Deconstructing Crash

2004's Crash won the Best Picture Oscar in 2005 amid a sudden barrage of buzz for its edgy racial issues and spiraling and intertwining storylines. It catapulted Paul Haggis into the stratosphere as Hollywood's new it writer, and following on the heels of 2004's Million Dollar Baby, he found himself the script writer of two consecutive Best Pictures. Not bad for a guy who started his career writing Richie Rich and Scooby Doo cartoons. His career continues, but his critical and box office reputation is in decline. His name is no longer synonymous with highly anticipated dramatic fodder, and I'm going to tell you why.

You may be wondering why I'm deconstructing a film that was made 8 years ago. I'm making a claim that Crash is the worst film ever to win the Best Picture Oscar. Two films were decidedly more deserving of the award in that particular year; Brokeback Mountain, and the vastly underrated Munich.

1998's Shakespeare in Love is a close contender, in a year when Saving Private Ryan was robbed. A bit further behind is 1996's The English Patient, who should have been backseat to Fargo, and going further back, I'm not judging because the relative quality deteriorates with time, and frankly I haven't seen enough of the films pre-1970 that hover in that "good, but not great" range.

Crash gave us Matt Dillon's most compelling role, and showed us a side of Sandra Bullock and Brendan Frasier that we hadn't seen before. It introduced us to the talented and under appreciated Michael Pena. It showed us a surprisingly strong performance by Chris "Ludacris" Bridges, and most importantly, it signaled the era of stars lowering their asking prices to appear in what they think is a surefire critical success. Don Cheadle, Terrence Howard, William Fichtner, a young Thandie Newton, Ryan Phillipe, Larenz Tate, and even cameos by Tony Danza and Keith David.

The setup was somewhat innovative at the time, abandoning the standard film template in favor of a more emotionally manipulative humanity-themed ensemble. The main characters trade screen time, ensuring that everyone has a completely different back story, but live in the same jaded and prejudiced world.

Matt Dillon is the bitter cop trying to get proper medical care for his ailing father. Don Cheadle is a detective trying to make sense of the concrete jungle. Ludacris is a thug pretending to be angry about racial stereotypes, while embodying exactly what he is angry about, and Bullock and Fraser are a wealthy political couple whose life is interrupted by a carjacking.

Each of the individual characters' struggles are over the top prejudice. Whatever the worst case scenario could be, happens and everyone's preconceptions are turned on their heads, leading some to a better place, and others to flounder in their existence, or in some cases, a tough life lesson. Where the film goes wrong is that the preconceptions are contrived and exactly what one would expect. Ironically, as original an idea as Crash is, it brings up the most unoriginal situations imaginable. A cop molests a woman and then saves her life. A racist woman is attacked by a black man. A Hispanic man with tattoos happens to be the nicest character in the film. A non-English speaking shop owner is taken advantage of. The list really goes on and on, and it's almost as if Paul Haggis rummaged through his personal collection of taboo racial issues and threw them all on a storyboard.

I didn't catch this the first time I saw the film, and neither did the critics apparently, but if you go back and watch it again, it appears wildly outdated and almost eye-rolling cliche. It's only been 8 years since the film came out, but the film industry has changed dramatically both technologically and what constitutes a great film. Sure, there are still bad movies made, and the intent is well and good, often motivated by financial gains if not a stepping stone to something better, but the fact is, a movie like Crash made today is not Oscar nominated.

Race relations has been done to death as a genre, and when contorted into such stereotypical scenarios, it is just plain gratuitous. We all know that there is a cultural divide that is uncomfortable, but that is what you get when you live in a "melting pot" such as the United States. In no other country in the world will you find such a mix of races, religions, ethnic groups, sexuality, and even nationalities. America is the cutting edge place for acceptance and integration no matter how you argue, because we are the third most populated country in the world, behind only China and India, and those are both very homogenous. Think about the ethnic breakdown of our citizens (and illegal aliens); White is still the dominant race, but that is a collection of origins from an entire continent (and Russia). If you go to Germany, the vast majority of the population is of German heritage. Black also is a collection from an entire continent. Next time someone says they are African-American, ask them which African country, and you'll probably get an incredibly diverse collection of answers. Likewise with Asian. Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Malaysian, Filipino, etc.

My point is that America in the 21st century has no need to beat around the race bush anymore. Back to Crash. Each of the character portrayals is flat and racially cynical, suggesting a norm in society when in fact I think it's the exaggerated view of the deteriorating stereotype.

