A tense, amateurish, derivative film

Rating: 2/10 (29 October 2005)

I had some hope that his film was going to be okay. It has a great cast and some opportunities for good acting. It showed me for the first time that Sandra Bullock can really bang out a good hard scene when sh'es given one. It's the kind of movie where every actor and actress is lining up to be in it like an Altman or Woody Allen movie. But my brain kept firing off throughout the film "something's wrong. This isn't working." I suppose the problem was the script and partly the first-time out director. Every character was angry at everyone else in every scene. From psycho cops to paranoid gun-toting store owners to... everybody else. Except Don Cheadle, he just wore this Bob Newhart frown all the time. Maybe cause he realized the movie (he took part in producing and perhaps financing) was turning into a lemon before his eyes.
A few interesting social insights were raised during the film, but as another IMDb'er pointed out, it felt like a bad version of MAGNOLIA (although in my opinion, the original version of MAGNOLIA was lousy). Also reminiscent of SHORT CUTS - which was a much better film.
When the dynamic of a film is constant tension and anger, there's really nowhere for it to go. I am mystified that the diversity of taste of today's film viewers and amateur REviewers places this film anywhere in the IMDb top 250. This list is pretty meaningless. I'm 46. CRASH must be hitting a chord of banality with the under-30 crowd. Hope they learn that gun-toting and prejudice are BAD! There BAD! And redemption is GOOD! It's GOOD!
Oh - and interesting idea to name it after a then eight-year old Cronenberg film. So odd.
Chris H.