I don't quite get the question, as he states that Crash is the only film he hates rather than dislikes. I was about to say "Who would so fervently hate a masterpiece like Birth of a Nation" before I had visions of this breaking off into a Polanski-style thread I'd never ever want to read

If "worst" can be defined as the film that most failed in its intentions, then Haggis's Crash may be the worst film I've ever seen.

Sure, G.I. Joe vs Transformers: Darkness of the Evil may feature worse performances or ugly cinematography. And, sure, Triumph of the Will is probably a scarier evil. But Crash is the quintessential film that tries so hard to be one thing (anti-racism; pro-awareness) and ends up being the opposite (blatantly racist; condescending).

Juno gets my vote, but Crash is a close second.

Gentleman's Agreement is a bigger failure at the same sort of thing Crash fails at and is a bigger tragedy due to the actual talent involved. Only slightly tangentially, Resnais' La vie est un roman is probably the only film made by those capable of better that I would lob "hate" at

I was mostly focusing on the offensiveness turning into hate thing he mentioned. With only a couple of exceptions it is the one film that is as offensive as it is great/ important. A movie would have to be pretty damned offensive to produce a more intense hate than Birth of a Nation. As to the present definition of 'worst' we're using, I agree. Gentleman's Agreement fails so miserably as to produce the opposite of what it intended that I wanted to swear off newspapers. It probably doesn't help that the story sounds like that 'fat bit from Tyra.

That's a pretty good sell. I think I have to rent this now.

So, would it also need to be said that none of these characters actually lived in that city, and none of these things actually happened to them?

I'm no fan of the movie and am not claiming anything on its behalf, but I fail to see how the above is in any way a valid criticism for this or any movie. All the writer's noting is that the world of Crash does not conform exactly to the world she lives in, the very fact of which is, apparently, an artistic flaw. While she's at it, she may as well condemn His Girl Friday because no one actually talks like that, and dismiss Hamlet because it's not an accurate representation of mediaevel Denmark.

But Crash acts as though the world it presents is our own. His Girl Friday, like most studio product of the classical era, has no such aspirations

Before I go off and say what I have to say, first let me also say I'm no fan of Crash. It does nothing more than beat you over the head with after school special style morals on a Hollywoody budget.

That said, the writer obviously did make an attempt to make a Los Angeles as he sees it, unlike a film like His Girl Friday, which like so many other great films, creates a universe onto itself. In a span of an hour and a half, we're introduced to Howard Hawks' world and are allowed to view it courtesy of the camera. Crash on the other hand makes a sad representation of L.A. with archetypes of the rich, the crooked cop, the oppressed black man, and the poor Hispanic in a convoluted melodrama. Seeing these people everyday as a Los Angeles native, their lives and personalities go far beyond what's depicted in the film, but the writer(s) have no grasp of them. It's pure Hollywood exploitation through and through.

EDIT: When I finished the post, Domino Harvey posted pretty much how I felt

By "acts as though the world it presents is our own" I assume you mean it conforms in many regards to the world as you or I may experience it. Ok. But the movie is not claiming to scrupulously reenact the ordinary details of the actual lives of five or six people in the city. That would be meandering, boring, meaningless nonsense. It's clearly amplifying certain key details, excluding the unessential or irrelevant details, and telescoping the events and the characters by creating a microcosm. It's doing what any movie does: using structure to create themes and meanings that wouldn't exist without that structure. If the movie were violating the logic of its own world, then I would understand the criticism; but these elements, far from violating the world's logic, are the key ingrediants of that world without which it wouldn't exist (the movie is obviously based entirely on the idea of six intertwining lives all experiencing an inordinant amount of racism). That's what I mean when I say you may as well criticise His Girl Friday, because the "unrealistic" elements of both movies are not violating the laws of the world they have created. Crash may be bad for a million reasons, but the one the author of article highlighted is not one of them. (Feel free to ignore the second paragraph, Domino, I only wrote it as context for the ideas I outlined above).

Pointing out the various parts of a movie that demonstrate structure and design as tho' they were flaws is ridiculous. The movie is not actually the real world; a representation is never interchangeable with the thing itself (I realize I'm not telling you anything you don't know, just bear with me); so why pick out these elements of design as tho' one's discovered some fatal crack in the veneer of reality? It smacks of having no imagination. It's also a false equivalence of perspectives: your position in the world is not the same as your position regarding a movie (or a book, ect.) because you cannot see the whole world, from start to end, in all of its design. You can, however, do that with a movie, so of course the very presence of structure is not going to conform to your experience of the world. This is not a flaw, this is the essence of art.

