Talks about a lot, but doesn't say anything at all.

Rating: 2/10 (3 February 2006)

On the positive side, this movie has heart and good intentions, which is more than can be said of most. However any resonance or authenticity is lost in screenplay gimmickry, preachiness and manipulative direction. It's efforts to "say" something are simplistic at best. The movie tries to pack in somany issues that all it can do is scratch the surface, hence it is a shallow film populated by one-note characters behaving in mostly unbelievable ways.
There are no quiet moments in the film; it has all the subtly of a dump-truck. Everything is so exaggerated and sensationalized there is no room for imagination and one is left, at the end, with nothing more to think about. The movie does all the thinking for its audience, which personally I find rather insulting.
Also it is hard not to think of "Magnolia" when watching this film. "Crash" is also a film about an ensemble of characters interconnected by tragic and amazing events over one day in LA. "Crash" is derivative at best when compared. I also find it really confusing that Paul Haggis gave his film the same title of another contemporary American (well Canadian really) film, though certainly not widely seen, nonetheless with a very distinctive reputation.
I understand the popularity of the film and all its awards and nominations: people love gimmicky movies. The gimmick in "Crash" is the interconnected characters storyline. You've seen it done before in much more original and seamless ways. This movie pushes the envelope to extraordinary limits of "suspension of disbelief" to pull off this trick. It is audacious certainly. Some may find it magical; I found it appalling - a storytelling technique standing in for meaning. Hollywood loves this tactic. You could say it is even the very foundation of the Hollywood Narrative. Like political discussions, though tiresome, they keep even the most intelligent minds coming back for more.
In terms of performances, honestly only Terence Howard and Ludicrous (of all people) actually stood out for me. Brendan Fraser continues his reputation as the most inept and laughable actor in American film - how is it possible that someone with so little talent can be cast in ... anything? His agent must be the devil. Most of the performances are so one-note it's hard to be involved with them. Some are even one-scene. William Fichtner - who is he supposed to be? Why isn't this just a scene between Don Cheadle and the DA? Then you could have lost Brendan Fraser, replaced him with William Fichtner, AND this pivotal scene would have actually made sense.
In terms of direction, I can't believe anyone respects this kind of heavy-handed, unfocused work. The use of slo-mo in this film is so gratuitous and unskilled ... I couldn't believe it honestly. Paul Haggis is at the bottom of my list. And he has music playing beneath almost every shot of the film - a sure sign of a lack of confidence behind the camera. Mark Isham's synth-heavy score is pretty cool for a while until the wailing female vocal comes in and it becomes a parody of itself. It sounds like the same wailing woman you've heard in 30 other movies. Then the film ends with two of the worst songs I have heard in a major motion picture. For a movie about diversity, these songs come straight from the collection of a middle-aged white guy who keeps the dial on the easy listening station. Lame, lame stuff.
Nothing amazes me anymore when it comes to the popular tastes of movie-goers, but I am disappointed. If you like your emotions manipulated instead of engaged, and storytelling gimmicks instead of authentic characters, this one's for you. If you appreciate any kind of subtlety in a film, I would not recommend this.