This movie is an examination of sexual fetish. But instead of using the common fetishes like feet or bondage or rubber dress up, they use and obsession with car crashes. And by doing so explore how the human mind can find an erotic connection with otherwise non erotic situations.
I like Cronenberg but I didn't really like this movie. I wouldn't quite put it in the artsie trash realm, but it didn't come off as profound to me either. I just didn't care what happened, though in some ways I do respect it as art.
Shitty shitty shitty art-fag wankfest pretentious cum-drunk faggot bullshit movie. The movie doesn't even attempt to make any type of coherent sense. It's European art-house bullshit where everybody talks like insane depressed robots about nothing at all. Cronenburg eventually made some good movies, but this was an intolerable piece of fucking shit. Anybody who can watch this shit and not laugh at it is a clueless homo wanker dweeb.
@meanbrew classic example of " i don't get it, it's stupid" Not to presume that i do understand this film, but i can appreciate the insights that it offers into a realm i am completely unfamiliar with. Also, i did laugh at it, the sex scenes are hilarious, it doesn't necessarily have to be taken seriously to be profound.
Have to disagree with the notion that the sex scenes aren't meant to be erotic, if the idea of crash is to examine how we connect sex, death, and technology, how dark our dark sides might truly be, then sex scenes without eroticism would be pretty pointless.
Roger Ebert is a fucking idiot! He praises a film like this, despite it's graphic sexuality, yet he ridiculed "Blue Velvet" (which is clearly a masterpiece) for the EXACT same reason - graphic sexual violence. Make up your damn mind, you hypocritical prick!
@wreyoG I was comparing the heated debates between both movies. There's a review of Full Metal Jacket where Siskel attacks Ebert's precious Benji the Hunted and all hell breaks lose!
Comparing Full Metal Jacket and Crash is unfair and nonsensical. Crash is a film about bizarre sexual compulsions and the merging of the mechanical and the organic flesh. Full Metal Jacket is a war film stripped of moral and political complexities to show young men being turned into killers. Both films are great and they were directed by even greater filmmakers. In fact, I did my thesis on Stanley Kubrick. Yet, both films are exceptional on their own terms.
Ebert is right in understanding the core of the film's purpose and it's execution.
However, I'm with Siskel on this one when it comes down to it even though he didn't seem to fully take the time to study it from all angles...it leaves alot to be desired and some of the acting is embarrassingly bad
Ebert explicated the film, but didn't explain why it's a good film. Why should the audience care about car crashes being presented as surrogate porn stimuli?
Spader grosses me out, so skip. Cronenberg is like an eqired taste. Some like his work and some don't. I get creeped out so much by his films that I only see a few seens here and there. The other problem I have with his films is that the main actor is always an actor I can't stand.
Do you happen to like Viggo Mortenson, Jeff Goldblum, Jeremy Irons, Jude Law, Christopher Walken, Ralph Fiennes, Oliver Reed, or James Woods by chance?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I know this question sounds a bit "off" but can someone answer me this question:
Is the director of this worthless piece of *$&@#, degenerate filth "art" movie - David Cronenberg, is Cronenberg a Jew?
Not that I hate all Jewish people or anything, but filth like this, masquerating as "high art" - yeah, we just can't allow this in our societies - these worthless, talentless self described "artists" - they need to be given the boot.
@itsareligionofpeace yeah, you share just about the same viewpoint as the president of the distributor who, at first, refused to released the film: Ted Turner.
@urckrecords - I once made a hotel reservation for the dear Mr. Turner, he booked a shabby $25,000 a night suite in Hotel Gritti Palace, Venice. The guy is a money making machine where art and venture have no place. Yet he indulges himself sleeping in his cushy mansion surrounded by works of masters just beecause he can.
@AlsatianCousin unbelievable, that's over half my yearly hard-earned, and for one night's accomodations! It makes us appreciate those few art collectors with a bit of money who understand what it means to be an artist, like Dennis Hopper for example.
I wonder if Ted Turner is happier than those of us on the lower end? I would guess no he's not, but what do I know?
Given the light in which Cronenberg has went about his movies (having the luxury of hindsight now) it's quite safe to say Ebert is spot on here, but obviously his clever observations on the movie will go completely unnoticed to 99% of people watching this movie. It's the luxury and downfall of a competent critic to have so much insight.
Siskel's review here represents the common movie-goer and nothing wrong with that. He was not too keen on scratching the surface unlike Ebert. A great debate!
Their positions here are very interesting, considering their review of Blue Velvet was as heated as this one, except they each took the opposite stance.
