Anyone who likes this movie must have a skull full of woodchips.

damn woodchips!

:)

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

and save this pithy shock post

---

I'm not going to expound. Anyone who finds merit in this piece of tripe is a retard.

yes a shock post
stating some pointless one liner about something, leaving it at that and then expecting people to come back fighting

its stupid

if you have a problem with the movie, discuss it
there is no point to this post otherwise

---

Sometimes discussion is entirely overrated, most especially if the point is moot. I'm wont to debate and tussle over many a topic, but not this. It's a condescending scrap heap and I'm beside myself that so many people have warmed to it.

if you're not willing to discuss it, why bother posting?
this is a forum for DISCUSSION

there's no 'useless statements' board here last i checked

---

but I know what his argument is.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

you could provide me with the password to your secret film snobbery society so i too, could understand this argument and then be able to post in a similarly useless style

---

and go snuggle up to your DVD of Forget Paris.

>and go snuggle up to your DVD of Forget Paris.

lol
again, how ironic of you

---

explain, what in God's name is ironic about the post? I'm being an asshole, not ironic.

>explain, what in God's name is ironic about the post? I'm
>being an asshole, not ironic.

exactly
you tell me to stop being such a bitch, then in the next sentence make a statement that suprise suprise was....bitchy

but oh no, you meant that affectionately
hehe

---

not a bitch. You were the one crying to the heavens because someone clogged up this bastion of enlightened discussion with a curt post about a grossly-overrated movie.

Now go zone out to some Silverchair.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

I learned that Sandra Bullock and Brendan Fraser are two of the worst actors in the history of cinema, that Paul Haggis fancies himself a pretty transcendental yarn-spinner, that the score was something straight off of a Body Shop compilation CD, that everybody hurts, that rappers shouldn't act, that Jennifer Esposito is the poor man's Pia Zadora, that Tony Danza (if used properly) is a wonderfully talented motherfucker, oh yeah, and that there are no Asian or Aboriginal people in Haggis' altruistic mosaic.

I mean a white Canadian making a film about race relations in LA is not going to expand anyones understanding of racism in America. And such an lofty subject is bound to inspire overwrought performances from c level talents like Sandra Bullock.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

The guy went straight from middle-class London, Ontario to living in a bubble in Hollywood as a wealthy scribe of televised pap. I guess one carjacking is enough impetus to concoct a totally insular story that hedges the very same stereotypes it pretends to shrug.

If any white Canadian should make such a film, he should at least be from Toronto...or Chatham.

>not a bitch. You were the one crying to the heavens because
>someone clogged up this bastion of enlightened discussion with
>a curt post about a grossly-overrated movie.

no idiot, i asked you to explain your comment because alot of people make comments similar to yours about movies, music etc and don't actually have any reasons for posting it (i.e '______ is an overrated piece of shit'). you're the one dancing around the point of all this. just explain your reasons and i'll be satisfied.

>Now go zone out to some Silverchair.

listen to diorama and shut the fuck up

---

>listen to diorama and shut the fuck up

I don't even know what the hell that is. Though I'm sure it sucks large bag.

So I threw out a thorny one-off about a lauded piece of shit.

The statement is hardly useless. I think it's quite valid. Explaining it's validity would extinguish the point. I was trying to counter the pelagic (albeit airy) blather that's already popped up on these boards regarding Crash.

>The statement is hardly useless. I think it's quite valid.
>Explaining it's validity would extinguish the point. I was
>trying to counter the pelagic (albeit airy) blather that's
>already popped up on these boards regarding Crash.


you were trying to counter airy blather by countering with equally inane diatribe?

the irony of this is beyond even some of the dumber things i've read on these boards

---

It was ONE SENTENCE!

if we're gonna nit pick everything, it was actually FOUR sentences.

>The statement is hardly useless. I think it's quite valid.
>Explaining it's validity would extinguish the point. I was
>trying to counter the pelagic (albeit airy) blather that's
>already popped up on these boards regarding Crash.

diatribe: attack, tirade, rant, criticism, discourse etc..

---

I explained that my ORIGINAL post was a counter to the chorus of circle jerks for Crash on these boards.

