Does anyone else continue to click on threads that completely aggravate them to see if the people involved have said "Just kidding! LOL" yet?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Stupid Crash thread...

― Dan (I Should Know Better, Yet I Don't) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 18:51 (nineteen years ago)

ITS A BAD MOVIE DAN JUST ADMIT IT

― ham'ron (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 2 March 2006 18:52 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry, Dan.

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 18:52 (nineteen years ago)

I MEAN JESUS I MEAN WTF

― ham'ron (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 2 March 2006 18:52 (nineteen years ago)

That guy in the hiccups thread so did not have the hiccups. Stringing us on I can tell. Waiting for the other shoe to fall as he sits at his compy not hiccuping.

― Abbott (Abbott), Thursday, 2 March 2006 18:53 (nineteen years ago)

I think this about the "what do you look like" threads.

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 18:54 (nineteen years ago)

Hahahaha Jess!

"Crash" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Magnolia"

― Dan (It Won't Win Any Oscars Anyway) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 18:57 (nineteen years ago)

Neither Crash nor Magnolia is very good, though.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 2 March 2006 18:57 (nineteen years ago)

faint praise!

― gear (gear), Thursday, 2 March 2006 18:57 (nineteen years ago)

I admit that the existence of intelligent people such as Dan who (presumably?) liked Crash makes me want to reel in my vociferous hate for the movie just a little and re-examine my own perceptions, but then I remember that it was, IMHO, unrelentingly wrong and awful.

Again, I'm sorry.

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 18:59 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.moviemaker.com/issues/47/images/fc.Ebert.jpg

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:02 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't like Magnolia very much at all.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:07 (nineteen years ago)

I thought we didn't allow LOL here.

― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:08 (nineteen years ago)

I liked the movie a lot.

The tone of the way it's getting criticized in that thread is making me very, very uncomfortable; I feel like I went into the movie looking for entertainment and things to like and everyone else on that thread went in looking for things to tear apart in service of showing how much more they know about filmmaking and how people express racial differences. It's barely even about the movie anymore and more about how awesome all of you guys are for seeing through this obvious tripe that the Common American swills upon like the feeble-minded cattle they are. I also am getting a gigantic sense of difference in racial perception off that thread in that I have relatives who have been in situations akin to many of the things that happened in that movie; hell, I have been in situations akin to things that happened in that movie, and I find it incredibly galling when I watch a bunch of white men sitting around going, "Oh, that's such bullshit, that would never play out like that". How the fuck would you know?

― Dan (X) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:08 (nineteen years ago)

Whoa, it looks like Ebert took that photo himself, the way his right arm's sticking out a bit. I hope that's his myspace pic.

― Abbott (Abbott), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:10 (nineteen years ago)

more about how awesome all of you guys are for seeing through this obvious tripe that the Common American swills upon like the feeble-minded cattle they are

you can't make a movie that manipulative and instructive and not expect haters to get at least somewhat self-congratulatory for not swallowing it. that said, i agree that most of ile's resident film dudes outsmug the even smuggiest music crits on the smuggiest day ever smugged.

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:14 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't feel like the movie was aiming at Common Americans.

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:20 (nineteen years ago)

Also, we decided - I'm off-white.

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:22 (nineteen years ago)

(xpost)Yeah me neither. In fact I think the MOVIE is congratulating those people who DON'T behave like the people in the movie (just as the film is congratulating itself for having the courage to really examine the issue of race in a "hard-hitting" way.)

I won't dispute that I hate a TON of films though and I went into this film with LOW LOW LOW expectations. The problem is that when I go into a film thinking okay this is probably going to be bad, I am usually surprised to see stuff that I like there and there was very little to like here. I was just disappointed that a bunch of actors that I really like were let down by such disappointing material.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:24 (nineteen years ago)

I liked it too, Dan. A lot. Recently, especially for the burning car rescue - not for the acting or the script, but for what it means in the religous/spiritual good-vs-evil sense.

I don't care about realism; the film caused me to think. Entertainment or thought is all I seek. But I'm no film snob.