I find it interesting that Ebert likes this movie, but Blue Velvet is too much for him. I don't hate Crash by any means, and I love Cronenberg, but I have to agree with Siskel on the characters lacked the kind of thing you want to see from them and at times could come off as stupid. And while we don't have to look at people who are morally correct, at the same time if they don't experience any character arc that we might want to see out of them, we might not like the product.
I think that Crash is a fascinating movie, and I think Ebert's probably right (in part) in his assessment. I do know that all of the discussion in the film of what it "means" is blatant misdirection - Koteas's character admits that in a later scene. However, I've never wanted to see it again after the first movie, because it is just as cold and repellent as Siskel describes it to be. I've never seen anything else white like this film.
I don't always agree with Roger Ebert (and VERY rarely agreed with Gene Siskel), but he is right on the money with his assessment of CRASH. Great movie.
It's interesting that Ebert gave a poor review to Blue Velvet because of how it made him feel unpleasant with it's material yet here he claims the material is disturbing and hard to watch. Yet he gives it a positive review. Sex, scabs, wounds and braces is ok but Blue Velvet was too much for him. Whatever. Crash is not a very good movie.
Even more bizarre is that in his Blue Velvet he criticized it for supposedly humiliating Isabella Rossellini sexually, yet he put Last tango in paris is in his Great movies essay collection and the actress in that movie actually felt humiliated during the sex scenes.
@Superfreaxx Ha, that is interesting. I like both of these guys. I've always been partial to Siskel though. I just always seemed to agree with him more. They are very insightful and interesting to listen to. Shame that Siskel is gone.
My mom told me last year that she pulled up "Crash" on DirecTV hoping to see the Sandra Bullock film, and told me she ended up getting "a porno movie with James Spader" instead.
Siskel clearly understands the film. He just doesn't like it. I clearly understand that. It was awful. Why disturbing for the sake of disturbing? Sometimes it works, Crash was tedious and goofy. An ugly movie that tried to be ultra provacative and succeeded...in a crap way. Ebert, your math and logic cannot rid this film of it's shit ssteam.
ebert wins. crash is one of cronenberg's best movies, probably my favorite of his from the 90's. of all of his movies, it's the most disturbing to me.
@robaquarian Gene Siskel - Yale philosophy major. Though he can come across as kind of flaky at times, he's a very smart guy..Ebert is just trying his old trick of talking as if he's been given personal notes from the director, and implying that if you don't like the film it's because you're stupid - just a cheap way to win an argument through intimidation.
@nookie077 i don't doubt Siskel was intelligent. he just didn't understand the subtext of the movie.Ebert didnt need personal notes cause he's a smart guy too.he didnt imply you dont like it cause you stupid, he didnt think about the movie and took it on face value. ther have been times when ebert did the same and siskel schooled him. siskel can dislike the movie but his analysis was bad. your entitled to your opinion but your not entitled to your own facts
@robaquarian Ebert won the Pulitzer prize for his film reviews, no easy feat, so I know he's smart. I said he talked like he'd been given notes, not that he needed them. Siskel didn't like/enjoy the film, simple as that, and no amount of subtext was going to change that...it shouldn't have to.
As for opinions and facts, I don't remember quoting any stats/figures. I just gave my "opinion". Anyway, if you like the film that's good, and these two are entertaining to watch whoever you agree with.
@nookie077 understanding the movie doesn't make you like yes. but my point is he didn't understand it. and he was criticizing it for its message. his reasons were not valid.hence your entitled to opinion not facts
@robaquarian I don't really think so. I mean, Ebert is trying to allign Siskel's dislike of the film with the idea that he simply doesn't understand it, but its perfectly valid to get a movie and still think it sucks.
Ebert disliked Blue Velvet because he thought it was demeaning to Isabella Rosselini. None of the sex in Crash is demeaning because the characters maintain a sense of dignity and responsibility for their actions.
I think Ebert is right about this movie. Some of it might be erotic, but it contains so many different kinds of sex that no matter who you are (unless you're pretty whack) you're gonna step back and watch it like a documentary instead of a porno. It's interesting.
Eyes Wide Shut was a masterpiece. Crash is revolting trash, and I usually like Cronenberg's films. Sorry Roger, Im not with ya on this one. Gene was right.
You're right and others are wrong? Based on what? Opinion? Okay. People are rating your comment negatively because they don't agree with it. Based on opinion, not fact. Holding an opinion strongly enough doesn't make it fact either, so to say you're right and the people who don't agree with you are wrong is quite an arrogant statement.
I find it interesting that Siskel defends Blue Velvet and Ebert trashes it in a reverse of this argument. Film criticism is mostly bunk. Either you like a movie or you don't.