You later said that I countered airy blather with an equally-airy diatribe.

My original post was the counter. One sentence. The rest wasn't diatribe, it was a rebuttal to your empty husk of an argument.

Go to bed, you dink.

PS - Thanks for the Webster's def.

>Go to bed, you dink.

its 1:30 in the afternoon here

>PS - Thanks for the Webster's def.

no problem. its tough to understand some words isn't it?


anyway, this ping pong shit IS exhausting. finally i agree with you

fact is, you're not gonna explain yourself. therefore my conclusion is you are incapable of justifying your statement, which means this post is now well and truly worthless
as is all this bs about everything BUT the movie

---

And yet, nothing more about the film. Wow.
__________________________________________________________________________
<------Where have all the raspberry women gone?

and opinions are like assholes...so,

go figure,
it didnt do anything for ya...

that doesn't mean that those that did take something from it are somehow dumb for enjoying it or finding it decent, etc.

question: what was so wrong w/ the movie. dialogue is what i seek.

***********************************
"one, two, three, four, FIFTH!" -Dave Chappelle

"i pity the fool." -Mr. T

--

>
>question: what was so wrong w/ the movie. dialogue is what i
>seek.

read my above posts with the fool and realise you aren't gonna get a proper answer to that anytime soon, even though its the most reasonable question anyone could possibly ask and have answered

---

Call me a fool all you like, but you're still the one whining like a bitch because I didn't concoct a venn diagram for you. At the risk of sounding like even more of an asshole, I'll say that I honestly do think that anyone who enjoyed this film and/or needs an explanation as to why I thought it was total merde is a complete fucking self-involved dipshit.

Redeem yourselves. Watch 'Killer of Sheep.' It has a real voice and coasts by rather magnificently on the merit and wit and soul of a haunting and threadbare story that refuses to kowtow to a head-in-the-clouds audience.

I'm not alone in the universe!

I didn't like it much but had its moments. and I will say I've seen some pretty good discussions come out of it.

>I'm not alone in the universe!

...

>I didn't like it much but had its moments. and I will say I've
>seen some pretty good discussions come out of it.

For some reason I immediately thought of the classic SNL skit with Richard Pryor and Chevy Chase trading racial epithets.
__________________________________________________________________________
<------Where have all the raspberry women gone?

Re: the SNL skit -

That was everything Crash wasn't. The language was honest and violent and allowed for an immediate dialogue. Crash is a gauzy, hackneyed fable that worms itself into your heart. It does nothing but provide for a very childish and tedious watch.

I thought it was some bullshit, too.

AND Corny as fuck

And for me to ask you why it was bullshit and corny would be ridiculous, right? Goes without saying.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*Effasig*

I must agree with u on this. The film was still decent in that it was nice time killer, and I kind of liked that part when the women gets saved from the car fire, and a couple of things said by Luda's character were pretty on point for a white director to have any clue about, but........

The film was too CORNY and hollywood for my taste, the end when the fat black chick (who also played the loan agent) <go figure> is cussin at the Asian driver is simply one of the worst moments in film and if I have to explain myself as to why- then that's a sad situation.

---------------------------------------------



"I'm not goin' to spend my life being a color"-Mcauly Kaulkin

"It's not what color your complexion is, it's where your colores @."-Me

the last scene, corny (yes), sad? how so?

***********************************
"one, two, three, four, FIFTH!" -Dave Chappelle

"i pity the fool." -Mr. T

--

No kidding.

.

---------------------------------------------



"I'm not goin' to spend my life being a color"-Mcauly Kaulkin

"It's not what color your complexion is, it's where your colores @."-Me

Wait, that looks a little more hateful than I intended. Sorry!

If the author has no desire to discuss his statement or expound on it, then it has no place having it's own post. It should simply be put into a reply to one of the other dozen CRASH posts.

This kinda bullshit is for the Lesson or maybe GD. Not in PTP.