― Dave will do (dave225.3), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:24 (nineteen years ago)

As Nietzshe said of Emerson, "Emerson is one who lives instinctively on ambrosia - and leaves everything indigestible on his plate," when a thread really starts to annoy me, I simply stop clicking on it at all.

― M. White (Miguelito), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:26 (nineteen years ago)

Emerson was a decent player. Nietsche doesn't know what he's talking about.

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:26 (nineteen years ago)

Different sports, innit?

― M. White (Miguelito), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:28 (nineteen years ago)

From www.myspace.com/rogerebert:

ABOUT ME
I'm the God of Movies. And of this world, anything that gets a thumbs down is finished. Them the ropes, bitch. Oh, and I get lot's of pussy.

INTERESTS
General: Movies and pussy. Thumbs up to black pussy.
Music: Original Movie Scores.
Movies: Citizen Kane and a lot of movies that you fucking peons shall never understand or like.
Television: My show.
Books: My books.
Heroes: Me.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:28 (nineteen years ago)

Foul

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:29 (nineteen years ago)

I cannot be the only one to have momentarily read 'Thumbs up black pussy'.

― M. White (Miguelito), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:34 (nineteen years ago)

(xposts and stuff:)

The issue I have with Alex's and Adam's response there is that most Americans do actually behave like the characters in this film (obviously to varying degrees) and not just about race, but also about class. See, for example, any ILE thread about religion or conservatives.

HAVING SAID THAT, Alex's statement of what he didn't like about the movie makes total sense to me even if I disagree with it. I categorized this thread under "Abject Stupidity" because I know my reaction to the "Crash" thread contains more than just a dash of irrationality; also I was hoping people would chime in with other threads that would be funny to read through a filter where everyone on them was just kidding.

― Dan (FIN On Crash, I Hope) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:45 (nineteen years ago)

I only know a small number of Americans, mostly liberal Anglophiles (!), so maybe that explains something. :)

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:47 (nineteen years ago)

as i said on the Crash thread--i think Dan is right that people do often behave that way. liberalish white middle class movie critics just may not be around those people very often.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:49 (nineteen years ago)

(xp) I'm not an Anglophile, you ponce.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 2 March 2006 19:49 (nineteen years ago)

Is it just me, or does that picture sort of make Ebert look like an elderly lesbian?

― luna (luna.c), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:13 (nineteen years ago)

"The issue I have with Alex's and Adam's response there is that most Americans do actually behave like the characters in this film (obviously to varying degrees) and not just about race, but also about class."

I totally agree (esp. about the class part) that there are Americans who behave like this, but the problem is that most of the racist behavior as displayed in the film is pretty clearly marked by our culture as being unacceptable (and certainly so in this film's target demographic) so the whole thing not only feels very preachy, it also feels like very much like it was designed preaching to the converted. There are millions of more infinitely more subtle and less socially unacceptable (despite being equally hurtful) racist, classist, sexist behaviors that people exhibit all the time and which might have been a lot more relevant to the viewing audience which the film chose not to touch. And I think the reason it chose not touch them is because it is takes a brave film to actually make your audience REALLY uncomfortable. But Haggis is not a brave filmmaker and this is not a brave film so instead we are left with something that pretends to tackle something controversial and taboo only it's not.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:14 (nineteen years ago)

I think that Matt Dillon's larger-than-life bluster (which I thought was awesome) obscures the more subtle character interactions going on in the movie (like Don Cheadle and his mom, or most of Ryan Phillippe's performance, or even Sandra Bullock's final breakdown with her housekeeper although that's obviously not very subtle).

― Dan (IMO) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:26 (nineteen years ago)

Really, the only parts of the movie I thought were weak were the Don Cheadle/Jennifer Espisito interactions and the Terrance Howard freakout. I really liked everything else. (Also, while I'm still talking about the movie, reading the ending as being an "Oh, what a wonderful world of opportunity I have been released into!" shows such a colossal paternalistic misreading of the entire movie that I kind of feel like anyone who came to that conclusion should be embarrased to be alive.)