I dont beleive either of the two get this film but Ebert is at least open to it. Siskel's comments seemed as if he made his mind up in the first 30 seconds of the film. I think the film is obviously erotic so Eberts reading goes far to narrow or conceptual.
I thought that, given the original book, the young Cronenberg would have made a more authentic adaptation, but it would probably have been banned everywhere, for a few decades at least. It would have been a worthwhile exercise anyway. The older Cronenberg has made this a low-key art film that was still too much for many people to take. How sad is that? It's still a great film though, and gets the point across to those with a mind open enough to take it.
Crash was an amazing film, and not the first Ballard-influenced film that Cronenberg has made - "Slither" was basically "High Rise" with mutant slugs (Ballard thought people didn't need mutant slugs to motivate them - just psychogeography).
I'm a Brit so I don't know who this Siskel is. I know Roger Ebert via the web though. I'm glad that Ebert gets the point of the film. I think that this Siskel guy looks a bit of a dork, trying to howl Ebert down as if shouting makes your argument better.
I never thought of the movie in the way ebert describes it - as a pornographic movie in form, which substitutes car crashes for sex. An interesting insight
i thought crrash was brilliant -- the way i saw it was as protraying the dangers arise when we sublimate natural sexual urges for a removed and fetishised ritual -- it is hard to watch at times,and is kind of a downer,but was certainly one of the most unique films i've ever seen,and i've seen alot
The relationship between sex and death is a subject that mankind has been interested in for centuries and the fact that this fascination continues and is re-invented with modern technology is brilliant.The cars in the film are almost an extension of the characters,a sexual organ itself, a prominent part of the eroticism.The book is wonderful but if people cannot appreciate the ideas in the film i don't think people will enjoy the book as it is a million and half times more intense than the film.
I love these guys, and I miss the hell out of the both of them, together. I love their debates, because it's hard to pick a side at times because they both bring to the table interesting points.
"It's Hooey!"
prismgap 1 month ago 3
I miss these two debating over films. R.I.P Gene Siskel.
TheAndyman1000 2 months ago
I've seen it a few times. It's more interesting each time.
sammycut1 2 months ago
A short summary
"Gene: But are they interesting?
Roger: Let me get this straight. You honestly don't think seeing Elastigirl getting fucked is interesting?"
Thumbs up for the reference!
Superfreaxx 3 months ago
"This movie was hot. I came 5 times," Roger Ebert
MightyQuinn2021 4 months ago
This movie is an examination of sexual fetish. But instead of using the common fetishes like feet or bondage or rubber dress up, they use and obsession with car crashes. And by doing so explore how the human mind can find an erotic connection with otherwise non erotic situations.
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 4 months ago
These are the moments that I love Ebert the most
ktoimil 4 months ago
This is, I think, the weirdest discussion I've seen them have.
dekartd 5 months ago
I like Cronenberg but I didn't really like this movie. I wouldn't quite put it in the artsie trash realm, but it didn't come off as profound to me either. I just didn't care what happened, though in some ways I do respect it as art.
Chris25698 5 months ago
Shitty shitty shitty art-fag wankfest pretentious cum-drunk faggot bullshit movie. The movie doesn't even attempt to make any type of coherent sense. It's European art-house bullshit where everybody talks like insane depressed robots about nothing at all. Cronenburg eventually made some good movies, but this was an intolerable piece of fucking shit. Anybody who can watch this shit and not laugh at it is a clueless homo wanker dweeb.
meanbrew 5 months ago
@meanbrew classic example of " i don't get it, it's stupid" Not to presume that i do understand this film, but i can appreciate the insights that it offers into a realm i am completely unfamiliar with. Also, i did laugh at it, the sex scenes are hilarious, it doesn't necessarily have to be taken seriously to be profound.
Throberta 5 months ago
@Throberta I'm not actually an idiot psycho redneck, but I'm going to pretend one hijacked my computer last week.
meanbrew 5 months ago
carnal knowledge
jerico641 6 months ago
This film reminded me of watching fetish porn for a fetish I don't have (which is always a boring experince.)
milascave2 7 months ago
Have to disagree with the notion that the sex scenes aren't meant to be erotic, if the idea of crash is to examine how we connect sex, death, and technology, how dark our dark sides might truly be, then sex scenes without eroticism would be pretty pointless.
asedenasever 7 months ago
wow ebert
themooddisorders 8 months ago
Gene, would you kindly pop your tit back in your bra love, cos it's putting me off the review.