I see film as one of the most opportunistic forms of art, which is beautiful and magical. It's the most accessible form of storytelling, and can be done in great detail or in a sweeping broad stroke. Thinking about the hundreds of thousands of films that have been filmed since Muybridge's Horse in Motion in 1878, stories are created and told, adapted and interpreted, remade and modified. It goes to figure that the audience scrutiny and expectation bar has to constantly be raised. Patronizing the public's perception in the way that Crash ultimately does (especially after another viewing) is nothing more than an attempt at emotional manipulation, which many other films do. The difference is that Crash isn't without a sort of transparent agenda.

Paul Haggis is a talented writer and director, but I hope he can restore the luster and magic that he once had, and come up with something new and as charged as Crash, but without the obvious overtones. Crash stands in my book as the worst selection of a Best Picture of all time.

Hit and Run

The surprise comedy hit of the summer, Hit and Run is a refreshing film which is fueled by my low expectations, but kept afloat by the witty dialogue, great supporting cast, and the fun car chases.

Dax Shepard wrote, directed, and starred in this light and manly romantic comedy, and he more than holds his own as Charlie Bronson, a getaway driver in the Witness Protection program. Kristen Bell is his girlfriend, Annie, who needs to go to Los Angeles for an interview of a lifetime. He decides her love is worth the risk, and off they go.

The story is simplistic, but it's the constant barrage of supporting characters who introduce themselves that makes the film move at a quick pace, and never lose steam. Tom Arnold plays the Witness Protection chaperone, and he's a bumbling ball of stress who can't handle his own gun much less supervision. Bronson treats him like a little brother, patiently taking care of him while completely disregarding his directions. David Koechner is a truck stop redneck with about three minutes of screen time, but does his best ham since The Goods. Michael Rosenbaum delivers strong comedy as Annie's ex-boyfriend, who is trying so hard to get her back, but is just such a wimp that nobody takes him seriously. Kristen Chenoweth probably has the best lines, as Annie's dirty-talking boss who sends her on her way to the LA interview. Jess Rowland plays an openly gay police officer and although the gay jokes are rattled off a bit too thick, he's very funny. Finally, Bradley Cooper makes what I would call an extended cameo as Bronson's former partner in crime. It's not what I would consider to be his typical character, but he owns it. Additional uncredited cameos by Jason Bateman and Greg Germann are timely and efficient as well.

The ensemble is amazing, and best of all, Dax Shepard shows he's no lightweight. He's been a regular on Parenthood for the past few years, and honestly is one of the more annoying characters. He really hasn't shown much potential beyond a smooth-talking goofball since he began working in Hollywood, but Hit and Run is a step up in his maturity. He creates characters and dialogue that stick and doesn't overdo any aspect of the film.

Kristen Bell shows a bit of her personality, but it seems that this is really a more natural role than anything else she's done. She looks like she's having fun riding shotgun, doing 90, kicking dust up everywhere as tires spin, Dukes of Hazzard style. She's a very funny (and hot) actress who is climbing in both notoriety and reputation. Don't be surprised if she makes some major comedic waves in the coming years, much like Mila Kunis.

There are a few jokes that go just far enough, but not excessively. The prison rape conversation and the geriatric orgy scenes gets things a little uncomfortable, but that can be overlooked. It isn't as dirty as I was expecting it to be aside from those two scenes, and I just feel that each scene was optimized by the characters in it.

The other side of the film is the action. Dax uses his love of cars to create some great chase scenes in some beautiful American cars with a lot of muscle. Dax admits that this film is his version of Smokey and the Bandit and really just wanted to make a fun movie with his friends (he's dating Bell and is best friends with Cooper). Well done, Dax.

If you're looking for something light and fun, look no further. This is a surefire hit, and was much better than I had expected. I look forward to the return of Tom Arnold! Okay, maybe that won't happen, but this movie is fun. 9/10.

Premium Rush

This summer's fast-paced, heart pounding, high-octane adrenaline ride is finally here, and it's horrible. Not just terrible, or bad, or even so-so, but an abysmal turd of a film.

The release date was pushed back for what are now obvious reasons, but they didn't fix any of the presumably identified problems. I don't even know where to start, so I'll give you a quick synopsis.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is Wiley, the top gun, hot shot bike messenger in New York City, who went to Columbia Law School, and then decided to take a job that pays him, and I quote, "$80 on a good day" instead of taking the Bar. Let's assume that, being the best at his gig, everyday is a good day. $80 times 5 days per week is $400 a week. Not bad for someone living in rural Mississippi or Alabama, but NYC? $400 a week equates to $20,800 per year. Before taxes. Let's see. Someone fresh out of an Ivy League law school making $20,800 a year, living in NYC? Not sure I believe it.

