Crash

[Scott Warner]

Originally Posted by adam

that is, I think he might know better than some of the schlock he praises, but he tries to approach it with a "my review should be appropriate for the lowest common denominator" kind of attitude.

I think Ebert would explain this as his "relative scaling" approach. That is, when he gives 'Batman Begins' a four star review, he's not saying that it's on the same footing as 'Citizen Kane', but rather that it's a four star movie compared to a three star for 'Hellboy' or a one star for 'Batman and Robin'.

I often disagree with his read of a movie but I chalk it mostly up to taste. Every once in a while something like 'Crash' comes along where I'm like "Ebert... I thought I knew you?!"

[adam]

I was so mad at him when I saw SWAT.

[Animal Boything]

Originally Posted by b.miller

i believe we've had a previous thread about this or a conversation somewhere else...

better thread
I still stand by everything I said about this movie, I think it's the best of the year. I don't get why people hate this movie because its motives are too clear or something... and an unfocused mess of a movie like Syriana gets heaped with praise when it plainly failed where Crash succeeded. Let's just say there's a good reason why Roger Ebert gets paid big bucks to write about film and certain other people don't.

[b.miller]

but Ebert liked Syriana too :P

[adam]

Syrania was hardly an unfocused mess.

[Animal Boything]

I talked about Syriana in its own thread... I'm not upset that people liked it, it didn't suck, but I'm upset that people who liked it are trashing a better movie.

To elaborate, the characters in Syriana had all these tacked-on personal tragedies, like a drunk dad or a dead kid, to try to awkwardly insert emotion into a story that was fundamentally about plot and politics, not characters, and it consequently had too many balls in the air and the writing and editing were not deft enough to keep it all interesting or clear. I often asked myself "why is this scene in the film?" and rarely got a good answer. The acting was strong, but to what end?

Crash was first and foremost about character, and while it could be argued that certain elements of the plot or the politics were tacked on, it was only in the interest of keeping the story clear. The result was a lean, effective film full of three-dimensional characters whose personal trials had meaning to the overall story, and performances that were not only strong but built on a solid foundation. The convenient twists of plot were only there to give us insight into the characters without introducing too many new elements, and as a result there were no loose ends and each scene had added meaning. On a certain level it was a parable, and its strange coincidences were not intended as realism. It was concise and flawlessly paced. It explored the theme of prejudice effectively without being ABOUT prejudice. (It was really about alienation and the complexity of human interaction.) So, in conclusion, fuck yall haters.

[Scott Warner]

Originally Posted by Animal Boything

I talked about Syriana in its own thread... I'm not upset that people liked it, it didn't suck, but I'm upset that people who liked it are trashing a better movie.

Phooey. But, we will agree to disagree, an outcome indicative of general critical opinion of this film.

[Animal Boything]

Okay then.

[adam]

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...TARY/601080310

[b.miller]

yeah it makes more sense now why Ebert picked it as his top... right after a film festival that was held here in town back in October, I read that the jury pick for best film was a movie that I had liked ok but was clearly not the best movie showing. So i asked one of the programmers of the fest (also on the jury) and she said that most times, the movie that wins the awards isn't necessarily the best movie but the movie that the jury most wants to win the award. That could mean that it's a movie that really needs distribution so even though the movie that already has a deal is better, they pick the one that needs the help. It's sounding like Ebert picked Crash because he agrees with its message and wants as many people as possible to see it because he thinks it can change people. No harm in that I guess... i mean he IS Ebert, pretty much the only big name critic left... Hustle & Flow was like 20 times better though

for real