expose and scrutinize the absolute worst of humanity.
But then one might say that films like this are necessary to inspire change. Normally I would agree, and I'm sure that that's the intent of the filmmakers here. But let me ask you: who needs to change? Answer: racists and bigots. But are racists and bigots really going to be watching "Crash", stroking their beards and saying "Golly, I need to stop being a racist"? Probably not. And that is the film's undoing. By taking a heavy, ponderous, complex look at racism and hate, it alienates the fury-driven haters who most need to grasp this message. And instead "Crash" merely preaches to the choir, making the choir feel gawd awful lousy about the state of the world.
The film attempts to lead us to redemption, and there is at least 1 truly powerful scene of triumph that's worth the price of admission. However, other subplot resolutions seem a bit contrived, if not completely unnecessary, such as one character's climactic tragedy & epiphany which was so random I literally burst out laughing (the moral of the story being: don't wear socks indoors!). Ultimately "Crash" tries to tie things up neatly with a positive message, but it's precisely this neat tie-up, simultaneously with every sub-plot, that feels a bit contrived and ultimately unbelievable. At the risk of cutting out half the award-winning cast, perhaps the film should have focused on just 1 story & resolution, rather than pulling the "Fantasy Island" formula of having half a dozen stories wrap up neatly in the last 10 minutes.
Ultimately, despite its excellent presentation and first class acting, "Crash" couldn't sell me on its optimistic spin and instead left me feeling pretty horrible about the reality of living in a world where racists don't often have magical transformations. If you understand what I'm saying, you might want to skip this flick because, regardless of how it ends, the subject will just make you feel bad.
This film follows the lives of a dozen or so people over the course of 2 days all living in Los Angeles. The opening scene gives us the aftermath of some ambiguous tragedy (the titular "crash"), and the next scene flashes back to "yesterday" and shows us the events in these people's seemingly unrelated lives, leading up to that opening moment. If you've seen "House of Sand and Fog" (the #1 Feel Bad Movie of the 2000s), you'll recognize an identical sort of chronology and foreboding tone--so similar that I wonder if the Crash filmmakers were somehow involved in House as well. Both films are very powerful and effective at what they aim to do, and that is, simply put, to disturb us.
Disturb us it does. Within the first 15 minutes, we see things that are so disturbing to the pit of our souls that I almost shut the movie off twice. Racism, hate, justified racism, justified hate, brutal stereotypes. The film masterfully shows us not only the worst quality of humankind but it scrutinizes the reasons why humans are this way. There's no good guy/bad guy; it's all bad guys. The first 15 mins is designed to make us hate almost every character, if not every race. By showing the atrocity that each race supposedly inflicts on the other, it paints us a Hatfield-McCoy cycle of hatred that has no known origin. It just exists and burns hotter. Non-whites are subverted by white society, so they exact revenge by committing crimes against white people which in turn causes the white police to hate and abuse non-white people who in turn become criminals against white people. The cycle of hate is not only explained but validated in a well-crafted, brutally told, highly disturbing way.
Which leads me to the 4th paragraph where I explain why I would never recommend this film. It's because IT JUST MAKES YOU FEEL BAD. For nearly 2 hours you get the same feeling you get when you watch too much cable news. And just as psychologists warn that watching too much news leads to depression, I would say the same can be said of films like this which, like the news, expose and scrutinize the absolute worst of humanity.
But then one might say that films like this are necessary to inspire change. Normally I would agree, and I'm sure that that's the intent of the filmmakers here. But let me ask you: who needs to change? Answer: racists and bigots. But are racists and bigots really going to be watching "Crash", stroking their beards and saying "Golly, I need to stop being a racist"? Probably not. And that is the film's undoing. By taking a heavy, ponderous, complex look at racism and hate, it alienates the fury-driven haters who most need to grasp this message. And instead "Crash" merely preaches to the choir, making the choir feel gawd awful lousy about the state of the world.
The film attempts to lead us to redemption, and there is at least 1 truly powerful scene of triumph that's worth the price of admission. However, other subplot resolutions seem a bit contrived, if not completely unnecessary, such as one character's climactic tragedy & epiphany which was so random I literally burst out laughing (the moral of the story being: don't wear socks indoors!). Ultimately "Crash" tries to tie things up neatly with a positive message, but it's precisely this neat tie-up, simultaneously with every sub-plot, that feels a bit contrived and ultimately unbelievable. At the risk of cutting out half the award-winning cast, perhaps the film should have focused on just 1 story & resolution, rather than pulling the "Fantasy Island" formula of having half a dozen stories wrap up neatly in the last 10 minutes.