― Dan (Not To Go Too Over The Top) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:33 (nineteen years ago)

(xpost)Sigh. See I didn't think most of those interactions were very subtle (esp. the Bullock one which I kept thinking okay this is Driving Miss Daisy Part II isn't it?) But that Phillippe is generally pretty good and that scene with Tate could have been really good, but it gets ruined by the ending which just cheapens the whole thing.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:34 (nineteen years ago)

Hahaha dude, I did kind of explicitly say that the Bullock scene was only subtle when compared to the entirety of Matt Dillon's presence in the movie!

― Dan (Degrees) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:36 (nineteen years ago)

Wait so the subplot with Arab-American guy didn't bother you? Because I found that one really hard to take.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:36 (nineteen years ago)

xxxxxxxpost ...True (not subtle at all) - I just had been thinking about that scene lately - at the time I watched it, I thought it was pretty hollywood-redeeming-ending predictable - still do, I guess .. But I was discussing sufism with someone last week, and that scene came to me as a good example of what "being" means. It wasn't my favorite part of the movie though.....

― Dave will do (dave225.3), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:39 (nineteen years ago)

Well, considering that his behavior was being driven from a completely paranoid everyone-is-against-me position which, given the way that this country is currently reacting to people who even halfway resemble someone who might be Muslim (remember the Danish-newspaper-publishes-Islamic-cartoons thread?), no, it didn't bother me at all; if America was currently at war with western Africa and mainstream America was deciding that demonizing anything and everything that could be associated with western Africa was meet and right so to do, I'd be a paranoid nutcase, too.

― Dan (Minority Perspective) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:43 (nineteen years ago)

(Well my minority perspective, anyway; I have a relatively paranoid personality anyway so it's not all that shocking that I wouldn't find his behavior unfathomable.)

― Dan (Caveat A Go Go) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:45 (nineteen years ago)

"When did Persian become Arab?"

― Dave will do (dave225.3), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:48 (nineteen years ago)

I don't know that whole sequence where he went to the locksmith's house just seemed totally ludicrous. I could have kind of seen him going there yell at the guy (even that's a stretch, but maybe), but the whole "GIVE ME $50,000 to pay for my shop, because you didn't fix my door" thing was just preposterous. I mean the guy is paranoid, but Haggis treats him as that he is a complete idiot whose completely unaware of the law or that doors and locks are separate or basically anything (which given that he had to have been in the U.S. for at least 20 or so years--hi my daughter has no accent and she's a doctor/nurse seems unlikely.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:50 (nineteen years ago)

He thought that the locksmith was part of the group who trashed his store!

― Dan (Details Are Important) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:51 (nineteen years ago)

He did? Where did you see any indication of that? It seems to me as though he is blaming him for what happened to his store because he didn't fix the lock and he wants money to fix it. I don't see anything that indicates that he thinks the locksmith did it or that he thinks the locksmith has money from him. Also again even if he believe the guy did it only an idiot would think that if he goes up and waves a gun in the guy's face in broad daylight that it will result in anything other than him going to jail.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 2 March 2006 20:58 (nineteen years ago)

I thought he thought that the locksmith robbed him because the locksmith was trying to swindle him in to buying a door. And since he wouldn't, the guy robbed him and trashed his store.

― Dave will do (dave225.3), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:02 (nineteen years ago)

I just re-watched the scene and I don't see anything that indicates that he believes the locksmith did that. He's saying "give me my money" because he believes this guy was responsible for not fixing the lock. And again either way his behavior is completely unfathomable. It's the kind of thing that would only happen in a silly movie. In real life he would just have sued the guy or pointed the police in his direction.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:05 (nineteen years ago)

Hang On, Dan, help is on the way! I think scott seward liked this movie.

― Redd Scharlach (Ken L), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:08 (nineteen years ago)

If I recall the movie correctly, in the scene where he is surveying the wreckage (well before he shows up at dude's house), he says something along the lines of "the locksmith had his friends steal all of my lovely stuff". His wife is trying to talk him down and he won't hear anything she has to say.