ºº¤ºº The Elmer Fudd of this Hip Hop ºº¤ºº

Midnight Marauders™ ¤ DROkayplayer™ ¤ StL OKP's™ ¤ PLANETASIA™ ¤

http://www.myspace.com/DawgEatah

Today's Episode is Brought to you by the Letter ¤ Dunnt ¤ Dumhi ¤ Domestic Exchange ¤

and I thought you and I shared some tastes in film. I thought this was one of the best mainstream films I've seen in years. But clearly you disagree.

Is it so fucking serious that I insult you over your OPINION of the film?

No.

So please don't insult me.

We do. We most definitely do. And I know I'm being incredibly broad and confrontational and immature with this post, but I'm really, really shocked that so many people have warmed to this pablum. I can't recall a more recent trip to the theatre that has left such an awful taste in my mouth.

I found Haggis's method of racial, ethical and personal quantification to be quite insulting. You can't put such dire issues into capsule by using old-hat script mechanisms and fairytale coincidences. The fact that almost every character had to redeem him/herself was grating enough. Every square inch of this film was condescending and limp and I think it cuts to the heart of the very same lot of people who refuse to disagree with anything that promotes ye ol' utopian softshoe.

That said, I honestly believe that anyone who enjoyed this movie was wearing Zircon-encrusted blinders for at least two hours of their life.

... not better or worse, just different than others?

For example you mention redemption. I don't think ANYONE in this film redeemed themselves. Do I forgive the cop for his racist ways cuz he saves lives and loves his father? No. That is not the point IMO either tho. I do not think redemption has anything to do with this film in the grand scheme of things. I think it has to do with the complexity of the human condition. In fact I think the film actually has more of existential message, rather than it being some sort of a commentary on something as specific as racism or class alone.

But there I go trying to have a mature discussion when you are just wanting attention. You are right, everyone else is wrong. Whatever. Nevermind.




ºº¤ºº The Elmer Fudd of this Hip Hop ºº¤ºº

Midnight Marauders™ ¤ DROkayplayer™ ¤ StL OKP's™ ¤ PLANETASIA™ ¤

http://www.myspace.com/DawgEatah

Today's Episode is Brought to you by the Letter ¤ Dunnt ¤ Dumhi ¤ Domestic Exchange ¤

There was nothing complex about the film. Exsistential? It was a rote paint-by-numbers. I agree with you that the film WASN'T about redemption. But that's not what many people have been saying and it certainly goes against the intentions put forth by Haggis.

The cardboard characters, the way too sharp dialogue, the overt symbolism, the Sierra Club soundtrack bellowing from on high, the snow...EVERYTHING about this spells highschool journal keeper. A soft-centered tone poem about an all too real facet of daily life should not be attracting so much praise.

Look, I'm not going to waiver on my opinion here. My opinion says that in order to like this film, one must be delusional.

Just take peek at the reams of comments on Crash's IMDB page. Here's a choice one:

"After seeing this movie, I was able to really understand what "Six Degrees of Separation" means. There is a thread that weaves its way through the landscape of life connecting, influencing, and defining all. This movie is certainly thought-provoking, one cannot watch it without feeling either privileged to have become part of the fabric, or like a fly on the wall - seeing, yet unable to influence or guide. There is almost a sense of frustration at ones inability to be no more than an observer in this movie since it compels you to want to shout in warning, gasp in shock, cry in sorrow, and hold in comfort. "Crash" is definitely not a movie to use as a venue to escape life for a couple of hours, but it is a movie that certainly makes you take a second and third look at who you are within yourself. The actors are surprising not only for their depth of performance, but also because they do not play characters you think you know. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes drama, action, comedic relief, or just an appreciation for a well-thought out movie."

I mean, please. Jesus Christ...

IMDB user reviews... jesus, everything is crap.

I thought that the point was that everyone is conflicted and racial stereotyping is deeply ingrained by our culture. The film tracked a lot of reading I've been doing recently, particularly readings on white privilege in books like White Like Me, Critical Race Theory and other readings in privilege.

It may be true that the issues are dealt with in only a superficial way, but my perspective was that the fact that they were dealt with at all in a mainstream movie was a big step.

>It may be true that the issues are dealt with in only a
>superficial way, but my perspective was that the fact that
>they were dealt with at all in a mainstream movie was a big
>step.