And it's still the #1 movie on Netflix.

That's a huge part of it. The accolades being another.

And Birth of a Nation? Seriously? I hope that was a joke post. I don't hate Crash because of the subject matter; I hate Crash because of its approach to its subject matter and its utter disregard of human decency. It might as well have filmed a KKK meeting and showed their compassion using, instead, a nylon rope. Of course, I get that this mentality exists in America. Maybe that was the point. I know plenty of people where I am from in Oklahoma that claim, 'y'know, slave owners treated their slaves really well. You wouldn't sabotage your own farm equipment, would you?". Way to use two-dimension cardboard cutouts to protest or make a statement against people assuming every person different from them is similar to their preconceived notion (a two-dimensional cardboard cutout).

yeah. terrible.

Sums it up. The only theatre experience where I've contemplated slashing the screen so that steaming turd of a film would have to stay in the can, if only for one session. I think what riled me most was the many coincidences, which were contrived to hold this sick attempt at a morality tale together.

A dog of a film, which will only be remembered for the astonishing way it won the most recognized of awards.

Thinking about it, Crash winning an Oscar is the equivalent of Barack Obama's Nobel Prize win.

If I can jump in, I'll just say it left me feeling "meh", and only really mildly interested in Cheadle's character's struggle. The really sad thing is how my brother, when he was telling me how good he thought it was, was telling me of how cool it was there were so many coincidences in it. All I could think of is how well Altman or Paul Thomas Anderson used this device, and how much better their work was compared to what in my mind would probably end up being shown ad nauseum on AMC for a few years then promptly forgotten.

As for it being the worst film I've ever seen, in my own estimation the answer would be no. Not to repeat myself, but it left me feeling not a whole lot about it one way or the other. If anything else, that's probably what made me upset that it won Best Picture more than anything else (along with what Dandy referred to as "after school special morals"). Thankfully the Academy for the next two years gave that award to two crime dramas which were higher in quality and depth than Crash ever tried to do.

On his commentary track for the Edmond dvd --
Has anyone here seen Mamet's new play on Broadway titled Race? I wish I had a chance to see it!

I was gonna go, actually, but excepting Boston Marriage, Mamet's recent plays have been pretty bad and the poor reviews for Race kept me away.

I haven't seen the play, but that "Elf Yourself" video on the linked site is either the funniest or the scariest thing I've seen this year.

Somewhat tellingly, Edmond is probably Mamet's worst play and the film doesn't improve on anything

This question has popped into my mind, and I was wondering if anyone could answer it. Has there been a recent film helmed by a white director, that has given a good view of racism in our culture, even if it's a minor part of the story?

Code Unknown is the first thing that comes to mind. Of course not everyone likes it, but it's treats racism as a complex issue and is handled mostly fairly. 35 Shots of Rum also makes some quiet references to racism, but it is not a terribly notable aspect of the film. Outside of that I can't really think of good examples. District 9, The Visitor,Traffic? Not too many recent examples of recent well done examples of racism, let alone by white directors.

Haneke sprang to my mind as well, but I'm not a fan of his and I don't know if I would see any of his films as "a good view on racism."

A friend of mine once recommended John Sayles' Lone Star to me as an antidote to Crash, anybody care to give it an endorsement?

Actually, Sayles's Matewan came to mind for me, though I don't know if you could consider it recent. I would also think Haneke's Caché would work. And I'm not in love with it, but I'm sure Far from Heaven has some supporters here.

EDIT: Oh, and I assume most people hate it, but I kind of like von Trier's Manderlay.

I wasn't sure if we were working outside the (past) decade. If we are going eighties than Mala Noche definitely counts.

My thinking is more along the lines of white American directors that didn't come of age during the Civil Rights movement, and didn't have such an emotional investment in it as say like Norman Jewison did.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, nearly all of Sayles' films touch on the subject in a subtle and emotionally honest way. The best of the lot, for a direct handling of the subject, is City of Hope. That film is now 20 years old, so I'm not sure it qualifies as "recent", but it's still as pertinent as ever.