Greetings and salutations, and welcome to my review of 1976s. Crash
Before I get into the film review, here are my ratings for the movie.
The story gets 1.5 out of 2:
The Direction a 1.25:
The Tempo and Flow receive a 0.75:
While the Acting gets 1.25:
And my Enjoyment level earns a 1.25 out of 2:
Crash, therefore, receives a total of 6 out of 10.
Crash is a film crying out for a remake. I say this because the place where the film falls flat is its dated and standard directing techniques. With today's more engaging methods, the chase and crash-n-burn sequences would be infinitely more enjoyable.
Marc Marais presents the audience with a basic yet above-average imaginative story of revenge. Marc and Kim Denne have been in an automobile accident. Marc's left in a wheelchair while his youthful wife remains physically healthy. Kim's fitness allows Marc's jealousy to fester and mature. How can an attractive and younger woman be interested in a more elderly cripple like himself; undoubtedly, she's having an affair. Though their relationship is stressful, Kim is persecuted unjustly by her husband, who's fixated on wreaking his "rightful" revenge upon her. He engineers a way to have his pet Doberman attack her while driving. Though this causes her severe injury, she doesn't die. So Marc has to take matters into his own hands. But here lies the problem. Before the accident, Kim bought Marc a present, which he threw back in her face. It was a keychain of an ancient deity. A God, well-known for his vengefulness. The divinity uses Kim and her car to seek out Marc and deliver justice. Unfortunately, everyone else on the road that gets in his way is mere collateral damage.
What would have strengthened the story is more structure around Marc and Kim. We easily recognise their strained relationship, but we don't fully relate to either. Their failing marriage is the perfect place to draw in the audience, allowing them to connect better with the characters.
That said, this should have been an all-out car-wreck (in a good way) of a film. And, it's here the direction lets the movie down. The budget could have been a major issue. However, sharper cuts and exciting camera angles would have strengthened the filming considerably. It doesn't help that Band uses alternating present and past sequences to tell the story. Though this is frequent nowadays, it was a relatively modern concept when they filmed Crash. Mainly, it works well. You quickly realise the car scenes are the present, and the people sequences represent the past moving forward to the present, where both collide. Unfortunately, director Charles Band falls into the montage trap. He reintroduces all the car's crashes before the past and present catch up with one another. It wouldn't have been so bad, but he chose to show each one in its entirety. Cutting them to exciting bite-size reflections would have served better. The dusky faded effect on the montage is annoying also. These five minutes needed to hit the cutting room floor. It completely pulls the audience out of the film. I noted my attention started shifting at this point. Losing the audience at this point is a terrible thing to do, especially when the conclusion is near.
I do have to offer Band credit for using a driver-less car. In my favourite automobile movie, "The Car", which is superior to this film - only because the direction and camera shots added to the exciting and ominous atmosphere - they opt for a heavily tinted window approach so you can't see the driver. Band revels in keeping the car open-topped and constantly showing the empty driver seat. A few techniques, like a hidden driver, duel-drive, and remote control, could have been used to accomplish this. However, it makes some of the cars crashes unbelievable. In the first crash, for example, another vehicle draws alongside the car. At which point, the possessed car is meant to keep side-swiping the other vehicle. Sadly, it's evident this second car does the swiping and the crashing. While the evil-mobile gently and negligibly moves from side to side. Again, with our modern capabilities, these scenes would be so much better today.
The pacing and flow of these crash scenes demanded the most attention. These segments are where the majority of excitement and fear should hook into the viewer. But the standard tempo of the whole movie doesn't work. The crash scenes, though inventive, aren't overly exciting to watch. The best example of this is the sequence where a boat gets propelled through a truck's trailer. Enjoyable, yes, but they all needed more punch.
As for the cast. Though not superb, they are well above average. I've appreciated Jose Ferrer for a long time, and it was he who drew me to Crash! Had I known it was a Full Moon picture, I may have watched it sooner. Ferrer needed more meat on his character. He does well with the script, but his range is limited to the story. As stated above, the story and characters would have been stronger had they possessed more substance.
I can say the same for Sue Lyon, who I respect for donning those nasty looking red contact lenses. Damn, they looked bulky and uncomfortable. Bless her for that because they worked splendidly, as did her possessed scenes.
The remaining cast, including John Carradine, is on form. And because they are on par with the films main leads, it adds strength to the film and makes the movie more watchable.
Crash is enjoyable, and I fully embraced the concept. However, the single tempo causes the film to be a tad dull, especially around the crash sequences. If you like automobile horror, such as The Car, Killdozer, and Christine, then give the Crash some of your time. However, watch it for the concept and the story, not the action or the horror. If you're a newbie to this subgenre, go and check out the others on the list, all three are better than Crash... though, not in story concept.
Speed on over to my Absolute Horror list to see where the car crashed in my rankings
Take Care & Stay Well & Get Your Inoculation.
