What do you think of "Crash"?

[Josh500 1,615]

I watched it yesterday, and my first thought was . . . THAT'S the movie that Munich lost to in the 2005 Best Picture category??? Please, give me a break! I think Munich's ten times better than Crash. There were some scenes in Crash that affected me -- most noticeably the scene where you think the little girl's shot, Matt Dillon's overall performance (now there's a bad cop), and Sandra Bullock playing a snobbish white bitch. But on the whole, I think the movie is pretty unrealistic. It's supposed to deal with racial tension in L.A., and sure there's racial tension there -- same as in any big city in the world, I guess -- but L.A.'s most definitely NOT the way it's showed in the movie. It's just ten times exaggerated.

Also, you see white people, black people, and Persian people depicted in a good and bad light, but the Asians are mere caricatures. And what's up with Daniel Dae Kim's cameo? What was he doing there? Taking a break from Lost?

One final note: I really liked Mark Isham's score. It's pretty subtle and low-key, but it added tremendously to the overall quality of the picture.

What do you think?

[Morlock 11]

IMO, it was the best movie of 2005, one of the only 4 star movies of that year (Munich was not one of them, not even close). It deals with racism and anger, not specifically in L.A. And I personally thought that every single scene showed a different take and raised a different question about the subject. I liked a film that is able to admit that we're all racist in a way, yet our humanity outweighs that.

EDIT: I also liked the score a lot. A prime example of how a film can be well-scored with only electronics (well, and soloist). Several good cues, in particular 'A Really Good Vest' and the beautiful 'Flames', which was amazing in the film (in the main set-piece).

[tpigeon 3]

Crash is vastly overrated. I don't think it's meant to be totally realistic since its really a number of parables. But there is no dramatic depth to it at all. Each character has one good side, one bad side, nothing in between. When you see eight or nine narrative threads involving different characters doing the exact same thing hammering home the same infexible theme, it gets a bit irritating. The whole movie feels like one big screenwriter's concoction, not a movie. It doesn't hold a candle to last year's real best picture, Munich, or A History of Violence, or any of the other best picture nominees.

Ted

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's too Hollywood, to be any good.

It was handy to have it around on Oscar day though, so people didn't have to vote for Brokeback Mountain.

[Josh500 1,615]

I think people respond to it, simply because there's never been quite a movie like this before -- that is, a movie that deals openly with racists -- but IMO that doesn't make it a good movie. An original movie, perhaps, but not a good movie.

Still, I admit there are some things to recommend it . . . although it's far from an excellent picture.

[Morlock 11]

Crash is vastly overrated. I don't think it's meant to be totally realistic since its really a number of parables. But there is no dramatic depth to it at all. Each character has one good side, one bad side, nothing in between.

Each character does have two sides, but each character is also revealed to be very different than you might have thought they were. It may do it rather systematically (I don't think the movie was ever going for realism), but I thought it was still very powerful.

It doesn't hold a candle to last year's real best picture, Munich, or A History of Violence, or any of the other best picture nominees.

Munich is a mess of a film. A History of Violence is indeed a great film, the other 4 star film of 2005. I wouldn't have minded it winning either. Either way, I think Crash was better than all the other nominees. The only other film that deserved to be nominated was Goodnight and Good Luck.

[Josh500 1,615]

(I don't think the movie was ever going for realism)  

Munich is a mess of a film.

If a movie's not going for realism, it's gotta have something to make up for it -- that is, it has to make some sort of point. But IMO it doesn't -- you just see a bunch of people acting in a racist way or not, only to be revealed at the end that this is not the way they really are. The best example is Ryan Philippe's character. I found it so contrived that he shoots that "nigger" at the end . . . when I saw that I was like Oh come on!

Munich is one of the best "serious" Spielberg movies, although it's not as good as Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. But it's unfair for any movie to be compared to these masterpieces.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It was too obvious that this film was written by someone who did most of his work in television.

In TV-land, everything always works out in the end, and only after 45 minutes too.

[Morlock 11]

If a movie's not going for realism, it's gotta have something to make up for it -- that is, it has to make some sort of point. But IMO it doesn't -- you just see a bunch of people acting in a racist way or not, only to be revealed at the end that this is not the way they really are. The best example is Ryan Philippe's character. I found it so contrived that he shoots that "nigger" at the end . . . when I saw that I was like Oh come on!