Also, with regards to his behavior being unfathomable and no one ever doing things like that: do you never watch the news ever???? People do irrational shit ALL THE TIME!

― Dan (Come On Now) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:12 (nineteen years ago)

did anyone else feel like this movie argued for segregation? in the way that the racial conflict became this almost metaphysical thing that moved the plot along, completely improbably, at times. such that there's no way to say, "well, x character was wrong for that," and reach some sort of understanding as to why shit happened. like, if we're supposed to sympathize with Persian dude, then his killing the locksmith's daughter isn't his fault, it's just the inevitable fallout of racial strife? it was like: different races live in proximity, hate each other, destruction ensues. forever and ever amen. I don't know. I'm not putting this very well. I hated the movie. and I know we're supposed to hate Matt Dillon when he's assaulting Thandie Newton, but I felt like the film eroticized that moment, and then totally reinscribed it when it presented her body to us all bloodied and battered at the end and made Dillon her fucking savior. ew. there were some gender issues, too, is all I'm saying.

I think in part I was disappointed, because the movie has this trivially true and potentially promising premise: that when people get stressed out, even "nice" ones, their racial biases emerge. and then failed to go anywhere interesting with that, and became this orgy of bigotry and violence (which, when I was in the theater, viewers seemed to be vicariously enjoying, laughing a little too hard at Don Cheadle's Mexican jokes, etc.) also I hated the Ludacris character, and I love Ludacris, and I feel like he got played, being in that movie.

― horsehoe (horseshoe), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:19 (nineteen years ago)

I just noticed your name isn't "horseshoe."

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:20 (nineteen years ago)

Let's go back to where you get basic facts about the movie wrong.

― Dan (He Didn't Kill The Locksmith's Daughter) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:20 (nineteen years ago)

oh, sorry. substitute any other incident of violence in the movie, then. (i only saw it once and it was a while ago.)

― horsehoe (horseshoe), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:22 (nineteen years ago)

When I saw this movie in the theater, everyone was an emotional mess and no one knew which characters were the "sympathetic" ones by the end of it (besides the locksmith), which I gather is the effect the director wanted.

― Dan (Perfect Audience) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:24 (nineteen years ago)

okay, let me try and rephrase that. Crash presented a world so irredeemably fraught by racial violence that manifested itself everywhere, basically due to the fact that people of different races interacted with each other, that I was left feeling like the only proper course, on the movie's logic, would be segregation. does that make sense?

― horsehoe (horseshoe), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:24 (nineteen years ago)

I just watched the entire SEQUENCE and the guy says nothing of the sort. And there is unfathomable and then there is unfathomable (just like the idea that this guy CAN speak english, but somehow can't read it?!?! Despite having an obviously very well-educated daughter who has obviousl been in the states long enough to speak non-accented english and GET a medical degree.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:25 (nineteen years ago)

like (sorry, I'll shut up soon), if there had been more insight into people's motivations and maybe a couple fewer spectacularly destructive and improbable incidents, it would have really redeemed its basic premise. (not that destructive racial violence is improbable, but, you know, the rife coincidences, etc.)

― horsehoe (horseshoe), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

maybe he was just pretending to not read english. i pretend not to speak english sometimes when it benefits me

― phil-two (phil-two), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:31 (nineteen years ago)

haha! me too!

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:31 (nineteen years ago)

A lady was trying to push in front of us at O'Hare, she asked me what my problem was and I turned to her and said, in my finest RP "I'm sorry, I don't speak English".

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:32 (nineteen years ago)

Haha it was just a plot to keep his daughter around. I see it now.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:33 (nineteen years ago)

RP?

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:34 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/received_pronunciation

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:34 (nineteen years ago)

and Dan, I think you're probably right, that the movie wanted to fuck with viewer sympathy, making all the characters unlikable, but TO WHAT END? i ended up feeling like it was that way due to sloppy design, because I'm sure Haggis doesn't support segregation.