TheConciseStatement 8 months ago
Its pretty rare for something from a Canadian director to be "for a mainstream audience"
TheAmericanOriginal 9 months ago
I dunno, I really agree with both of them. It's kind of a strange film...it's funny and depressing at the same time.
sammycut1 9 months ago
Roger Ebert is a fucking idiot! He praises a film like this, despite it's graphic sexuality, yet he ridiculed "Blue Velvet" (which is clearly a masterpiece) for the EXACT same reason - graphic sexual violence. Make up your damn mind, you hypocritical prick!
jayjay1184 10 months ago
check the outtake clip that's on YouTube, they clown each other pretty good!
urckrecords 10 months ago
I can only imagine how irate they use to get with each other off camera...
BrideAndGroomFilmsHD 10 months ago
Full Metal Jacket > Crash
joemj413 10 months ago
@joemj413 that goes without saying!
urckrecords 10 months ago
@joemj413 definitely...but those 2 movies dont have a lot in common
wreyoG 10 months ago
@wreyoG I was comparing the heated debates between both movies. There's a review of Full Metal Jacket where Siskel attacks Ebert's precious Benji the Hunted and all hell breaks lose!
joemj413 10 months ago
@joemj413 the first half of full metal jacket > crash
llamasarus1 9 months ago
@joemj413:
Comparing Full Metal Jacket and Crash is unfair and nonsensical. Crash is a film about bizarre sexual compulsions and the merging of the mechanical and the organic flesh. Full Metal Jacket is a war film stripped of moral and political complexities to show young men being turned into killers. Both films are great and they were directed by even greater filmmakers. In fact, I did my thesis on Stanley Kubrick. Yet, both films are exceptional on their own terms.
RaoulDuKe313 6 months ago
@joemj413 no
erikbateson 3 months ago
Ebert is right in understanding the core of the film's purpose and it's execution.
However, I'm with Siskel on this one when it comes down to it even though he didn't seem to fully take the time to study it from all angles...it leaves alot to be desired and some of the acting is embarrassingly bad
jwild611 10 months ago
Ebert explicated the film, but didn't explain why it's a good film. Why should the audience care about car crashes being presented as surrogate porn stimuli?
scottvska 10 months ago
Roger Ebert likes to beat his meat to car crashes, the mucky old sod haha.
iconzero 11 months ago
what advertisement was that at the end?
789123456789 11 months ago
James Spader was amazing in this movie. The man has real talent.
ch0c0chia83 11 months ago
@ch0c0chia83 He's really good in Wolf with Jack Nicholson. Have you seen that one?
HolySasquatchTurd 11 months ago
the film is like a dark romance, the ending shocked me even though most of the movie didnt
TURBODORK2 11 months ago
I liked the film. but I understand when people say that they're disgusted by it...
TheEvilelvis89 1 year ago
I think both missed the point of the film
IanSchultz13 1 year ago
Crash.......suckedddddddd......
jmg3116 1 year ago
Spader grosses me out, so skip. Cronenberg is like an eqired taste. Some like his work and some don't. I get creeped out so much by his films that I only see a few seens here and there. The other problem I have with his films is that the main actor is always an actor I can't stand.
Sleepingsparklegirl 1 year ago
@Sleepingsparklegirl fair enough
Do you happen to like Viggo Mortenson, Jeff Goldblum, Jeremy Irons, Jude Law, Christopher Walken, Ralph Fiennes, Oliver Reed, or James Woods by chance?
urckrecords 1 year ago 6
@urckrecords owned
imruins 1 year ago
....the leg
*vomits*
Spader making out with Casey Jones
*vomits again*
doddsino 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I know this question sounds a bit "off" but can someone answer me this question:
Is the director of this worthless piece of *$&@#, degenerate filth "art" movie - David Cronenberg, is Cronenberg a Jew?
Not that I hate all Jewish people or anything, but filth like this, masquerating as "high art" - yeah, we just can't allow this in our societies - these worthless, talentless self described "artists" - they need to be given the boot.
itsareligionofpeace 1 year ago
@itsareligionofpeace WOW!! I had given up hope that the fascist argument would get represented. Thanks!
Now FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
urckrecords 1 year ago 3
@itsareligionofpeace yeah, you share just about the same viewpoint as the president of the distributor who, at first, refused to released the film: Ted Turner.
urckrecords 1 year ago
@urckrecords - I once made a hotel reservation for the dear Mr. Turner, he booked a shabby $25,000 a night suite in Hotel Gritti Palace, Venice. The guy is a money making machine where art and venture have no place. Yet he indulges himself sleeping in his cushy mansion surrounded by works of masters just beecause he can.
AlsatianCousin 1 year ago
@AlsatianCousin unbelievable, that's over half my yearly hard-earned, and for one night's accomodations! It makes us appreciate those few art collectors with a bit of money who understand what it means to be an artist, like Dennis Hopper for example.