A movie can make it's point in asking questions and answering them. That's what this movie did.

The best example is Ryan Philippe's character. I found it so contrived that he shoots that "nigger" at the end . . . when I saw that I was like Oh come on!

Of course the situation was contrived, it was contrived in order to explore a kind of flip-side of what the film has shown up until now. But I felt it was totally true to the chracter.

Munich is one of the best "serious" Spielberg movies, although it's not as good as Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. But it's unfair for any movie to be compared to these masterpieces.

I think it is easily the worst "Serious" Spielberg film. It is a mess. It is overlong. It is vague. It sends mixed messages. It has many great scenes in it, great performances and other qualities, but I think the script was a mess. The movie had a distinct sloppy feel to it. It doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as SL and SPR, two movies that are masterpieces by any yardstick, and certainly when compared to Munich. First time I actually thought that Spielberg may have actually lost it.

[Josh500 1,615]

  It is a mess. It is vague. It sends mixed messages. It has many great scenes in it, great performances and other qualities, but I think the script was a mess. The movie had a distinct sloppy feel to it.

That's funny, because that's exactly what I felt about Crash. Crash doesn't deserve to be even mentioned with a masterpiece like Munich. IMO, the only reason Crash was nominated for Best Picture was because Hollywood itself is known to be racist . . . and it somehow wanted to make up for it.

Oh well, opinions DO differ. And I'm starting to think now that "Munich" may be one of the most underrated "serious" Spielberg movies ever.

[Morlock 11]

While I think it is without a doubt his most overrated film, period. It's not bad at all, I liked the film, but it is decidedly un-great. Hopefully the Lincoln film with bring him back into the zone.

Ah, well. To each his own.

[Romão 2,274]

I hated Crash. It´s pretty much the same idea repeated over and over again and with a very very very shallow study on the nature of racism. Good acting and that´s it. By far the worse movie of the 5 nominated for Best Picture, which were all great movies in my view (except for Crash of course).

[Morlock 11]

I would say it is by far the best of the 5 nominees, but Goodnight and Good Luck was also an excellent film. Capote, Brokeback Mountain and Munich were merely good, and each have their unique flaws. And I didn't find it shallow at all. Every single scene explored the topic from different angles. I personally thought the film was really going to be special after the Keith David scene.

Overall, it just appealed precisely to my opinion about the human race. We're all racists, no matter how much we'd like to say and believe otherwise.

[Josh500 1,615]

We're all racists, no matter how much we'd like to say and believe otherwise.

Now, I think that's a pretty negative view to take. Also, it depends on the exact definition of "racist."

[Romão 2,274]

A movie can be about something without hammering it on the audience at every single line of dialogue.

[Hlao-roo 389]

I'm not a fan of Cronenberg's work in general, and I found this film especially repulsive. Naturally, though, this was a critical darling, because oooh, isn't it so profound and daring.

[Morlock 11]

Now, I think that's a pretty negative view to take.

No, because....

....it depends on the exact definition of "racist."

Exactly. I don't concider racism to be solely the territory of the KKK and the third Reich. On some level, we all have prejuidices or assumptions regarding certain ethnic groups, whether willing, or unwilling, concious or subconcious. That is precisely why I loved the final Ryan Phillipe scene. Ryan Phillipe concidered himself to be the least racist person on the force, making an effort to saving the life of someone who would suffer from racial profiling. However, still, at some gut level, because of his family, his upbringing or whatever it may be, he is sure that this black man is going to pull a gun on him at the drop of a pin, even though it is totally baseless.

And beyond us all being racist, the movie also believes that more often than not, our humanity will outshine whatever stupid racist idea we may have.

I'm not a fan of Cronenberg's work in general, and I found this film especially repulsive.  Naturally, though, this was a critical darling, because oooh, isn't it so profound and daring.

I can't tell if you're serious or not.....if you are, we are talking about Paul Haggis' Crash from 2005, not Cronenberg's. If you were joking- 8O.

[Red 75]

Although all humans have an element of hatred in them, that does not make all of them racist. Babies do not come out of the womb thinking that Hispanics are lazy and that African Americans are all criminals. Racists are products of their environment.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed!