That's a dangerous way of thinking. If it's not sinewy and muscular and scored deep with conviction and love and hate, a film about something so pervasive and involving should not have been made in the first place.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I think a prime example of mainstream media successfully tackling the issue of race was the Pryor/Chase SNL skit, or, alternately, something like All in the Family. Until the mainstream sees fit to finance a picture as biting and resounding as Killer of Sheep or Putney Swope, I think comedy is the only useful vessel for an exploration of such.

I can't help you there.

But you know, it's fine with me that you watch television, even though I disagree with you about it.

I don't think your head is full of woodchips just because you watch television.

And you may or may not have noticed that the reviews of Crash swing wildly from one extreme to another, so it should come as no surprise to you that the people who disagree with your opinion would disagree STRONGLY. But I'm still really troubled by the way you began this thread. It completely undercuts any principled argument you want to make on the topic. Because it makes clear to me that you're not seeing the issues in any objective manner, but only in a highly emotional manner.

So let me just pat your head and say "there, there."

I apologize for the post and the fact that I've benn gnawing away at people for liking a movie I detested. I understand that sort of behaviour doesn't allow for thoughtful debate and I apologize. However, I'm still shocked and upset that so many people want to refer to this film as a masterwork or the very marble of cinema. Personally, I think this film is flimsy and childish and will have all the impact of a small underwater fart.

Here's a link to a review of Crash by the excellent Katrina Onstad. She perfectly surmises everything I've been attempting to say, without all that hateful spewing stuff -
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/colourschemes.html

here's a link to Denby's review, with which I wholly agree.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/050502crci_cinema

a new yorker review.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

but Anthony Lane is ALWAYS right on the mark. Anyway, but this time I DID agree with Denby.

Most of the time I can learn whether or not I want to see the film from reading his reviews, but I won't learn whether or not I'll like it when I do see it. You know?

what anthony lane is going to say about a movie months in advance the films release. It's like he's a robot programmed with the opinions expected of a New Yorker reader. He's the anti-pauline kael.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

that means that you can also predict whether or not I'll like a film months before it was released, because I have yet to find a film about which I disagree with Lane.

I really wanted to like Shattered Glass, and I really wanted to like Sylvia, and I did not.

You know Denby was a Kael protege.

that aped her style and fed her ego. Apparently she wasn't too great a person. But at least she wasn't predictable and she could be pretty damn funny.

And go easy on comparing your tastes with Lanes, your posts are far more interesting than any of his reviews. And he doesn't bring up movie sex or the like.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

First, I'm not a huge Denby fan. Anthony Lane, as frothy as he can be, is far superior. Something about Denby gets under my skin.

I didn't appreciate this review. In fact, I'm wont to disregard the entire article after reading the very first paragraph:

"If there’s an ill-tempered remark that has ever been uttered in the city of Los Angeles that hasn’t found its way into Paul Haggis’s “Crash,” I can’t imagine what it is. “

If he can't imagine another ill-tempered remark that has ever been uttered in the city of Los Angeles that hasn't found its way into Crash, well, then, he probably has no concept of racism, pedestrian or otherwise. What a foolish thing to say.

"Crash (opening May 6th) is about the rage and foolishness produced by intolerance, the mutual abrasions of white, black, Latino, Middle Eastern, and Asian citizens in an urban pot in which nothing melts. "

Eh? Asian? Please. Talk about a shrift. The only time any Asians appeared in this film were as goofy marble-mouthed comic foils. Any critic who makes a point of stating that Asians were involved in this story's mosaic is an idiot. Any critic who fails to pounce on this strange omission is missing out.

"I think it’s easily the strongest American film since Clint Eastwood’s Mystic River"

I have a hard time taking anything from here on in seriously. Crash and Mystic River are the two most recent great American films? Wow. Denby's asleep at the wheel.

thought that Guess Who was a good movie.

So just stop.

That was exactly what I thought of the Denby piece.

Guess Who aside, what did you think of Onstad's review?

a critic who doesn't see how Guess Who is totally racist and unfunny.