Ultimately, despite its excellent presentation and first class acting, "Crash" couldn't sell me on its optimistic spin and instead left me feeling pretty horrible about the reality of living in a world where racists don't often have magical transformations. If you understand what I'm saying, you might want to skip this flick because, regardless of how it ends, the subject will just make you feel bad.
"Crash" is a complex movie with a simple premise: set in Los Angeles it follows 8 main characters (and many, many more supporting) from all walks of life and races whose lives intersect at some point during one 24 hour period. These people are all different yet all alienated, to the point of breaking, so much so that when they come together, things explode.
The complexity of the film comes from the encounters between characters and their tangled lives and worlds. Haggis' screenplay is so intricate and delicately written I couldn't begin to try to summarize the actual plot line (which destines this article to be kind of vague), but everyone meets everyone else at some point in the film (and there are a whole lot of characters). Sufficed to say these meetings are variably intense, casual, fleeting, dangerous, but they all effect the participants in profound and provocative ways, causing lives to find enlightenment or swerve violently, and watching it all unfold is mesmerizing because Paul Haggis (Oscar Nominated writer of Million Dollar Baby) made the film meaty with messy characters and topics and stories to chew and hurtle along with.
The all-encompassing theme of the film is racism, and it is dealt with bluntly, honestly, and without reservation. Every single character participates in the perpetuation of the ugly cycle but also suffers because of it. Where racism makes for an interesting enough subject for an already provoking and fairly experimental film (I was surprised to see this get wide release), it's only the catalyst for a deeper, resounding story of redemption and the universality of our lonely situation which the movie becomes during its second hour (what you could call Act II). It switches from a somewhat depressing contemplative amalgamation of moments about racism in everyday life and how destructive it is, to a throbbing, intense web of choices and consequences -- life and death, vivifying or soul killing -- and the chance at redemption.
Following their actions in Act I, everyone meets a fork in the road or is given a second chance of some sort. Some take it, some don't, but regardless, by the end of the movie everyone has changed. This is what gives the movie wings during its second hour, makes it interesting, keeps you guessing and on knife's-edge. It also gives the characters depth and souls and shows that despite perceived and upheld differences, when it comes down to it we aren't different (which we see in a shattering scene between Ryan Philippe and Larenz Tate after Tate notices that he and Philippe have the same St. Christopher statue), in fact we desperately need each other. It's one of the few films I've seen where everyone is at fault somehow and yet there are no villains. It makes it hopeful, particularly with something as ugly as racism: everyone's fallible, but everyone has the capacity for good and nobility. That said, each of these character's inner struggles makes for all the conflict and resolution you need.
A talented ensemble drives the film, sharing almost equal amounts of screen time, but the folks who really stood out and had my full attention each time were Terrence Howard (plays a TV director), Matt Dillon (as a patrol cop), Sandra Bullock (a rich housewife), , Don Cheadle (a detective), and Michael Peña (a locksmith). These five gave deeply, deeply felt performances portraying a wide range of emotions and personal situations, giving souls -- alone, yearning, and searching in a world that doesn't seem to care -- to shells of imperfect people. But the actors triumph in little moments of human contact: a glance, an embrace, a pause, a smile, a wince, things that breath the film to life and with simple visuals give it profundity. This is beautifully illustrated in a small scene between the downward spiraling Jean (Sandra Bullock) and her maid after she's begun to realize all her problems may not be about the two black guys who car jacked her, but her own life.
Some closing notes: it's obvious it's a debut. At times the dialogue and acting can be stilted and unnatural; some of the initial "racial" situations seem forced; certain scenes could have used some editing or fine tuning, but by the end I didn't care. It also may be helpful to know that the first hour spends its time setting everything up for Act II, although it will seem more like a photo essay on racism than a setup. But by the time Act I ends you're ready for something substantial to happen, and at the perfect moment, stuff happens. I was entirely satisfied with this movie, I couldn't have asked for anything more. Still it's impressive, with his debut Haggis made a film that magically maintains a storytelling balancing act about people's lives that almost seamlessly flows, takes an honest look at racism with an understanding of mankind, a belief in redemption, and even hope. As I walked out of the theater into the rainy night it resonated with me and colored my thoughts as I made my way through the crowds of unknown fellow people filling the cinema. That's about all I can ask for in a film.