That's not even the most unbelievable thing. He whizzes down the streets with a sense of entitlement, inconveniencing every car on the road, and most pedestrians going about their business. The fact that he isn't beaten up for causing so much havoc is beyond me. You cause me to get in a car accident trying to avoid killing a guy on a bike, and you'd better believe I'd be mad.

That's beside the point. Wiley is given a delivery task, and it turns out to be bigger than he bargains for. A corrupt NYPD detective spends the next hour and a half following him in comical style, getting duped at every turn, and a NYPD bicycle cop gets constantly bamboozled as well, chasing him for other reasons. Are you getting the picture yet? It's ridiculous.

What made this particular movie experience regrettable for me was that one of my favorite actors, Michael Shannon, plays the dirty cop. I'm not sure if it was the intent, but his lines are awful, his delivery is cringe-worthy, and his character has absolutely no animation. How could such a great actor perform so embarrassingly? I lost a whole lot of respect for him as an actor, and it will take an epic performance as next summer's Superman foe, Zod to put him back in my good graces.

The writing is what bring it to a whole new depth. David Koepp has written some decent films in his career: Jurassic Park, Carlito's Way, The Lost World, Mission: Impossible, Spiderman, War of the Worlds, etc. He has never done anything worth mentioning as a director however. My suspicion is that his tenure in Hollywood is the reason he's behind this film. His next two writing projects could put him back on track, Snow White and the Huntsman 2, and the reboot of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan franchise, starring a great choice in Chris Pine.

Supporting Gordon-Levitt and Shannon are the eye candy; Dania Ramirez, and Jamie Chung. Let me be clear here. Both of these women are gorgeous, but Ramirez can't act her way out of a paper bag, and Chung is given the token Asian girl role a bit too much. She may be good at the "speak very little English" thing, but it's passe.

There are so many flaws with the story that it's almost unbearable. We almost walked out of the movie multiple times, and it's a good thing we didn't have to pay to get in. The film tries to be clever with flash backs and flash forwards, trying to impress the importance of the time, and the urgency of the package delivery. The unfortunate thing is, that nobody cares. There isn't enough emotion invested in any of these characters, or the terrible story to want anyone to get what they are looking for.

In the end, the bike messenger community comes together in an eye-rolling climax and I left the theatre feeling empty and scratching my head in a combination of confusion and dismay.

I think the bicycle genre is a dead end. I just don't think it has any teeth and will never capture the audience in the way that its futile attempt fantasized about. David Koepp laid a big fat egg on this one, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Michael Shannon will regret this for a long time. I just hope they got paid well. 4/10.

Worst Actress Oscar

Hollywood lost a great man the other day in Tony Scott. Since coming on the scene in 1986 with Top Gun, he had consistently directed entertaining films. Although he was never really recognized for his contributions critically, his films often led to box office success. He worked with Denzel Washington five times, making him the actor's closest and most trusted friend in the industry. He was a true champion of his genre. RIP, Tony.

Here is part two of the commentary on the worst Actors ever to win Oscars. Who is the worst actress ever to win the Best Actress Oscar? It's hands down Halle Berry from 2001's Monster's Ball. That film is amazing, despite how dark and depressing it truly is. The ensemble is well cast, and it tugs at every emotion possible from loss, to racism, to poverty, capital punishment, obesity, family dysfunction, and the list goes on and on. My contention is that you could put just about any black actress into that role, and she would have won the Best Actress Oscar. It was a relative weak year for that category, and proof is that Renee Zelweger was nominated for Bridget Jones' Diary.

She became the first African American woman to win a Best Actress Oscar, and speculation and conspiracies abound about how that particular race barrier had been a target by the academy, and they jumped at their first legitimate chance to break it. Well done, academy.

What earns her the distinction I'm bestowing upon her has nothing to do with race, or even her performance in Monster's Ball, which was commendable. No, my criticism of Halle Berry is the rest of her body of work.

Her personal troubles have been widely publicized, and it's safe to say that she's established a career based on her enduring beauty (she's still got it at 46 years old). She started doing films in 1991 with Spike Lee after a couple of years of forgettable television series'. Let's take a look at her poor choices.

I think it's safe to say that things started going downhill for Halle in 1994 when she agreed to take part in The Flintstones. Until that point, she was in films that catered to a mostly African-American audience. She worked with Spike Lee, Damon Wayans, Eddie Murphy, and Wesley Snipes. A good start to a young woman's career. I'm not sure what about The Flintstones made sense at that point, but I hope she had fun spending her paycheck. It's one of the worst films of the decade, and there were some pretty awful films in the 90's.