[Red 75]

Thats not to say that racists don't have a choice in what they think, because they most certainly do.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Racism, like most other Religions is learned behaviour.

[Red 75]

I wouldn't call racism a religion. It is a contrived way of thinking.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Really, that's facsinating.

[Morlock 11]

Although all humans have an element of hatred in them, that does not make all of them racist. Babies do not come out of the womb thinking that Hispanics are lazy and that African Americans are all criminals. Racists are products of their environment.

I did not say it comes out of hate. My definition of racist is someone prejuidiced. For better or for worse, I believe we all are, whether because of upbringing, or films, or simply lack of knowledge about or contact with a certain culture. That is not to sayy we are all bad, or we all hate, much to the contrary. I simply believe that we may all have somewhere, deep inside some involuntary ideas regarding a certain ethnicity, our humanity makes the majority of us rise above such nonsensical ideas.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You should be a guest on Oprah.

[Morlock 11]

Hey, what works for Tom Cruise......

[Panthera 0]

It's funny this topic was created because just yesterday I watched it.

[Morlock 11]

And what did you think?

[tpigeon 3]

I hated Crash. It´s pretty much the same idea repeated over and over again and with a very very very shallow study on the nature of racism. Good acting and that´s it. By far the worse movie of the 5 nominated for Best Picture, which were all great movies in my view (except for Crash of course).

Well said. Crash deals with racism in a streamlined, easy-to-understand, pop-culture manner. It offers very little in terms of actually examining such themes in a visual narrative. Munich on the other hand is not so preachy and offers the viewer to actually think about these issues by presenting them in subtle and beautiful visual ways. Of course, it's after something, much in the same way A History of Violence is, but like that film, Munich's narrative presentation - scene juxtaposition, character interaction, and images - is fascinating and allows endless thought and interpretation. It's a brilliant film.

And Morlock, many films have dealt with racism, but Crash is only telling you that it's dealing with racism and that it's such an important issue. Other films do it with more nuance and better narrative technique. Try Grand Canyon, one of Haggis' many inspirations for Crash

Ideology and communication have been deal with in much, much better films.

I'm not a fan of Cronenberg's work in general, and I found this film especially repulsive.  Naturally, though, this was a critical darling, because oooh, isn't it so profound and daring.

You should read Manohla Dargis' review of A History of Violence in the New York Times. It's a great piece of journalistic film criticism and a very good reading of the film.

Ted

[Demodex 557]

Crash sucked. I watched it after the Academy Awards, and I couldn't believe it was even nominated for Best Picture, yet alone won. I didn't think it was that good at all.

While History of Violence wasn't too bad, it did seem kind of pointless.

I think Brokeback should have won Best Picture, just due to a lack of significant nominees.

[Morlock 11]

While History of Violence wasn't too bad, it did seem kind of pointless.

Kinda pointless? how so?

I think Brokeback should have won Best Picture, just due to a lack of significant nominees.

Even if you don't concider Crash, Brokeback was not a worthy film, and certainly not when you've got the far superior Goodnight and Good Luck.

[Neimoidian 14]

I didn't like "Crash" much. I mostly agree with Josh500 statement. For me, it was just a good movie, nothing more. Nice music and cinematography, good actors, at least decent performances, but the quality of each story is different. They don't - as far as I am concerned - come together into the best pic of the year. The best story was this with Matt Dillon - I found it the most belivable and the only one Oscar-worthy in that movie.

"Munich" on the other hand was my 2005 favourite movie. I have seen it couple of times so far and I still haven't got enough of it. Morlock said it sent mixed messages. I consider it to be its advantage. Spielberg tries not to deliver concrete point of view, he rather tries to show the both sides of the conflict (with their both complicated and undisputable motives) stuck in the vicious circle. Since Morlock is from Israel, I have no doubts he approaches the movie from different, maybe more personal perspective and his reception of the movie may be different then than mine.

[crocodile 8,018]

It is really mediocre film. I was actually surprised how much. And it doesn't make much sense either. Have you read Rod Hilton's abridged script?

http://www.the-editing-room.com/?script=crash

Demodex wrote:  

I think Brokeback should have won Best Picture, just due to a lack of significant nominees.  

Even if you don't concider Crash, Brokeback was not a worthy film, and certainly not when you've got the far superior Goodnight and Good Luck.