The complexity of the film comes from the encounters between characters and their tangled lives and worlds. Haggis' screenplay is so intricate and delicately written I couldn't begin to try to summarize the actual plot line (which destines this article to be kind of vague), but everyone meets everyone else at some point in the film (and there are a whole lot of characters). Sufficed to say these meetings are variably intense, casual, fleeting, dangerous, but they all effect the participants in profound and provocative ways, causing lives to find enlightenment or swerve violently, and watching it all unfold is mesmerizing because Paul Haggis (Oscar Nominated writer of Million Dollar Baby) made the film meaty with messy characters and topics and stories to chew and hurtle along with.
The all-encompassing theme of the film is racism, and it is dealt with bluntly, honestly, and without reservation. Every single character participates in the perpetuation of the ugly cycle but also suffers because of it. Where racism makes for an interesting enough subject for an already provoking and fairly experimental film (I was surprised to see this get wide release), it's only the catalyst for a deeper, resounding story of redemption and the universality of our lonely situation which the movie becomes during its second hour (what you could call Act II). It switches from a somewhat depressing contemplative amalgamation of moments about racism in everyday life and how destructive it is, to a throbbing, intense web of choices and consequences -- life and death, vivifying or soul killing -- and the chance at redemption.
Following their actions in Act I, everyone meets a fork in the road or is given a second chance of some sort. Some take it, some don't, but regardless, by the end of the movie everyone has changed. This is what gives the movie wings during its second hour, makes it interesting, keeps you guessing and on knife's-edge. It also gives the characters depth and souls and shows that despite perceived and upheld differences, when it comes down to it we aren't different (which we see in a shattering scene between Ryan Philippe and Larenz Tate after Tate notices that he and Philippe have the same St. Christopher statue), in fact we desperately need each other. It's one of the few films I've seen where everyone is at fault somehow and yet there are no villains. It makes it hopeful, particularly with something as ugly as racism: everyone's fallible, but everyone has the capacity for good and nobility. That said, each of these character's inner struggles makes for all the conflict and resolution you need.
A talented ensemble drives the film, sharing almost equal amounts of screen time, but the folks who really stood out and had my full attention each time were Terrence Howard (plays a TV director), Matt Dillon (as a patrol cop), Sandra Bullock (a rich housewife), , Don Cheadle (a detective), and Michael Peña (a locksmith). These five gave deeply, deeply felt performances portraying a wide range of emotions and personal situations, giving souls -- alone, yearning, and searching in a world that doesn't seem to care -- to shells of imperfect people. But the actors triumph in little moments of human contact: a glance, an embrace, a pause, a smile, a wince, things that breath the film to life and with simple visuals give it profundity. This is beautifully illustrated in a small scene between the downward spiraling Jean (Sandra Bullock) and her maid after she's begun to realize all her problems may not be about the two black guys who car jacked her, but her own life.
Some closing notes: it's obvious it's a debut. At times the dialogue and acting can be stilted and unnatural; some of the initial "racial" situations seem forced; certain scenes could have used some editing or fine tuning, but by the end I didn't care. It also may be helpful to know that the first hour spends its time setting everything up for Act II, although it will seem more like a photo essay on racism than a setup. But by the time Act I ends you're ready for something substantial to happen, and at the perfect moment, stuff happens. I was entirely satisfied with this movie, I couldn't have asked for anything more. Still it's impressive, with his debut Haggis made a film that magically maintains a storytelling balancing act about people's lives that almost seamlessly flows, takes an honest look at racism with an understanding of mankind, a belief in redemption, and even hope. As I walked out of the theater into the rainy night it resonated with me and colored my thoughts as I made my way through the crowds of unknown fellow people filling the cinema. That's about all I can ask for in a film.
This movie is bad on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin and could never all be covered in one review. Never mind the fact that only an amateur audience mistakes forced melodrama and abundant clichés for award winning acting, writing, or directing for now.
This movie proposes that everyone acts and reacts to everyone according to race. It pushes and stomps the idea that white people are always rich, racist, and afraid of other races. And a few non-whites aren't always perfect. If there was such a thing as politically correct police in the world, this would be the movie people would be forced to watch in prison.
