I felt that "Crash" wasn't one of the
worst films ever made, even though there was literally no subtlety to the script, plot, or setting (of course a film exposing the prevalence of racism has to be set in Los Angeles
). But given the quality of acting, scriptwriting, cinematography, editing, and soundtrack, I'd rate it as solid in terms of the artwork itself but grating to people's personal aesthetics when they're looking for a film that isn't so in-your-face.
A good parallel, for me personally, is "The Passion of the Christ" by Mel Gibson. I have to tip my cap to him for the crafting of the film, but it was a movie that was personally wrong for me in so many places with bad caricatures and with it's focus on torture. Box-office success often speaks volumes about what the general public is drawn to, even though the film itself might seriously offend an audience member or two.
I couldn't stand Gibson's "Passion", and thought that anybody who thinks anything good about that movie was delusional and with a screw loose. It personally ranked up there for me as bad as all the films MST3K dissed, but with a bunch of audience members crying and sobbing and talking about how great it is. I went to the theatre HOPING that it was good, and not only was I disappointed, I was shocked that anybody in their right mind would think ANYTHING good about it.
And yet, I have to put my own aesthetics aside and recognize that as far as the art and the craft goes,
personal taste does not define quality of the work. This thread is a great example of how easy it is for people to confuse their own taste with what defines artistic merit. It doesn't and never has.
Here's another example: a couple guys who worked at a video store years ago (back in the dinosaur days before RedBox and Netflix) were always gleefully and harshly dissing every single movie that was ever brought up as the absolute
worst movie ever made. From "Sideways" to "Lord of the Rings" to "Taxi Driver" to "Gone with the Wind" to (insert any Oscar nominee or winner here)...they were brutal in their criticism, and it didn't matter what other people thought of those movies. They tended to take what amounted to personal taste and minor critiques of craftwork and blew them all to epic proportions of "horrible" and "worst ever".
It became clear to me that they just didn't like anything mass-produced after engaging in conversation with them. That's fine. Criticize the industry. I understand. But let's be honest about what qualifies as an actual critique and not simply sharing one's boundaries of personal taste.
And they worked at a
video store no less, which blew my mind, and were vocal about their opinions at the check out counter in front of dozens of customers. I was amazed how long they kept their jobs.
lol
I dunno. Maybe we ought to truly define the point of this thread. Is this "worst film of all time" in terms of actual craft and artistic merit? Or is this an opportunity to discuss what people's personal aesthetics are in terms of what is repulsive to them? Because, honestly, I've met PLENTY of people who adamantly pronounce "Titanic" as the absolute worst piece of filth they've ever seen on a screen.