I feel like this review is grading Crash based more on what it isn't, rather than what it is. It calls Crash 'humorless' and 'angry' and claims that the movie is over the top with its pain and tragedy. What the reviewer apparently missed upon entering the theater was that the movie is called CRASH. Can you really expect subteltey or nuance from something so overt and in-your-face?

I also disagree with the following:
"In Crash, racial confrontations are triggered by moments of urban crisis like a car accident or an act of violence. The extremity of these incidents has a leveling effect, making all experiences of racism the same."

It was a little more varied than Onstad wants to give it credit for. You had different 'levels' of racism taking place, if you will. And watching Crash I never felt as though they were leveled. If anything it did the opposite.

Now I will ride for Onstad on a couple of things. The tragedy-fest that all takes place in the second half of the movie is almost too much. When Sandra Bullock fell down the stairs I laughed. Partly because I was happy to see Sandra Bullock fell down some stairs, but also because it felt like Crash was trying a bit too hard with that one. I never really cared about this character, I don't give a shit if she twists her ankle. Turn that music down.

The DA's wife and the locksmith were two characters that didn't quite fit in the world of Crash. On one hand I thought the wife was totally unrelatable and unlikeable, and I never really saw the 'good' in her. She was flat. So was the locksmith. Only I never saw the 'bad' in him. So those two didn't quite work within the Crash formula, that was otherwise full of 3 dimensional characters.

And a good point is grazed upon about comedy vs. drama in terms of addressing the issues.

Other than that though, nah. That's not what I took from the movie at all.

Nice summary. Well said. But I still agree with every line Onstad wrote.

Bullock's character was a joke. When she told the maid that she had earlier treated like a sack of dirt that she was her best friend, I almost lost it. My finacé and I exchanged looks, mere inches away from laughing like a hysterical Tom Cruise doing whip-its in a Coney Island funhouse. Compare Bullock and the hispanic maid in Crash to that smarmy manchild and the hispanic maid in Solondz' Storytelling and you have a canyon of difference.

I can't believe I haven't yet mentioned the angelic kevlar girl surviving a hollowpoint to the face. Pretty stirring stuff. Really makes you think.

>Bullock's character was a joke. When she told the maid that
>she had earlier treated like a sack of dirt that she was her
>best friend, I almost lost it.

Because I don't really understand what Haggis was trying to say with that one. Certainly this wasn't supposed to be showing us Bullock's "other" side? Because to me all it said was 'this stupid bitch still doesn't get it"...and I'm sure that's exactly what the maid was thinking, too.


>aughing like a hysterical Tom
>Cruise doing whip-its in a Coney Island funhouse.

heh...Nice.


>I can't believe I haven't yet mentioned the angelic kevlar
>girl surviving a hollowpoint to the face. Pretty stirring
>stuff. Really makes you think.

Hey hey now... I was holding my breath through that entire scene, man. If you can't appreciate that the gun was in fact loaded with blanks, and that the little girl was okay after all... Well then it's not your head that's full of woodchips my friend, it's YOUR HEART.

I'M WOODCHIP FREE

>We do. We most definitely do. And I know I'm being I can't recall a more recent trip to >the theatre that has left such an awful taste in my mouth.

Clearly you and I aren't seeing the same movies. I'm with Janey, I thought this was one of the better mainstream flicks I'd seen in a long while.

>I found Haggis's method of racial, ethical and personal
>quantification to be quite insulting. You can't put such dire
>issues into capsule by using old-hat script mechanisms and
>fairytale coincidences.

What specifically insulted you? I mean, don't all movies, even at their best, put dire issues into capsule? Can you *really* say all there is to say about race relations in 2 hours? If a movie has ever done so then please point me to it. I'm reading your criticisms and I still don't understand your beef. What is it you wanted from this film?

I didn't have a problem with the fairytale coincidences. I can see how someone might, but I think that's kind of missing the point. It was an accessible method of addressing the interconnectedness of things, and I think it was pretty well executed.

It's not the most complex piece of cinema ever created, despite the dire issues it chooses to tackle. But see, I see that as a strength. It's accessible while still somewhat challenging. It's got a good heart and a good message and better yet, anybody can get it. But at the same time I don't think it pandered.