I wonder if Ted Turner is happier than those of us on the lower end? I would guess no he's not, but what do I know?
urckrecords 1 year ago
Given the light in which Cronenberg has went about his movies (having the luxury of hindsight now) it's quite safe to say Ebert is spot on here, but obviously his clever observations on the movie will go completely unnoticed to 99% of people watching this movie. It's the luxury and downfall of a competent critic to have so much insight.
Siskel's review here represents the common movie-goer and nothing wrong with that. He was not too keen on scratching the surface unlike Ebert. A great debate!
AlsatianCousin 1 year ago
"It's hooey!"
CrashLanden 1 year ago
Their positions here are very interesting, considering their review of Blue Velvet was as heated as this one, except they each took the opposite stance.
These guys have no consistency.
spiritscar 1 year ago
this movie is a masterpiece, Cronenberg is a genius and deborah unger is hot as hell!
Artfullyalphamale 1 year ago
@Artfullyalphamale 1. agreed 2. agreed 3. definitely agreed!
urckrecords 1 year ago
@urckrecords
I find it interesting that Ebert likes this movie, but Blue Velvet is too much for him. I don't hate Crash by any means, and I love Cronenberg, but I have to agree with Siskel on the characters lacked the kind of thing you want to see from them and at times could come off as stupid. And while we don't have to look at people who are morally correct, at the same time if they don't experience any character arc that we might want to see out of them, we might not like the product.
doddsino 1 year ago
scorsese named this one of his top ten films of 90s
inrwizards 1 year ago
you should watch the review from Escape From L.A. that was a fight between those two.
moviefreak2011 1 year ago
they had a brawl during the commercial break
JoelH790 1 year ago
Hooey is right, Gene.
Ingratiateful 1 year ago
OMG this film looks random as pie with no filling
YoJimBoHugabaJoe 1 year ago
I think that Crash is a fascinating movie, and I think Ebert's probably right (in part) in his assessment. I do know that all of the discussion in the film of what it "means" is blatant misdirection - Koteas's character admits that in a later scene. However, I've never wanted to see it again after the first movie, because it is just as cold and repellent as Siskel describes it to be. I've never seen anything else white like this film.
jackal59 1 year ago
I think it's hilariously ironic that the reasons that Roger Ebert defends Crash are the same reasons he totally dismisses David Lynch's Blue Velvet!
RotoPlasmX 1 year ago 24
@RotoPlasmX True that!!!
sebastianquilt 1 year ago
@RotoPlasmX just like when he didn't like Jumanji and then years later he didn't like Spider-Man 1
hackensac 1 year ago
@RotoPlasmX Ebert is full of shit a lot of the time.
sultanofslander 8 months ago in playlist Siskel & Ebert: Greatest Arguments
They both are total douche bags.
RotoPlasmX 1 year ago
@RotoPlasmX fair enough
urckrecords 1 year ago
Roger gets it .... few do.
Rikitocker 1 year ago
I don't always agree with Roger Ebert (and VERY rarely agreed with Gene Siskel), but he is right on the money with his assessment of CRASH. Great movie.
dannydontgoin237 1 year ago
beautiful cars and women and crashes and yet the fil is very tragic
TURBODORK2 1 year ago 2
They argued pretty heavily over "Barfly" as well. "Benji the Hunted" also has a really good argument as well.
unclejay1973 1 year ago
urckrecords: check out this NAKED LUNCH perplexed review by both Siskel & Ebert. One has to love their loss for words from such an insane flick.
kinoptika 1 year ago
@kinoptika thanks for the recommendation! also check out my "William S. Burroughs plays drums" clip that I posted on my channel
urckrecords 1 year ago
so ebert likes this movie but he didnt like blue velvet?
chickypickyyeah 1 year ago 2
@chickypickyyeah yeah, right? I was always baffled that he didn't call that "a movie" but its cool he waz down w/ crash ha
maxabeles 1 year ago
this Crash is better than the 2004 Oscar winning Crash
schmittyc1993 1 year ago 3
@schmittyc1993 yeah, I imagine so, haven't seen the Hollywood 'Crash' yet, but I'm avoiding it just because they stole the title
urckrecords 1 year ago
@urckrecords
Of course there was like 20 movies titles Crash before this one.
strummerrr 1 year ago
@strummerrr true!
urckrecords 1 year ago
@strummerrr but the book was called Crash. It was a book before it was a film.
RotoPlasmX 1 year ago
This film is probably the most confusing I've seen.