I don't know. I liked both equally.

I don't have a clue what flaws Brokeback Mountain might actually have, Morlock. I tried to find some, but I failed. Which kind of surprised me.

Karol

[Morlock 11]

Morlock said it sent mixed messages. I consider it to be its advantage. Spielberg tries not to deliver concrete point of view, he rather tries to show the both sides of the conflict (with their both complicated and undisputable motives) stuck in the vicious circle.

I didn't feel he presents all sides of the subject. I felt like he sent mixed messages. There's a difference.

Since Morlock is from Israel, I have no doubts he approaches the movie from different, maybe more personal perspective and his reception of the movie may be different then than mine.

Certainly, but you'd be surprised how few of my objections are about things supposedly anti-Israel (only one brief scene do I find objectionable).

I don't have a clue what flaws Brokeback Mountain might actually have, Morlock. I tried to find some, but I failed. Which kind of surprised me.

A movie does not need to have flaws in order to not be great. It was a fine forbidden love story, catapulted to ridicules highs because it was the gay cowboy movie. It's not that it does anything particularly bad. It's...fine.

[Romão 2,274]

One thing is for sure, all those 5 best pics nominees were terrific showcases of acting talent.

[Morlock 11]

And I think regardless of if you like them or not, all five are topical and/or thought provoking.

[Romão 2,274]

At least they were all about something.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Which is irrelevant.

[publicist 4,643]

It's fascinacting what kind of subtexts and 'meta-ebenen' people find in all this stuff, if only someone let's them.

While 'Crash' certainly did not approach new heights in filmic brilliance, i fail to see all these ambiguities and ambivalence in the Cronenberg and Spielberg films. (i mean 'History of Violence', not Cronenbergs Crash, which actually was sick and twisted, but at least it did something to your guts).

My tirade against 'Munich' was made here not too long ago: a film made on an idiotic premise and, adding insult to injury, going further into the nadir by presenting a totally unbelievable (more importantly: demonstrably false) historic set-up - this film can be as ambigious as it wants, it never can be more than the sum of it's parts.

'History of Violence': Maybe someone can lend me a hand here...is there anything more than Aragon raping his women because being tormented by his past and Ed Harris and Will Hurt doing their bad guy routine? Is this 'movie-of-the-week' story about the gangster hiding himself from his past behind the curtains of suburbia really the best they could come up with to explore the nature of violence?

The oscar goes to...?

[Josh500 1,615]

Ryan Phillipe concidered himself to be the least racist person on the force, making an effort to saving the life of someone who would suffer from racial profiling. However, still, at some gut level, because of his family, his upbringing or whatever it may be, he is sure that this black man is going to pull a gun on him at the drop of a pin, even though it is totally baseless.

 And beyond us all being racist, the movie also believes that more often than not, our humanity will outshine whatever stupid racist idea we may have.

I agree with you there. We all have prejudices of some sort. But that doesn't mean we all act like racists the way they do in the movie. And you admitted yourself that Ryan Phillippe shooting that black man at the end was unrealistic. And I think it is. The movie is trying to make a point there, but somehow it fails to do so. It's not great story-telling IMO; it's just another (rather predictable) surprise-ending. Nothing more, nothing less.

P.S. The more we discuss this topic, the more annoyed I get that Munich didn't win Best Picture, not to mention Best Score. (I always thought Memoirs was the most Oscar-worthy JW score of 2005, but now I'm not so sure. Thoughts of Home and A Prayer for Peace are spectacularly good.)

[Morlock 11]

'History of Violence': Maybe someone can lend me a hand here...is there anything more than Aragon raping his women because being tormented by his past and Ed Harris and Will Hurt doing their bad guy routine? Is this 'movie-of-the-week' story about the gangster hiding himself from his past behind the curtains of suburbia really the best they could come up with to explore the nature of violence?

You obviously missed the point of the movie. You should watch it again before calling it 'movie-of-the-week, since it is one of the best films to have come out in recent years. Just a taste of what you missed- Aragorn is not raping his woman because he's being tormented by the past. She wants him to fuck her because she is turned on by the Joey side of his character. There's no rape involved.