― horsehoe (horseshoe), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:36 (nineteen years ago)

I think it was largely to say that unless we start talking about the issues in a more earnest manner than polite society is currently comfortable with, segregation will be the only answer.

― Dan (My Take) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:38 (nineteen years ago)

okay. that makes sense. I still don't like the movie (and I suspect you're being smarter about the movie than Haggis was), but maybe I can chill out a little now.

― horsehoe (horseshoe), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:39 (nineteen years ago)

Well, I did hear an interview with Brendan Fraser and Sandra Bullock shortly after seeing the movie that talked about the exact same issue and how that theme was a focus for the entire cast and production staff, so I don't really think that I'm being smarter than Haggis by coming to a conclusion he talked about with the cast as a goal of the movie.

― Dan (Just Saying) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:43 (nineteen years ago)

Did you like Million Dollar Baby?

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:44 (nineteen years ago)

Iranian in Crash : racist gangpile :: Dan Perry's endorsement of Crash : ILE film snobs?

I'm sorry if you feel white people hating on Crash reveals a latent hatred of non-white non-males.

(Also, while I'm still talking about the movie, reading the ending as being an "Oh, what a wonderful world of opportunity I have been released into!" shows such a colossal paternalistic misreading of the entire movie that I kind of feel like anyone who came to that conclusion should be embarrased to be alive.)

I think you're misreading how people see this as being the message of the ending, because most people who read this into it think it's an unacceptable, embarrassing way to end the movie.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:49 (nineteen years ago)

You know, I was just sitting here wondering, Does a thread exist for the movie Crash?

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:51 (nineteen years ago)

Am I a smug film snob?

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:52 (nineteen years ago)

well, then, I just don't think the movie actually conveyed that, no matter what Haggis's stated goals were. and I also think that that's kind of throatclearing, as opposed to making a film that is the earnest conversation, etc.

― horsehoe (horseshoe), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:53 (nineteen years ago)

I don't know if I qualify as a snob, but it's so easy to be smug on ILX. I feel bad about it all.

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:53 (nineteen years ago)

Am I a smug film snob?

Clearly this should be a separate thread: Rank the most smuggest of ILE's smug film snobs.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:54 (nineteen years ago)

And you are not on my list, adamrl. Unless you want to be.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 2 March 2006 21:55 (nineteen years ago)

Clearly this should be a separate thread: Rank the most smuggest of ILE's smug film snobs.
No it shouldn't.

― Redd Scharlach (Ken L), Thursday, 2 March 2006 22:04 (nineteen years ago)

I only proposed it as a bit of fun. It's not like the snobs don't know who they are.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 2 March 2006 22:07 (nineteen years ago)

But it is so BORING, Eric! It's like when ILM circles around to shout down the r**k**t Googler.

― Redd Scharlach (Ken L), Thursday, 2 March 2006 22:13 (nineteen years ago)

Stupid Crash thread...

-- Dan (I Should Know Better, Yet I Don't) Perry (djperry@), March 2nd, 2006 6:51 PM. (Dan Perry) (later)

Can't have aggravated you that much given that you started The Movie Crash: Thread 2 - Return Of The Aggravating Thread.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Thursday, 2 March 2006 22:50 (nineteen years ago)

Oops - the email filter seems to have missed your address there. Sorry.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Thursday, 2 March 2006 22:51 (nineteen years ago)

It doesn't work with parens, Gerry.

Answer to original question: this thread

― Redd Scharlach (Ken L), Thursday, 2 March 2006 22:52 (nineteen years ago)

I've asked our beloved moderators to remove it, maybe they could get a trigger happy ILM mod to attack that thread you linked to as well...

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Thursday, 2 March 2006 22:55 (nineteen years ago)

i would like a thread just to identify who exactly the "film snobs" are!!

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 2 March 2006 23:10 (nineteen years ago)

Start one then.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 2 March 2006 23:26 (nineteen years ago)

You asked for it, here it is

― Redd Scharlach (Ken L), Friday, 3 March 2006 01:41 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.