WillBobAl4ever 1 year ago
It's funny to hear them talk about sex.
thatmovieguy777 1 year ago
It's interesting that Ebert gave a poor review to Blue Velvet because of how it made him feel unpleasant with it's material yet here he claims the material is disturbing and hard to watch. Yet he gives it a positive review. Sex, scabs, wounds and braces is ok but Blue Velvet was too much for him. Whatever. Crash is not a very good movie.
prismgap 1 year ago
@prismgap
Even more bizarre is that in his Blue Velvet he criticized it for supposedly humiliating Isabella Rossellini sexually, yet he put Last tango in paris is in his Great movies essay collection and the actress in that movie actually felt humiliated during the sex scenes.
Superfreaxx 1 year ago
@Superfreaxx Ha, that is interesting. I like both of these guys. I've always been partial to Siskel though. I just always seemed to agree with him more. They are very insightful and interesting to listen to. Shame that Siskel is gone.
prismgap 1 year ago
I hate them--they belong to the era of hitler etc--alarmists
redpaul79 1 year ago
i don't really get siskels comment at the very end there.
jimreid5 1 year ago
My mom told me last year that she pulled up "Crash" on DirecTV hoping to see the Sandra Bullock film, and told me she ended up getting "a porno movie with James Spader" instead.
CeruleanFilms 1 year ago
masterpiece, ebert totally got it...and siskel didnt and thats fine, i guess...
cineasta71 1 year ago
Siskel clearly understands the film. He just doesn't like it. I clearly understand that. It was awful. Why disturbing for the sake of disturbing? Sometimes it works, Crash was tedious and goofy. An ugly movie that tried to be ultra provacative and succeeded...in a crap way. Ebert, your math and logic cannot rid this film of it's shit ssteam.
fundy76 1 year ago
@fundy76 lol Siskel clearly understands this film? Are you high? He clearly can't comprehend it at all. He's a total hack critic.
Lothos666 1 year ago
@Lothos666
I think you may be a hack - how's that settle with ya? lol
fundy76 1 year ago
crash is an epic movie. sucks that there's another movie of the same title that more people have watched. makes for awkward conversation.
Foldered 1 year ago 3
The only thing I like about the newer Crash is that someone might accidentally see the Cronenberg one. Heh.
FloraWest 1 year ago 3
Ebert told him up, from 3:36 Gene is officially defeated look at his face and ever his response near the end. It sounds soo defeated.
vendetta89 1 year ago
I agree with Ebert! I always do. Anyone who doesn't like this film just doesn't get it.
AntheanCeilliers 1 year ago
The fact that this movie gets so many people riled up is the only proof you need that Cronenberg succeeded in what he set out to do.
therealalexb 1 year ago 3
Ebert is such a neckbeard, I love it.
kagetoh 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is a terrible movie, I like sex in movies but this is just filth
townsjim 1 year ago
Ebert could have told Siskel "I was frozen today!" and this argument would be over.
Headbanger142 2 years ago 13
the movie had a better ending...sort of
dnasty312 2 years ago
ebert goes ballistic at 3:30
shanebrennan0123 2 years ago 3
after reading the book, I understood it more
dnasty312 2 years ago
reading the book!
dnasty312 2 years ago
I would recommend listening to Howard Shore's Crash score whilst reading the book. A perfect combination! Best guitar music ever recorded.
urckrecords 2 years ago
@dnasty312 It's one of my favorite. Did you like it? Completely insane. I don't know how it's not more infamous than it is.
greg5566 1 year ago
@greg5566 i did. it's frighteningly real
dnasty312 1 year ago
@dnasty312 I would also recommend two books published by RE/Search (they did the Industrial Culture Handbook as well as Modern Primitives):
"J.G. Ballard - Quotes"
"J.G. Ballard - Interviews"
one can see the influence of Ballard in Fight Club, almost everything by David Cronenberg, not to mention the music of Joy Division.
Ballard was a prophet in my opinion.
urckrecords 1 year ago
ebert wins. crash is one of cronenberg's best movies, probably my favorite of his from the 90's. of all of his movies, it's the most disturbing to me.
captainpungent 2 years ago
Siskel wins
SavedByGraceAdam 2 years ago
great intellectual film.
dontleademsomuch 2 years ago
CRASH is Cronenbergs most perfectly executed film and the novel is utterly fearless and original.
molloyx 2 years ago
ebert owns siskel here
robaquarian 2 years ago 29
siskel owns ebert here
theKarst 2 years ago
how so? siskel cops out cause he doesnt even understand the film, he dismiss it out right. ebert schools him big time
robaquarian 2 years ago 23
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anyone who understands this film is as fucked up as cronenberg. It's awful
townsjim 1 year ago
FACT
SeanConnery9000 1 year ago
what?