Movies that do peoples thinking for them sure get old. And this kind of movie doesn't unite anyone. It sparks issues that people who know how to speak for themselves and have their own brain, have already gotten past.
Whatever tired p.c. ideological point this garbage tries to make, it's been done to death. This bludgeons the dead horse, mutilates the carcass, then spoon feeds the rest of it down the throat of anyone who happened to watch.
This movie proposes that everyone acts and reacts to everyone according to race. It pushes and stomps the idea that white people are always rich, racist, and afraid of other races. And a few non-whites aren't always perfect. If there was such a thing as politically correct police in the world, this would be the movie people would be forced to watch in prison.
Movies that do peoples thinking for them sure get old. And this kind of movie doesn't unite anyone. It sparks issues that people who know how to speak for themselves and have their own brain, have already gotten past.
Whatever tired p.c. ideological point this garbage tries to make, it's been done to death. This bludgeons the dead horse, mutilates the carcass, then spoon feeds the rest of it down the throat of anyone who happened to watch.
I do not want to do an in-depth analysis of this film. Rather, I'll point out what I consider makes it a very poor effort: the script. The same guy who did the script for CRASH also did the script for MILLION DOLLAR BABY. Both won the Oscar for best picture. I must be pretty out of touch to criticize this guy, but here goes. The main problem is that every character is "invented". That is, each character is so obviously the product of a fertile (and I am using that word kindly) imagination. In CRASH the politician and his wife are absolute stereotypes. They speak the most inane lines, like from a comic book or low-grade soap opera. The two cops are similarly contrived. One is a good guy and one is a bad guy. One is an idealist. One is a cynical veteran. I imagine such categories of cops do exist, but to give them life it takes someone who knows the genres, like Joseph Wambaugh. (In fact, to see how really bad CRASH is, just compare it to THE ONION FIELD). We also have the two foul-mouthed gang-banging black youth, hell bent on insanity. Big deal. Anyone can produce such characters. There is the misunderstood, good-guy Mexican plumber, who just happens to love his young daughter oh so much. Etc. Etc. Each character has the depth of a comic-book creation. They all speak in litanies of clichés. The plot too is just a clever manage of intersections. It is so obviously the product of the next cup of coffee or cigarette. It is cleverness without depth or substance. Christ, that this film won best picture just begs belief.
While I am getting in my two cents here, MILLION DOLLAR BABY is the same cliché-riddled mess. It is obvious that the guy who wrote knew nothing about boxing. The characters are pathetic, lifeless creations.
What has Hollywood come to that such movies walk away with top prize?
While I am getting in my two cents here, MILLION DOLLAR BABY is the same cliché-riddled mess. It is obvious that the guy who wrote knew nothing about boxing. The characters are pathetic, lifeless creations.
What has Hollywood come to that such movies walk away with top prize?
Oscars Best Picture Winners, Ranked
Oscars Best Picture Winners, Ranked
See the complete list of Oscars Best Picture winners, ranked by IMDb ratings.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाPaul Haggis holds the distinction of being the only person ever to write the screenplay for two consecutive Best Picture winners. He also wrote the previous year's Best Picture winner, Million Dollar Baby (2004).
- गूफ़Partway through Officer Ryan's rescue of Christine from her overturned SUV, the camera ran out of film, as evidenced by film sprocket holes appearing in the frame. This is an acknowledged goof from director Paul Haggis.
- भाव
[first lines]
Graham: It's the sense of touch. In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटProducers gratefully acknowledge the valuable assistance of The Culbert Family; Members of the Actors Gym, Hollywood, California.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनThe two-disc director's cut DVD features an additional two minutes of dialogue and footage
- कनेक्शनFeatured in 'Crash' Featurette (2005)
- साउंडट्रैकCity of Angel
Written by Sungsoo Kim
Published by Nirvana Music
Performed by Sungsoo Kim
Courtesy of Cats Records
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइट
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Alto impacto
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- 3500 S. Gaffey Street, San Pedro, लॉस एंजेल्स, कैलिफोर्निया, संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका(overturned car accident)
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $65,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $5,45,80,300
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $91,07,071
- 8 मई 2005
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $9,84,10,061
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 52 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.35 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें