Amores Perros VS Crash
These 2 movies are quite similar to each other. What do you find a better movie and please explain why?
shareThis is a disgusting comparison.
Amores Perros- 10/10
Crash- 6/10
Last Films seen:
Amores Perros- 10/10
300- 9/10
MovieChat Forums > Amores perros (2001) Discussion > Amores Perros VS Crash
I haven't seen Amores Perros but I find it extremely "small" of a few people to actually degrade Crash the way they do. Most of those so called Crash-haters dislike it just because of how famous it is. There is nothing to hate in the plot. Every film gets it's chance. Crash owned that chance. Respect is not always earned, sometimes it's snatched.
"Sorry Sir, Stags aren't allowed "
That's a pathetic argument. I don't dislike "Crash." But I don't think it's good either. I don't even think it's a bad film. It's just okay. And I'm not saying that, because it's famouse. I'm saying that because it's a cliche, and the plot is completely contrived. You need to see "Amores Perros."
Last films seen
Casino Royale(3rd viewing)- 9/10
300(second viewing)- 5/10
If you've watched amores and 21 grams before crash, you might understand why crash and babel get criticized.
Crash felt forced and manipulative. I didn’t feel anything strong for any of the characters. The acting wasn’t at the same level either. It’s a decent film but was a letdown. It didn’t have the guttural feel that made his films unique.
crash is a hollywood movie so it pulls all the possible strings: the racism, racism, racism... lol
little girl, sexual harrasment, the loss, the death etc. Actors are good. But it's like enumeration: look how many global problems we can list.
But amores are about deepness. The characters are living, growing; they show the shole range of emotions. There's no cheesy final - it gives you a light.
and if i watched the A.P. before I would take crash from a little different point of view.
My respect to inarritu
Crash was all right, but as mentioned by others very predictable. It found as many prejudices (in particular racial prejudice) and knit a story around it. Not a bad film, but nothing special - I felt that had it could've been done in a double episode of a prime time slot TV series, seeing as it had all of the right action and melodramatic added flavourings.
Amores Perros is predictable in places, but far more original than the Hollywood Oscar-winning stuff. It relies less on monologues and speeches and more on gritty visuals to convey a message. It doesn't try to juggle too many storylines to try and avoid audiences getting bored (because changing the scenery and cutting regularly is the done thing in Hollywood nowadays), but rather picks a smaller number of people to focus on. And it doesn't have to keep flicking back and forth between people (although as we become more familiar with what's going on it does begin to do this), rather it lets us get to know some characters and then leaves us waiting when we finally feel as though we've got to know them. I find Amores Perros a lot more cleverly written, and shot far better. You feel like you're in the character's world, and not an entirely absent spectator watching cars crash and guns going off and not particularly caring. As some other poster mentioned the hand-held camerawork, the cinematography in general was a lot more immersive while stylistiaclly Crash seemed far too 'glossy' for its subject matter.
I guess it's a matter of taste, but I didn't really buy what I deemed to be the over the top Crash while I truly enjoyed Amores Perros.
Still, I don't see why they are being compared. Other than having multiple storylines, violence, relationships, an urban setting (dozens of films match those criteria) and an important car crash I see little similarities. Many films before Crash have tackled multiple storylines well - take a look at something as popular as Pulp Fiction, or the incredibly well-made Magnolia or any of Alejandro González Iñárritu's other films to name a few. I don't understand why it's only in that past 2-3 years that people are finding many interwoven storylines so amazing.
Hector Barbossa; now that's a pirate!
My vote goes to Crash. IMO, it was more efficient in storytelling than Amores Perros. Amores Perros just draaaaagged on for me, especially the parts with music playing over several scenes cut together.
And, who could listen to the dog whimpering for DAYS and not rip up the darn floor?! Almost as bad to watch as the dog fights!
AP here's why:
1. El Chivo y Octavio
2. The connections are better and less forced.
3. Crash at first is real good, but in reality it's hollywood glam for a connections movie.
4. I love the dog relation between humans of AP
5. AP is about love, Crash is about racism both great themes, but Crash becomes predictable and in ur face with racism. AP's love is more subtle.
I do think Crash is better than 21 Grams...sort've
Amores Perros - 8/10
Crash - 8/10
and...
Babel - 9/10
,this movie is more original and kicks crash's ass, plus gael garcia bernal is a great actor among others in amores perros the only two that could hold par were terrance howard and don cheadle.
There is no comparison. I don't remember much of "Crash" because I was cringing through most of it, but it was such a contrived piece of guilt-inducing fertilizer. You need to have the emotional maturity of a pre-teen to take it seriously.
shareI agree, these movies are totally disimilar besides multiple storylines and jump cuts. If these consitutes as similarities you might as well relate Amores Perros to Pulp Fiction. Tarantino was the one to popularize the practice.
Saying this. I liked them both. I saw Crash in an indie theater, with a friend. Yes it made an impact, but only so far of reminding my of all the times I was disciminated against for being hispanic. It also made my slightly uncomfortable, as I was watching it with a white friend, and afterwards answering her questions about my opnion I realized she she would never understand really what it was like. I actually felt it pointed out the differences between races and stereotypes of how they deal with it rather than negatives of racism. I also thought it was a little far-fetched and stretched considerably.
Amores Perros on the other hand blew me way. I saw it uncut, on IFC and missed the first 20 mins. I was bored, flipping channels, and the summary given sounded like every movie coming out these days. But, I gave it a chance, a boy was I glad. At each story I told myself "This was the one I would change the channel on." To say the least, I didn't. This movie was the first ever, besides a horror movie, to give me an unsettling feeling in my gut(especially the second with Valeria y Richie). The animal scenes were so realistically violent I actually questioned myself on who I was more sympathetic to. The parallels between the dogs and humans were clear, smart and intricately woven. I swear I could write an essay on the themes and motifs rolving around life, love, human relations, and the human condition. It was like reading a novel on screen. The cinematography is awesome, gritty and realistic, shot beautifully. No confusing POV or too many plot lines to follow it was easy to relate even in the simplist terms. The acting was superb, but it was the first movie I felt I was more enthralled in the characters and film aspects rather than the actors playing them.
Amores Perros all the way!
These movies are not very similar at all. Amores Perros is so much better. They really should not even be compared.
share[deleted]