She then did a string of African-American movies, including the commendable made for TV Introducing Dorothy Dandridge, which earned her an Emmy and a Golden Globe for her portrayal of the late singer and racial pioneer.

Here's where she mixes things up a bit. She enters the action genre with a role in the original X-Men franchise, which displayed some of her worst acting to date. She did Swordfish, which was a vehicle for her to display her breasts, and for which she openly bragged about how much she was paid for her efforts. I think it was $500,000 per breast if I remember right.

Then she wanted to be a Bond Girl. This was a dark time for 007, and although I like Pierce Brosnan, he had some of the most awful Bond Girls of all time. The string of Teri Hatcher, Denise Richards, and Halle Berry were all terrible decisions. Just embarrassing.

Fast forward to 2004. Arguably the worst movie of that decade. Catwoman. Just three years after winning an Oscar in the midst of bad action films, she takes on this project that she has publicly regretted. It wasn't just a bad movie, it was a "have your friends over, make popcorn, and laugh your ass off" kind of movie. Ultimately and deservedly, it won the golden Razzie superfecta of Actress, Director, Picture, and Screenplay. Did I say it was a bad movie?

She redeemed herself ever so slightly about 5 years ago with two decent performances, and two good film choices in Things We Lost in the Fire, and Frankie and Alice. They were exactly what her career needed at the time and about the ceiling of what she's capable of. Then came Dark Tide. I had the misfortune of watching this film recently, and it might be one of the worst performances of THIS decade. Wow, three decades of bad movies. I'm not sure I can name many actors who have accomplished this feat.

She's got 3 projects coming up, including the intriguing Cloud Atlas by the Wachowskis' starring Tom Hanks in 4 different roles. Berry has 2 different roles. Should be very interesting at the least, and could bring her career out of the depths of shame.

Here's a little something to satiate your sense of humor. You will get it if you saw her emotional breakdown at the Oscars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-7s_yeQuDg.

Here's a look at Berry as Catwoman in a little montage set to music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P5l36B8qPw.

The Expendables 2

OK, so the movie starts and I'm sitting there and all of a sudden, I think to myself, "did someone just fart?" But it turns out, it was just the testosterone filling the theatre, blowing all of our hair back.

You can't put a film like the Expendables 2 in any normal film category, it's pretty much reserved for the military-grade Stallone and Schwarzenegger popcorn flicks, but this one takes their collective steroid stash, and injects it all at once and then blows everything up. and then dumps gratuitous violence and blood all over the screen. But it's done very tastefully.

A mind-blowing cast that would have grossed 10 billion dollars 20 years ago, we have Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Chuck freakin' Norris, Jean Claude Van Damme, and the other 2nd tier meatheads; Terry Crews, Randy Couture, Jason Statham, Jet Li, and Dolph Lundgren. Thrown in for good measure is Liam Hemsworth, aka Mr. Miley Cyrus, and Thor's little brother. It must suck to be Thor's little brother.

The cast combined has an estimated box office gross of somewhere in the 12-13 billion dollar range. Wait, WHAT? 4 billion for Ahnold, 4 billion for Sly, 3 billion for Bruno, 1.5 billion for the Muscles from Brussels, 1.5 billion for the Chinese Champion (I made that up) and half a billion for the Dean of Mean, Carlos Ray Norris. Jesus was able to walk on water, right? Well, Chuck Norris can swim through land. OK, that's the last one, I promise.

If I haven't made my point yet, this film is ridiculous. And loud. And... fun. I remember laughing way more than I expected during the first one, and this one is no different. It's not funny per se, it's just simply fun. The story doesn't make any sense, and that's OK. Stallone and his crew of "expendables" (ironic because they don't seem to actually die) drop in loudly and rudely on a Nepalese terrorist camp and make a daring rescue that would make James Braddock, John Rambo, John McClane, and John Matrix proud (look it up). The body count has to be in the hundreds. They then are blackmailed into doing a job, which they do. Then it ends. See, I told you it's ridiculous.

Terry Crews is great. He is given great one-liners, and intimidates me with his god-like trapezius muscles. He's the hulk from the old-spice commercials if you don't recognize the name. Van Damme also rejuvenates his career as the ruthless villain, who has absolute power over his henchmen and really just wants his money. Great stuff. Chuck Norris is given the juicy cameo role, complete with a little Ennio Morricone Good, Bad, Ugly theme music. You know the tune, the whistle before the showdown. Schwarzenegger and Willis showed up for the party, but were used sparingly in the film. They were in it for the fun and the paycheck, no doubt. Stallone just turned 66, and his body is incredible. Take a look at this still from the upcoming Bullet to the Head.