And the movie certainly questions the role of violence in society, and does an excellent job at it. What would have happened if Tom Stall had no history of violence when the two guys walked into the diner? most probably, him and everyone else would have dies. Because Tom has this monster Joey inside of him, he is able to kill the robbers and save his life, and, later on, his family's life. Without Joey, Tom would be dead. Without Tom, there's be no point to Joey. And I think that that's what the movie is saying. Violence is necassery at times, and is engrained in us. If it is not engrained, we may not be able to live a peaceful, joyful, simple life. And, at the end of the movie, Tom's family accepts that.

I agree with you there. We all have prejudices of some sort. But that doesn't mean we all act like racists the way they do in the movie. And you admitted yourself that Ryan Phillippe shooting that black man at the end was unrealistic. And I think it is.

Hey, the movie wanted to present a lot of different angles and takes, and presented some extreme situations (and some not as extreme, I think, as many would believe). It wanted to get a lot of material in there. Certainly it can be argued that the movie would have been better if it had been less ambitious, smaller, more realistic in a traditional sense (I personally think the movie is emotionaly honest, though certainly not a slice of real life). I don't know if it would have been better. Many people are sure it would have been. I found the film quite powerful and thought-provoking as it is.

P.S. The more we discuss this topic, the more annoyed I get that Munich didn't win Best Picture, not to mention Best Score. (I always thought Memoirs was the most Oscar-worthy JW score of 2005, but now I'm not so sure. Thoughts of Home and A Prayer for Peace are spectacularly good.)

Yes, they are good themes, but I don't think their use in the film is any where near as powerful and sublime as Sayuri's theme. That is one of the best uses I've ever heard a JW theme put to.....it breaths, it lives, it experiences...and, in the end, it blooms. Such a masterful score (you can bet I don't speak about themes with those words on a day-to-day basis). I think that while the Munich score supports the film well, overall, but it doesn't quite have that extra pizaz to push to that next level. And, of course, it supporting the film very well comes in conflict with my opinion of the film being misguided at times....hence, the score enhances moments that, IMO, are all wrong. But that's just me. I still do love the themes, the first time I listened to 'Avner's theme' I got the vibe of a classic theme. And JW really put into it something unique, in that it doesn't just sound Jewish, but in that is sounds specifically Israeli (though you'd probably have to be an Israeli to know that). The 'End Credits' cue, starting just before the end of the film, gave me goosbumps, ending the film on a very powerful note for me.

[Panthera 0]

And what did you think?

I really liked it. I had seen it before and it was still good the second time.

[Vaderbait1 1]

Crash was a good movie. Good acting, good message. Did you really expect or want to see a deep examination of racism and how to solve it? Considering it's never been done in the history of mankind, why do yo uthink a scriptwriter would stumble across the solution?

It was good for what it was. And I especially liked that for once, you saw that all ethnicities have their prejudices, instead of just the one side unfairly looking down on everyone else. I was glad there was no idolizing of a criminal in this like in so many othe rfilms due to race. It may not have been realistic, but at least it was accurate, pointing out everyone's flaws.

[publicist 4,643]

You obviously missed the point of the movie. You should watch it again before calling it 'movie-of-the-week, since it is one of the best films to have come out in recent years. Just a taste of what you missed- Aragorn is not raping his woman because he's being tormented by the past. She wants him to fuck her because she is turned on by the Joey side of his character. There's no rape involved.

And the movie certainly questions the role of violence in society, and does an excellent job at it. What would have happened if Tom Stall had no history of violence when the two guys walked into the diner? most probably, him and everyone else would have dies. Because Tom has this monster Joey inside of him, he is able to kill the robbers and save his life, and, later on, his family's life. Without Joey, Tom would be dead. Without Tom, there's be no point to Joey. And I think that that's what the movie is saying. Violence is necassery at times, and is engrained in us. If it is not engrained, we may not be able to live a peaceful, joyful, simple life. And, at the end of the movie, Tom's family accepts that.

I got all that rather well...because of this i said 'rape', because that's what it basically is: is she turned on by the notion of being raped (read: sexually used) by an adventurous 'bad guy' after years in the comfort zone? I did not found this notion overly exciting. Nothing more than the idea of teenage girls getting wet when watching Marlon Brando in 'The WIld ONe'.

