I feel like this review is grading Crash based more on what it isn't, rather than what it is. It calls Crash 'humorless' and 'angry' and claims that the movie is over the top with its pain and tragedy. What the reviewer apparently missed upon entering the theater was that the movie is called CRASH. Can you really expect subteltey or nuance from something so overt and in-your-face?
I also disagree with the following: "In Crash, racial confrontations are triggered by moments of urban crisis like a car accident or an act of violence. The extremity of these incidents has a leveling effect, making all experiences of racism the same."
It was a little more varied than Onstad wants to give it credit for. You had different 'levels' of racism taking place, if you will. And watching Crash I never felt as though they were leveled. If anything it did the opposite.
Now I will ride for Onstad on a couple of things. The tragedy-fest that all takes place in the second half of the movie is almost too much. When Sandra Bullock fell down the stairs I laughed. Partly because I was happy to see Sandra Bullock fell down some stairs, but also because it felt like Crash was trying a bit too hard with that one. I never really cared about this character, I don't give a shit if she twists her ankle. Turn that music down.
The DA's wife and the locksmith were two characters that didn't quite fit in the world of Crash. On one hand I thought the wife was totally unrelatable and unlikeable, and I never really saw the 'good' in her. She was flat. So was the locksmith. Only I never saw the 'bad' in him. So those two didn't quite work within the Crash formula, that was otherwise full of 3 dimensional characters.
And a good point is grazed upon about comedy vs. drama in terms of addressing the issues.
Other than that though, nah. That's not what I took from the movie at all.