CRASH Course ChangeJune 15, 2005
One question I am asked often enough that it should probably be entered into my FAQ goes something like this: Do you ever change a rating after going back and seeing a movie for a second time? The answer is "yes," but only rarely. The truth is that my feelings about movies are remarkably consistent. Typically, no matter how many times I see a picture, I feel the same about it on subsequent viewings as I did the first time. This includes films where I'm out-of-whack with the mainstream opinion. But there are exceptions.
Over the course of more than thirteen years of reviewing, I have changed five reviews. Although I don't advertise the re-writes, I am open about them any time I am asked. Three have gone up and two have gone down. The "losers" are: Total Recall, which slipped a half-star between when I initially reviewed it (after a second viewing) and when I did the re-write (after a third one), and Scent of a Woman, which also lost a half-star. (As a point of curiosity, Scent, at the ***1/2 equivalent of 8.5 on my old numerical rating scale, was the first review I ever posted on-line.) The "winners" are: Casablanca, which ascended from ***1/2 to **** when I came to my senses; Pitch Black, which gained a half-star; and now Crash (the Haggis version, not the Cronenberg one).
I first saw Crash last September at the Toronto Film Festival. In that setting, I found it to be too contrived, and Paul Haggis' repeated (and intentional) use of coincidence bothered me. So, when it came time to write the review, I awarded **1/2 based on festival notes. I had no plans to re-see the movie or re-consider the rating, at least not until the film was available on DVD.
Then I was asked to give a talk on the film. Not trusting my nine-month old rusty memory, I ventured into a theater this past weekend to once again see Crash. Lo-and-behold, it turned out to be a better movie than I remembered it to be. The coincidences are still there, but this time I saw what the director was doing with them, and it worked. (So much for my ability to recognize such subtleties at an 8:30 am festival press screening...) Recognizing that my original review did the movie a grave injustice, I re-wrote the text (changing about 50% of it) and "upgraded" the rating to ***. (Anyone interested in reading my initial take on the film can access my original notes from last year's Toronto Film Festival.)
So that's all there is to it. I have never believed any review to be immutable. It is subject to change if I think I have misrepresented the film in question. I'm a little less philosophical than Roger Ebert in this respect. Rather than publically engaging in self-flagellation (as he did in his review of The Longest Yard), I would just change the rating and be done with it. So I now annoint Crash with a recommendation. What are you waiting for... go out and see it!
Toronto Film Festival Update #3
A quasi-scandal had grabbed some attention this year, and it highlights the fine line that film festivals walk when balancing the desire to program creative, interesting movies with the need to generate as much publicity as possible. By veering a ...
Introspection for an August Evening
A crisis of conscience can be good for the soul - or the writing. So I have always believed. Over the course of nearly 17 years of writing reviews, I have had many instances of self-doubt. The roots can be varied and hard-to-define. Perhaps I ...
Since the death of HD-DVD and the end of the format war, there has been an upswing in Blu-Ray revenue, which is a good thing for Hollywood. High def DVD sales are still dwarfed by those of their standard DVD cousin but it's at least a positive sign ...