>The fact that almost every character had to redeem him/herself was grating enough.

Who was redeemed though? I saw that Crash went out of its way to point out the good and the bad in its characters, but I never got the feeling it was trying to pardon their sins or taint their triumphs. I don't get what was condescending about that either. Seemed like the movie really left a lot of it in the audience's hands, as you can kind of see from all the discussion Crash has inspired.

The movie wasn't flawless. I think you mentioned something about the soundtrack at one point, and I can kinda see where you're coming from. Although, I didn't even consciously take notice of the music until about halfway through the flick (Must be the woochips.)

All in all I was really satisfied with Crash. Pretty solid cerebrally as well as emotionally- You did remember to feel the movie while you were watching it, right? Or have we forgotten how to do that...

you turned this thread into an actual discussion of the movie!

sort of

woodchip head

me?

I thought my dislike for Crash established my intellectual superiority

shit i'm confused now

>woodchip head

but not with me, buckaroo

...the movie could have been done a much more subtle, graceful way that spoke more of humanity than two-dimensional characterizations and fables but...

such a movie cannot be made in America.

All things considered, it was pretty good.

The Cali version of me.


--<http://www.myspace.com/brownivy>--

says more about America's inability to deal with race, than the actual film does. Anything that makes white folks feel justified in being racist assholes gets rave reviews. Cuz, see, "everybody's racist!"

And if you don't agree with that, fine...but this has got to be one of the cheesiest, corniest, non-ron howard affiliated movies i've seen. I'm really surprised that Wilford Brimley didn't turn up somewhere in this. Like i said somewhere else "Deus Ex Machina - The Movie".

Maybe I'm bitter, or cynical. But this movie soft-handed racism in such a way that it seems like really a waste of time and money.

Boo-muthafuckin-hiss this movie

>says more about America's inability to deal with race, than
>the actual film does. Anything that makes white folks feel
>justified in being racist assholes gets rave reviews. Cuz,
>see, "everybody's racist!"

I know a lot of white people who actually had a difficult time with this flick.

>Maybe I'm bitter, or cynical.


Nah, I just think you're bad at watching movies.


Woodchip head.

I mean, it took you a whole 3 hours to actually begin debating your opinions regarding this movie -on a post you started. It's one thing to have your very own p.o.v. but if you're going to make such rash comments about something that is being lauded by many, don't just leave it at that.

Such a waste of space when this happens.

There is nothing to respect about that.
piece,
R.
quinceminutos.blogspot.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
-Albert Einstein

meaning, altho being very well executed with outstanding acting and artful camerawork, the bottom line is that there isn't really anything new being said or explored. The trick is that they make you think there is, but there isn't.

__

fairweather

in my post.
that was where it was at.

http://twitter.com/phenompyrus

Get Out the Room
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/get-out-the-room/id525657893

my bad brother.
but i liked it, and i never understood why it got all the hate.
okay, it may not happen like that in real life, but it was a movie.

http://twitter.com/phenompyrus

Get Out the Room
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/get-out-the-room/id525657893

Anyone who doesn't like the movie is a pee-pee head.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

booooooooooooo shit.

first of all, anytime people trade expletive filled quips back and forth at each other on a message board, we all get a little bit stupider.

anyways, yeah there were a number of corny parts. the music, the snow, the incredibly random and useless role that asians play, and most of the obvious and trite monologues that characters had sprinkled here and there.

but whatever, it was a good movie. done well, entertaining, and i thought most of ludacris's lines were hilarious. like someone had said earlier, it's an important film because it both starts discussion, and is easily accessible to the mainstream. i really did enjoy it.






(seriously though, how can you have a movie about race set in l.a. and not have asians play any kind of significant role?! that's the part i found most insulting)

There may be nothing worse than an entire cast of hack actors trying to "get real". No thanks. The two best actors in the whole thing were a rapper and an unknown (Mexican locksmith). The script asks you to suspend all grasp of reality. And the hard-hitting look at racism is a joke. This movie was garbage from start to finish.

BTW