Mixed or average reviews - based on 22 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 22
  2. Negative: 6 out of 22
  1. Reviewed by: Christopher Sharrett
    Crash seems incredibly prescient, yet rather naive. The film is a stunning document of our alienated civilization, all the more compelling with its dolorous, almost liturgical tones.
  2. Reviewed by: Kim Newman
    However, as with Dead Ringers, Cronenberg approaches a touchy concept with a mixture of icy tact and cinematic daring, always informing the wilfully perverse material with a penetrating intelligence and (almost subliminally) very black wit.
  3. Compared with the novel, the movie might seem predictable. But compared with other movies, it stands alone.
  4. 88
    Cronenberg has made a movie that is pornographic in form, but not in result.
  5. You may well hate Crash, but if intensity is what you seek in a darkened theatre, you'll hate missing it even more.
  6. I'm not quite sure what David Cronenberg is trying to say in Crash, but whatever it is, he deserves a lot of credit for having the nerve to put it on screen and face the consequences.
  7. 70
    Adapted from J.G. Ballard's cult novel, a dispassionate exegesis of warped desire, Cronenberg's movie is suitably cold, cold, cold: proof positive that movies about sex aren't always sexy movies, at least by conventional standards.
  8. Reviewed by: Robin Dougherty
    The astonishing thing, however, is how pleasantly hypnotic the film is -- despite the fact that its subject is confined to peculiarly gruesome sex.
  9. Reviewed by: Jack Kroll
    Crash has no plot to speak of. It's a cinematic tone poem of collisions and coitus.
  10. The Crash characters sleepwalk through this story in a state of futuristic numbness, seeking extreme forms of sensation because familiar feelings have long since failed them. It's a chilling, ghastly possibility that manages to exert a grim fascination.
  11. Reviewed by: Luc Sante
    For a filmmaker who in Videodrome and Dead Ringers so elegantly broached the unspeakable, Cronenberg has here made a picture that is all surface.
  12. None of the people in the film is realized as a character: Cronenberg has no interest in character. Each person is given a dab of characteristics and is then sent off to copulate. [21Apr1997 Pg 26]
  13. Cronenberg has said that he made the film to find out why he was making it. You may watch it for the same reason.
  14. 50
    Crash has a couple of concepts which are, admittedly, fascinating and original, but not a whole lot more.
  15. 42
    The only entertainment value is in imagining Turner's apoplexy when he watched Spader having sex with Rosanna Arquette's leg wound.
  16. 40
    For all the director's visual flair, his trademark flashes of gallows humor and his few good moments, there's never a sense that he's made Crash his own.
  17. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    Cronenberg is a master of creating and sustaining a mood of insinuating cool and dark allure, but while the director remains firmly behind the wheel for the first hour or so, he cracks up toward the end with sequences that send the film and the audience into a ditch.
  18. David Cronenberg's movie is a chilly meditation on this theme, carrying some cinematic interest but surprisingly dull given the story's outrageous subject.
  19. Crash doesn't extend beyond its most immediate sensationalism. When the movie does attempt to find a theme, it slams into a brick wall of mumbo-jumbo.
  20. The filmmaking here is so glacially paced (the final script was only 62 pages for a 100-minute film) and enervating that boredom is the most frequent result.
  21. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    An intellectual and a sensualist, Cronenberg graces Crash with philosophical musings, acres of pretty flesh and even more penis talk than on some 8 o'clock sitcoms. For all that, Crash doesn't work.
  22. Reviewed by: Michael Sragow
    Cult auteur David Cronenberg crashes and burns--his talent, that is--in Crash, a vain attempt at a techno-age Persona.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 17 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 5
  2. Negative: 1 out of 5
  1. Feb 26, 2013
    An undoubtedly important film but it's hard to care about characters defined only by their controversial sexual preferences. It is easy to become disengaged with the film and that says a lot, given the subject matter Full Review »
  2. Jul 22, 2011
    This obsessive adaptation of J.G. Ballardâ
  3. MathewB.
    Sep 19, 2007
    A Post-modern masterpiece of cinema. Driven by the eye rather than ear. Deceptively complex. Demands a lot from the viewer.