Overrated, over-simplified look at life through just one lens

Rating: 4/10 (8 March 2008)

I don't understand why so many people think this film is so insightful. It suggests that people are incapable of seeing past race when other features-socio-economic class, gender, everyday life, shared humanity-make life a lot more complex and richer than would be suggested if one was to take one's impression of what life in Los Angeles is like if one did not know anything about it and viewed only this film.
To suggest that once someone gets in a car crash, as happens at the beginning of the film, between Jennifer Esposito and, I believe Wendy Rhee, a Korean woman, and both women start spewing racial epithets almost immediately, or that Ludicrous, if self-aware enough to appreciate the difficult circumstances into which he is born, as a black man in America, as he does early in the film, but then blindly acts in ways which re-enforce such stereotypes, is ridiculous. To suggest that a racist cop would see the error of his ways so suddenly-or even that a racist cop would so brazenly exemplify this racism in such an ugly manner in his personal life in addition to his racist treatment of people on the job-is ridiculous. If someone has been that racist so unrepentantly for that long, it is difficult to imagine that he would change so quickly simply on account of one interaction with one person-is ridiculous. If the racist cop (played by Matt Dillon) was truly that racist, perhaps he would be racist, but not in the over-the-top, obscene manner in which he is. Even at the LAPD, and certainly in his personal relations, he would not have developed as he did, were he so unevolved. In addition to that, the notion that one cop would have two lengthy encounters with the same person on two consecutive days with such emotional weight, in a city the size of Los Angeles, is ridiculous. The chances of that must be in the billions or trillions. That director Paul Haggis would focus on a wealthy white woman (Sandra Bullock-very good)'s racist attitudes to the exclusion of any other elements of her character, or that we would focus on the racism of Don Cheadle or Jennifer Esposito or any of the other very good actors in this film, to almost complete exclusion of any other considerations-is ridiculous. Another scene which was ridiculous in the film was Ryan Philippe's intervention on behalf of Ludicrous' gangbanging character. The complete disregard for police rules of engagement is simply crazy. Perhaps if only one or two of these elements were the case, the film might be more believable, but Haggis' continuing and unstinting consideration of race as the only issue acting in our lives in Los Angeles is ridiculous.
I understand the desire of people to want to praise this film and the conclusions are interesting. However, it seems the screenplay and idea for the film is enormously simplistic and would require perhaps fewer characters and attention to the effect of factors other than simply race. Haggis' motives, I'm sure, were pure, but this to me, is offensive to the behavior of anyone who attempts to act in stressful situations in a decent, reasonable manner. Many people, millions and billions of times a day, make choices which would refute Haggis' contention that when faced with stressors, humans revert to unevolved prejudices against which, apparently, any reason is helpless. This movie is greatly over-simplified and offensive.