CRASH vs CRASH - A Bulletpoint Commentary

I don’t know if this is true, but I heard that David Cronenberg is annoyed with Paul Haggis for naming his 2005 film Crash, the same title as Cronenberg’s 1996 film about people who use car crashes for sexual stimulation. Apparently he’s afraid people will confuse the two titles on DVD shelves. Well let’s clear up the confusion right now…

*Haggis’ Crash is probably the quintessential film about race relations in America. Cronenberg’s Crash is probably the quintessential film about all that’s wrong with Canadian cinema.

*Haggis took a provocative subject matter and made into the best film of 2005. Cronenberg took a provocative subject matter and made into one of the most boring film of the 90’s.

*Haggis’ Crash is provocative, intelligent, and engaging. Cronenberg’s Crash is pretentious, narcissistic and meandering.

*Haggis’ Crash respects its viewers, creating a cinematic experience that’s meaningful for the audience. Cronenberg’s Crash has no respect for its viewers, creating a cinematic experience that’s meaningful only to the director (and maybe a handful of pretentious movie goers).

*Haggis' Crash is haunting and unforgettable. All I remember about Cronenberg's Crash is that a third of the audience left the theatre before the film was over.

So no need to worry Mr. Cronenberg, I don’t think anyone is going to confuse your piece of crap with Haggis’ milestone film.

On the Rickter-Scale Haggis' Crash rates a 9.0 - Cronenberg's Crash rates a 2.5.

THE RICKTER-SCALE:
10 (A+) – extraordinary, a masterpiece
9.5/9.0 (A) – exceptional, a milestone
8.5/8.0 (A-) – excellent, a classic
7.5/7.0 (B+) – very good, a near classic
6.5/6.0 (B) – good
5.5/5.0 (B-) – fair
4.5/4.0 (C+) – poor
3.5/3.0 (C) – very poor, a near disaster
2.5/2.0 (C-) – terrible, a total disaster
1.5/1.0 (D+) – torture, a catastrophe
0.5/0.0 (F) – abysmal, the end of film as an artform