This really is weird and sick. The film is not boring at all. It is really twisted from beginning to end. The violence is a little sickening but the real shocks come from the perverse and sick acts that are performed in the film. There are no points that you don't want to watch but there are points when you don't want to see. Nothing particularly profound in this film but it makes you wonder what other people are doing and it makes you realise how much you are reliant on other people not wanting to kill themselves on the roads bringing you down to. Don't drive immediately after this.

This movie shows human beings at their weirdest, as empty shells, desperately seeking to fill themselves up with something, getting high on some experience exceeding their normal life. People grown used to the rush of modern life, finding their reality mundane. Even though it's not. These people all have interesting jobs. They live in an interesting place, but they do not venture away from it. Instead, they seek out the extreme.I see some people describing this movie as sexy. It's about sex, and the characters in the movie seek out intense intimacy of it, but that doesn't make it sexy.While I appreciate much of what this movie does, the mood of it, the weird, etc., I felt it could have conveyed much of that in half the time. I was bored many times throughout the movie. At the same time, I know this is a movie I will be talking and thinking about for a long time.

After watching Couple of Cronenberg's films I got to the conclusion that probably he wishes to deliver some sort of improved version of Antonioni's nonsense. Generally his movies are within 100 minutes time frame yet the scenes related to the final resolve of his movies are far less, probably 20%. I say improved version not by his genuine intention. He works in Hollywood so he has to deliver something viable for investors with Hollywood mindset. "Crash" does not follow the acceptable Hollywood cliché which has been created for a reason, to make movies dynamic. The screenplay follows the 10% rule which has to offer the hero an opportunity out of his ordinary life but after that its free ride of total nonsense. Too many unnecessary and irrelevant scenes and rather disgusting emphasis on body fetish and pornographic to lure audience, make it erotic enough to follow the nonsense. I am not against pornography as long as it contributes to the final resolve of the movie but to squeeze such scenes into the movie to lure the audience, I find it insulting to the intelligence of the viewer and that is exactly what Cronenberg does. The movie is boring and hard to watch in one piece with lots of whispering hard to hear dialogue so I recommend watching the movie with subtitles although one would lose nothing if miss some of of the dialogue due to poor audio management. On short, the movie is about bunch of accident victims who developed accident and trauma fetish and that's it from start to finish, some grotesque scenes and too much sex, irrelevant sex.

David Cronenberg's 'Crash' shares something in common with Louis Malle's 'Damage' (read that sentence again and see if you don't smile). Both are films about people fixated on a dangerous obsession. 'Damage', the better of the two was about a man's unhealthy sexual obsession with his son's fiancée. 'Crash' is about a group of people who have an unhealthy sexual obsession with car accidents. Which would you prefer to watch? Me too.The movie begins with a couple (James Spader and Debra Kara Unger) fixated on the thrill of sex in a public place. He gets in a car accident and the husband of the woman (Holly Hunter) in the other car is killed. The two meet at an impound lot and find that they both got off on the accident.Cut to another couple played by Elias Koteas and Roseanna Arquette. Her scarred legs are in braces and he makes a public display out of reenacting the famous celebrity car accidents that killed James Dean and Jane Mansfield. Somehow Koteas, Spader and Hunter all come together, drawn apparently not by sex but by their similar fetish.I am a fan of David Cronenberg because even his lesser films are never boring. 'Crash' is one of his lesser films. It doesn't work because I never for one moment found myself interested in what they were doing. Maybe that was the point but I couldn't get beyond their bizarre attraction to something so horrible. The movie is too slow and even for Cronenberg, hard to take I think the reason that I like 'Damage' more was because I had a starting point with the obsession that Jeremy Irons had with this son's fiancée. I have no idea why the characters in 'Crash' love car accidents and judging by their behavior, I don't think that I want to know.