moonspinner55
Director David Cronenberg took a wrong turn with this failed sex-melodrama about car crashes and climaxes. A young movie producer is involved in a violent two-car smash-up which leaves one man dead and his wife briefly hospitalized--and yet aroused. The producer and the woman begin a sexual relationship with car wrecks as their aphrodisiac--and they're not alone; the producer's wife is already a player in this ungainly game, and so is a local performance artist who is sexually charged by recreating celebrity crashes. Cronenberg, who also adapted J.G. Ballard's novel, was allegedly attracted not to the eroticism prevalent in the material, but rather the opportunity to delve into his characters' scarred and warped psyches (Roger Ebert called the film "A pornographic movie without pornography in it"). Unfortunately, the characters are a heavy-breathing group of hedonistic (or is that nihilistic?) freaks, pale and vacant-eyed like horny zombies, who seem to have the time and the energy (and the insurance!) to engage in such a lifestyle. What is Cronenberg's point--that death behind the steering wheel represents the ultimate orgasm? If eroticism wasn't Cronenberg's primary objective in tackling this tasteless project, that pretty much leaves everyone involved bumping and grinding without a purpose. Shaken but not stirred, if you will. *1/2 from ****
nipny
This is without a doubt one of the worst movies I have ever seen; maybe not top five but definitely top ten. Put it this way, I have only ejected a DVD before a movie was over twice before, this came close to being the third. The only thing that kept me watching was all the beautiful naked women. I'm trying to figure out if the director of the movie put all the naked women in to keep people like me watching until the end of the movie, or if this incredibly ridiculous movie was made as a way for beautiful women to get naked on screen. Either way, it was a waste of time. The app won't let me submit this review until I write 10 lines and there is really not much more to say so this part here is just fill until I can hit submit and let people know how bad this movie is.
AndrewTheGreatAndPowerful
Crash explores a fetish for car accidents. The movie's been praised for its depiction of sex. The free love is refreshing at first. As it dives deeper, the audience feels alienated rather than enlightened.The movie seems to revel in its weirdness. Strange dialog and score. The characters like being outcasts. The whole tone is dark. The filmmakers wanted the movie to feel creepy. In contrast, a lighter tone would have felt more sexually liberating. Instead it reminds you that while you can practice sex how you like, you'll still be judged for it.Side note: The sex scenes actually seem "grown up". It's too bad a film like this faced a lot of controversy. A typical porn film is infinitely more graphic.
freemantle_uk
Based on a novel by J.G. Ballad Crash was a highly controversial film when it was first released when it was released in 1996 for its depiction of sex and violence. Whilst it is controversial for a few scenes, its actual problem is that it a bad film. Director David Cronenberg has made so excellent films in many different genres, but Crash is a very shallow, nihilistic film about nothing. There are many problems with the film, it has the visual look and style of a TV film, characters with not much characterisation, people speaking in quiet tones and James Spader was a bland lead. Despite the film's attempts to have a said about the changing nature of sexuality in the world of technology, a look at subcultures, how people enjoy danger and thrills and sexual fetishes. But on the whole Crash is a film that has nothing to say about its subject matter and this is Cronenberg at his worst.
AD