townsjim 1 year ago
i was agreeing by saying your comment was fact when I noticed that two people gave it thumbs down
SeanConnery9000 1 year ago
@robaquarian Gene Siskel - Yale philosophy major. Though he can come across as kind of flaky at times, he's a very smart guy..Ebert is just trying his old trick of talking as if he's been given personal notes from the director, and implying that if you don't like the film it's because you're stupid - just a cheap way to win an argument through intimidation.
nookie077 1 year ago
@nookie077 i don't doubt Siskel was intelligent. he just didn't understand the subtext of the movie.Ebert didnt need personal notes cause he's a smart guy too.he didnt imply you dont like it cause you stupid, he didnt think about the movie and took it on face value. ther have been times when ebert did the same and siskel schooled him. siskel can dislike the movie but his analysis was bad. your entitled to your opinion but your not entitled to your own facts
robaquarian 1 year ago
@robaquarian Ebert won the Pulitzer prize for his film reviews, no easy feat, so I know he's smart. I said he talked like he'd been given notes, not that he needed them. Siskel didn't like/enjoy the film, simple as that, and no amount of subtext was going to change that...it shouldn't have to.
As for opinions and facts, I don't remember quoting any stats/figures. I just gave my "opinion". Anyway, if you like the film that's good, and these two are entertaining to watch whoever you agree with.
nookie077 1 year ago
@nookie077 understanding the movie doesn't make you like yes. but my point is he didn't understand it. and he was criticizing it for its message. his reasons were not valid.hence your entitled to opinion not facts
robaquarian 1 year ago
@robaquarian Points, opinion, facts... I'm getting confused now - we could go around in circles all day/night with this.
But sorry about the "facts" thing - I thought you were referring to me! personaly...my mistake.
nookie077 1 year ago
@robaquarian I don't really think so. I mean, Ebert is trying to allign Siskel's dislike of the film with the idea that he simply doesn't understand it, but its perfectly valid to get a movie and still think it sucks.
NotNamedJones 10 months ago
@robaquarian
How so? Siskel owns Ebert here, he's saying the sexual perversion story is stupid and it is.
southrules 1 year ago
I'm with Gene on this one.
AllenbysEyes 2 years ago 3
rip ballard
Cadmusproject 2 years ago 3
Ebert is right - I did watch this film to be aroused by a ripped Holly Hunter. Damn, she got pumped after Piano.
thejobloshow 2 years ago 3
Wow, now I have to see this movie. A film that could divide up two great critics in such a way as black and white. That I have to go watch.
"I'm going to review the movie, then I'm going to review your review"
LOL
degree7 2 years ago 6
lol, yeah Siskel had a great sense of humor
sethisawesome 2 years ago 3
Didn't get it, but I liked it!
dnasty312 2 years ago 2
read the book! much better
urckrecords 2 years ago
Ebert, 100% Right!!!!
Newz1306 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gene Siskel Sucks. He was always the worst. Any film he hated I'd quickly rush to see.
chipz100 2 years ago
Ebert disliked Blue Velvet because he thought it was demeaning to Isabella Rosselini. None of the sex in Crash is demeaning because the characters maintain a sense of dignity and responsibility for their actions.
I think Ebert is right about this movie. Some of it might be erotic, but it contains so many different kinds of sex that no matter who you are (unless you're pretty whack) you're gonna step back and watch it like a documentary instead of a porno. It's interesting.
SpacForever 2 years ago
Ebert was totally right on this film. It's a beautiful film that rivals Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut' in regards to erotic cinema.
nickness126 2 years ago
i thought eyes wide shut was sick. can u tell me y a lot of people like it?
j009aguar13 2 years ago
Eyes Wide Shut was a masterpiece. Crash is revolting trash, and I usually like Cronenberg's films. Sorry Roger, Im not with ya on this one. Gene was right.
cinemavirtualis 2 years ago
Agree completely
SeanConnery9000 2 years ago 3
And sorry folks, but rating my comment negatively doesnt change the fact that Im right and youre wrong. Deal with it. ;)
cinemavirtualis 2 years ago
You're right and others are wrong? Based on what? Opinion? Okay. People are rating your comment negatively because they don't agree with it. Based on opinion, not fact. Holding an opinion strongly enough doesn't make it fact either, so to say you're right and the people who don't agree with you are wrong is quite an arrogant statement.
dinosauravenger1989 2 years ago
urckrecords, why did ted turner try to prevent this movie's release?
blueeyesofice 2 years ago
I find it interesting that Siskel defends Blue Velvet and Ebert trashes it in a reverse of this argument. Film criticism is mostly bunk. Either you like a movie or you don't.