Have you ever? I mean, ever?

Anyway, the movie has far too many inside jokes about being back, yipeekiyaa, being too old for this stuff, being a lone wolf, Rambo, yada yada ya. But, for what it's worth, I'm truly glad that Stallone assembled these boys and brought a genre out of the nursing home. He is still fun to watch, and may have kicked a few careers in the butt.

The third one is already in talks, and if the current one performs at the box office, the studio will certainly green-light it. Mickey Rourke is rumored to be coming back, and the names of notable additions thrown around are Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood, Sean Connery, and Nicolas Cage. Steven Segal is the lone missing name that I can think of, and he'll probably show up, presumably as a bad guy. You can't make this stuff up, folks. Sly Stallone has created a monsterpiece (that's right, monster and masterpiece).

I recently found out that the film was given a hard PG-13 instead of an R because of Chuck Norris. That's right, Chuck Norris isn't scared of the MPAA, the MPAA is scared of Chuck Norris. No joke. Also, Dolph Lundgren did in fact attend, and graduate from my alma mater, WSU with a degree in chemistry (thanks Joe). You know exactly what you're getting into with this one, check it out for sure if you're a 30-something guy and you still love and appreciate the 80's action flicks. 7/10.

Worst Actor Oscar

Who is the worst actor ever to win a Best Actor Oscar? It's obviously no other than Nicolas Cage.

There are plethora reasons why he is deserving of this title. Is it his eleven Razzie nominations? It's a wonder that he hasn't won one of those. Is it his awful hair and odd grin? How about his oh so horrible voice? Maybe it's a combination of those, but mostly it's his choice of film roles and the enduring stamina despite all of his obvious flaws. He is something of an enigma in Hollywood. An infection that just sticks around and nobody seems to mind. Anyway, he does have a long and commendable career. The only question is why.

He started out his acting career in the early 1980's, and mostly capitalized on his goofy looks and some decent comedy schtick. His breakout role was in the Coen Brothers' quirky Raising Arizona, but in my opinion, he didn't really show he could "act" until 1993's Red Rock West. A string of action films (The Rock, Con Air, Face/Off, Snake Eyes, Bringing Out the Dead, Gone in Sixty Seconds) capitalized on his award winning performance in Leaving Las Vegas, making him one of the most bankable actors in Hollywood.

However, over the course of his career, he seems to have a difficult time turning down work, and that's a warning sign. Take the five year span from 2006 - 2011. He started it off with The Wicker Man; arguably the worst film of all time. After that came Ghost Rider, Next, Bangkok Dangerous, Knowing, Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans, Sorcerer's Apprentice, Season of the Witch, Drive Angry, Trespass, and Seeking Justice. Keeping very busy, he did manage to make two decent films during that span: National Treasure 2, and Kick-Ass.

He currently has 9 films in various stages of production, and taking out Kick-Ass 2, and National Treasure 3, they all look terrible on paper. Way to go, Nic. He's either a cop, a criminal, or a wrongly-accused man seeking varying degrees of redemption. Awesome and original. He is trying his hand in self-deprecating comedy (although I don't think he could be deprecated any more) and as amusing as his projects look, he's a terrible choice for just about any role.

I liked The Rock, Con Air, and Face/Off. His acting deficiencies did ruin these films in many ways, and a Bruce Willis or a Mel Gibson, or even a Liam Neeson would have been better choices at that point. But those films made him marketable. Bringing Out the Dead was probably his best work in the late 1990's, as a strung-out paramedic in the madness of New York City in the middle of the night. He also redeemed himself with a great performance in Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation in 2002.

Attempts over the past decade to revive his career that just will not seem to die included the underrated Matchstick Men, the flat Lord of War, The abysmal Weatherman, and World Trade Center, which had real potential if not for... wait for it... Nicolas Cage.

I'd like to draw your attention to exhibit A. The Wicker Man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6i2WRreARo.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, here is Exhibit B. Nicolas Cage "losing his shit". This is a smattering of Cage performances from over the years. There is quite a bit of strong language, beware.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6i2WRreARo.

He beat out previous winners Richard Dreyfus, Anthony Hopkins, and an up and coming Sean Penn in 1997 for his performance in Leaving Las Vegas, which was his second best role (Adaptation was just a little bit better). Playing an alcoholic trying to drink himself to death isn't really a stretch for him given his history, and there are dozens of actors who would have won the award with that rich of a role.

Here is his acceptance speech from the 1996 Academy Awards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jXi-Z3M9Us.

Being the nephew of Francis Ford Coppola has its perks, don't you think? I'd love to hear if you think I'm wrong.