A flawed narrative cannot put a dent in the strength of the characters, themes, acting and all round writing

Rating: Null/10 (8 September 2005)

A minor car accident is the end of the story. It is here where a group of strangers of all races and classes connect, whether they know it or not.
It is a simple premise that sets up a Short Cuts style story of multiple characters and stories that only have brief narrative connections but yet, in this film, have significant thematic links. In this case it is race and this is what the film is about  not a car crash but a personal picture of a city that is split along lines of race, class, wealth and, simply put, the fact that people are people (bad and good) no matter where they fall in these categories. For this reason some people may find the story itself to occasionally be contrived, it goes to extremes, it pushes the action beyond what can easily be swallowed and every link in the chain is about colour. However to me this was not a problem because I understood that this is what the film was about and the focus was not this story, not other aspects of the characters lives (eg not a political thriller about a cover up) but about their views on race and the impacts they have.
As such it is relentlessly interesting and thoughtful and Haggis has crafted a screenplay that works on so many levels. It tackles many issues and it doesn't pander to any one ethnic group  doesn't allow poverty to be an excuse or privilege a let-off. The film is in the characters and again it is impressive how well Haggis has, with so little time on each, avoiding clichés and created characters we care about and are able to easily understand. Haggis doesn't give answers  everyone gets their space to be complex, everyone gets their chance to struggle. If I did have to take a message it would be that "people are good or bad no matter what colour they are" but writing this sounds so corny and I assure you that if the film does deliver a message, it certainly doesn't force it down your throat. Yes the coincidences are all very tidy and unlikely at times, while the action does go to extremes to set things up, but if you are focusing on this aspect of the film to the point where it bothers you, then you are probably not allowing yourself to think around the theme  which is what Haggis is focusing on after all.
The cast are impressive on paper but few scream out as superb leading actors, so I was surprised by how many were actually very strong, and kept the script from creating clichés (even covering the extremes of the narrative well). To pick one for praise is hard but Dillon works well with a complex character that you hear on the radio phone-ins all the time, that forgotten, oppressed minority group, the poor white man. Dillon doesn't force his point, he is honest to the character and he is excellent  you hate his views while also agreeing with them. A slimmed Bullock is also very impressive, she is fully in touch with her frightened, angry character and the script trusts her to do a lot herself  which she is more than able to. I have never knowingly liked Howard but here he is very good, bringing the conflicts within his character to the surface without being so crude as to use words to spell it all out (a compliment that applies to most of the cast actually). He is supported well by Newton, who has a smaller role than I expected but was still impressive. Fraser is solid and reliable, which is all the film asks for; he won't win awards but with such talent around him, it is no surprise not to have him shine. Cheadle is as good as he is proving he can be of late  his character is flawed regardless of colour and he is the key to a lot of the point (he is also blessed with the funniest line in the film). One of the biggest surprises to me was Ludicrous, a man whose music is so unashamedly unpolitical and booty-worshiping that I expected very little of him. However he avoids cliché really well and turns in a performance that deserves to be noted in the face of so many of his peers churning out offensive and demeaning "ethnic" comedies. Phillippe is another guy I just don't rate but even he is good here  his character is the "good guy who sees no colour" but assumes the very worst when pushed and is left with nothing to cling to; it was a challenge and I was very impressed by how well he pulled it off. Tate is more relaxed but he is natural and that is what was required. Support from David, Esposito, Finchtner and others is all good and helps give the feel of a film deep in quality, which it is. I know I have missed some of the cast out  but I have a word limit and I can't do them all justice within that.
Overall this is not the film to come to looking for a simple, acceptable narrative because it is here that it is weakest. All the stories play race issues as their central theme and the events are often extreme and unconvincing. However this is not the focus  the themes of race, empathy, flawed people (not races) and other issues are what we are there for and the script does well to address those without forcing them down our throats while also avoiding cliché and making good characters with very little time. In this area he is helped by a great cast all hitting the target producing a flawed film that is also very strong indeed.