marky2112 2 years ago
I dont beleive either of the two get this film but Ebert is at least open to it. Siskel's comments seemed as if he made his mind up in the first 30 seconds of the film. I think the film is obviously erotic so Eberts reading goes far to narrow or conceptual.
retter2critical 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Siskel was too snooty.
marky2112 2 years ago
poor guy had a brain tumor, he always had some kind of slur of speech that Ebert made fun of on one of the outtake vids I've seen on YouTube
urckrecords 2 years ago
I thought that, given the original book, the young Cronenberg would have made a more authentic adaptation, but it would probably have been banned everywhere, for a few decades at least. It would have been a worthwhile exercise anyway. The older Cronenberg has made this a low-key art film that was still too much for many people to take. How sad is that? It's still a great film though, and gets the point across to those with a mind open enough to take it.
MidoriNoSaru 2 years ago 4
Crash was an amazing film, and not the first Ballard-influenced film that Cronenberg has made - "Slither" was basically "High Rise" with mutant slugs (Ballard thought people didn't need mutant slugs to motivate them - just psychogeography).
I'm a Brit so I don't know who this Siskel is. I know Roger Ebert via the web though. I'm glad that Ebert gets the point of the film. I think that this Siskel guy looks a bit of a dork, trying to howl Ebert down as if shouting makes your argument better.
MidoriNoSaru 2 years ago
Ooops! I meant "Shivers!" "Slither," I think, was a later spoof.
MidoriNoSaru 2 years ago
Also RIP J.G. Ballard.
Efrasnel 2 years ago 2
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEY
undurground 2 years ago
I like the word hooey.
billheartyface 2 years ago 2
I never thought of the movie in the way ebert describes it - as a pornographic movie in form, which substitutes car crashes for sex. An interesting insight
MassiveJungle 2 years ago 5
i thought crrash was brilliant -- the way i saw it was as protraying the dangers arise when we sublimate natural sexual urges for a removed and fetishised ritual -- it is hard to watch at times,and is kind of a downer,but was certainly one of the most unique films i've ever seen,and i've seen alot
paulianna1 2 years ago
Scorsese had this on his top 10 of the 90s
mr0glass 2 years ago 5
The relationship between sex and death is a subject that mankind has been interested in for centuries and the fact that this fascination continues and is re-invented with modern technology is brilliant.The cars in the film are almost an extension of the characters,a sexual organ itself, a prominent part of the eroticism.The book is wonderful but if people cannot appreciate the ideas in the film i don't think people will enjoy the book as it is a million and half times more intense than the film.
SinNanna 2 years ago
This movie is hooey!
Headbanger142 2 years ago
I didn't really like Crach, but understand what Ebert means. it just wasn't for me. I MUCH rather prefered Magnolia if you wanta compare the two.
jakespick 2 years ago
man, i miss that pairing. always lively debate and unique insight.
krinkly 2 years ago
the best thing about this movie is it got me reading J.G.Ballard, really amazing author.
theratking 2 years ago
Ebert would know about porn. He wrote "Beyong the Valley of the Dolls".
boomac62 2 years ago 6
And that's a bad thing?
flipcritic 2 years ago
These guys were the best
rogaface 2 years ago 6
This is a truly terrible and preposterous movie.
Ptrgamb 2 years ago
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, I guess
urckrecords 2 years ago
I would suggest giving the book a read, it's better
urckrecords 2 years ago
i didnt care for that film
j009aguar13 2 years ago
it's hooey!
joemj413 2 years ago
Critics....
tornhill1 2 years ago
Back then I usually found Siskel to be the more insightful reviewer, but I think he's way off on this one, Ebert got it.
lizmil 3 years ago
this is a good movie
plan9studios 3 years ago
I'd never thought I'd ever say this but Ebert is extremely on the ball here, he understands it and hands Siskel's ass on a plate back to him.
drplbiftin 3 years ago 7
Agreeing with Ebert for once, he's more of the film critic and Siskel sounds more like the average joe reviewer.
moeezS 3 years ago 5
I liked that film.
perpitbla5 3 years ago
I could be worse, it could be banned
Oh wait, it was, still is!
Westminster Council should be ashamed of themselves, what a foolish decision to make, that you cannot and will not see this film
I cannot understand why it got trashed and kicked around
os99 3 years ago
Ebert is so right!
anisblond 3 years ago
Agree totally :)
davidkammy 3 years ago
I love these guys, and I miss the hell out of the both of them, together. I love their debates, because it's hard to pick a side at times because they both bring to the table interesting points.
thejon93rd 3 years ago 2