Apart from that, i'll ask again: is 'the best film in recent years' really not capable of more than dragging out the old 'man with cloudy past is catched up by it' routine? I found it horribly contrived.

[Damo 0]

It's funny this topic was created because just yesterday I watched it.

Almost a coincident isn't it???

[nightscape94 965]

Along with Morlock, I was extremely vocal about Crash being the best picture of 2005. I stronly believe this film does have things to say, depsite a lot of criticism leaning towards the belief that the film is "simple"

The most important and crucial part of Crash, for me, is the young daughter character "Lara" and her relationship with her father "Daniel" played by Michael Pena. He's a strong role model for his little girl, and her development through childhood as a potentially positive and imaginative human being can provide hope for the future. To me, that's the heart of the film, that the entire point of their relationship for this movie. Otherwise, the film would just be a scattering of scenes with a motley crew of characters that do not strive to any real point. But the budding family, linked in their final scene as the mother and daughter comfort each other in sleep as the husband/father stands guard....proves to be the crux in terms of the films direction. It's the protection of the sanctity of purity, fighting to ward off the introduction of hate into their home.

The final shot of the car crash certainly makes things seem cicular, echoing the events at the beginning, but not without leaving me feeling that there can be progress, and that love is stronger and more constructively productive than hate. If people think that's naive, then maybe that's part of the problem.

Tim

[tpigeon 3]

I comment less on the film's depth of themes; rather, I feel that the depth of themes and ideas hinge upon how they are presented. How a film is constructed and presented is what needs to be examined, not exactly how you feel about the themes is supposedly deeply expores.

For those interested in reading a great piece of criticism about the film, check out A.O. Scott's review in the New York Times. I am more than frequently awed by his ability to contemplate a film and frame great criticism so succinctly. His review of Crash is excellent.

Ted

[Morlock 11]

So, he didn't buy the film. A lot of what he says is technically right, but, I'm afraid, I feel it misses the point. This is a film that either you connect with the message and are swept up by, or are not. I felt the film was dramatically spot on for the material. Or, in other words:

For those interested in reading a great piece of criticism about the film, check out Roger Ebert's review in the Chicago Sun Times. I am more than frequently awed by his ability to contemplate a film and frame great criticism so succinctly. His review of Crash is excellent.

From what I've seen- a lot of people don't like the film, a lot of people do like the film, and the difference in opinion is a matter of taste in movies, or drama in general. And, being a matter of taste, arguing over the film is a pretty moot point.

[tpigeon 3]

Not it isn't. Discussion and discourse can inform perspective. That my contribution to this discussion differs in perspective from yours doesn't mean that it's a moot point to argue. This discussion of the film is actually relevant to its subject matter, ideology and communication. How can people understand one another when communication has determined how we as individuals and social subjects are shaped by the culture/s by which we have been cultured and socialized. The nature of communication dictates that stereotyping is necessary and every structure that allows communication to exist, namely language, which was designed to unify people and allow us to communicate, ultimately divides people into different social brackets, cultures and ideoligical backgrounds. Crash wants to explore these things, and since it is a film it is more important how it explores these things rather than just having all of the characters talk about them. As a visual narrative, it fails at really dramatizing any of these notions that Haggis clearly is concerned with.

Ted, who thinks that Ebert - good as he may be - is not as good a writer as Scott. But that's just my opinion.

[Morlock 11]

As a visual narrative, it fails at really dramatizing any of these notions that Haggis clearly is concerned with.

It failed for you, it succeeded entirly for me. I'm sorry, but I do not see the point in discussing this with us disagreeing on such integrals issues. If one of us thought a performance was bad, or a scene was bad, or the score was bad, or the cinematography is bad, and the other disagreed, that's one thing. If you think the film was either misconcieved or failed at it's goal, and I disagree on that, that's another. We're not on the same page here.

I like reading well-crafted film reviews, but I'm more concerned with the opinions presented. And although I believe that Ebert is quite often misguided, and has annoying weaknesses for dumb summer movies, I just find myself agreeing with him more than anyone else. Scott is a bit too intellectual for me. And as one who strongly believes in people 'connecting' or 'not connecting' with films, I feel it is sometimes contrived, coming up with long, intellectual, speeches about why a certain film is brilliant or not. I prefer reviews to be more from the gut, and Scott is too rigid and too intellectual for my tastes.