Xixax Film Forum

This looks like it could be fantastic from what I've read..

http://imdb.com/title/tt0369339/

***

Director: Michael Mann
Screenplay: Frank Darabont

Stars:
Tom Cruise
Jamie Foxx
Jada Pinkett Smith
Mark Ruffalo

***

Opens 8/6/2004.

Plot Outline: A cab driver finds himself the hostage of an engaging contract killer as he makes his rounds from hit to hit during one night in LA. He must find a way to save both himself and one last victim.

***

This long-gestating project had everyone from Mimi Leder to Adam Sandler attached at some point, but it was Mann and Cruise who were instrumental in bringing it down from the shelf. Mann's working in his genre, with Cruise playing his first bad guy in quite some time; this combination, stepped up a notch with screenwriter Frank Darabont added to the mix, has led some soothsayers to predict potential Oscar nominations. All three men have been nominated in the past, but none of them have ever won.

was this shot on DV? I just saw some clips on Tv and looks like it, but i saw so little it was hard to tell. Does anybody have any information?

Quote from: meatwadwas this shot on DV? I just saw some clips on Tv and looks like it, but i saw so little it was hard to tell. Does anybody have any information?

Yep.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369339/technical

Trailer here. (http://www.dreamworks.com/trailers/collateral/collateral_tsr_qt_480.mov)

ooooohhhh, this looks great. august 6th is so far away. and yeah, it was definetely shot DV.

HD, not DV.  :) I remember Mann talking about how much he loved the format when use used it on Ali; given his documentarian inclinations of late, I'm not surprised at all that he's switched over completely.

It's a neat trailer. Now imagine it with Sandler instead of Foxx.

Great Trailer, really looking forward to this

wow, impressed.

I want to also point out that Michael Mann went to school where I currently go to school at.  Yay.

2 things to note. Mann started off as a documentary filmmaker in Europe, so that's already in him. Second, he executive produced Baadassss!, which was shot digitally as well. It all comes together...

Quote from: mutinycoIt all comes together...

Come Together Right Now...Over Mann. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I haven't loved everything Mann has been involved in, but I do think he's worthy of respect, and I look forward to seeing this one.

Quote from: godardianI haven't loved everything Mann has been involved in, but I do think he's worthy of respect, and I look forward to seeing this one.

Because I'm such a huge fan of M.M., I'm curious which of his films you liked and which you don't.  (Not trying to start shit, just geniunely curious)  

And even though I could name plenty of other actors I would've liked to see play Jamie Foxx's role- Benicio, Billy Crudup, Sandler might of been cool - it's at the top of my list for the summer.

Finally a summer flick that I'm REALLY hanging for. I reckon Sandler wudda fitted the timid cabbie role like a glove but the films looking sooo cool that I couldn't care less who plays it. Lookin forward to seeing Cruise play nasty.

I don't understand the hate for Jamie Fox.  Judging by the trailer (and that's all I really have to judge) he seems to do just fine.  I'm not so sure about Sandler, lets face it...he's only shown the ability to act once.

I'm all about Jamie Foxx. He was great in Any Given Sunday, even better in Ali, and I hear he was really good in that TV movie he was in recently about the guy on death row who writes children's books. I hope Collateral (and his upcoming Ray Charles biopic) will push him into territory far beyond stuff like 'Breakin All the Rules.'

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dreamworksfansite.com%2Fcollateral%2Fdownloads%2Fposter%2Fteaser_poster.jpg&hash=f8891aaaa36b5e72551c15b13b6aea5c883e242a)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dreamworksfansite.com%2Fcollateral%2Fdownloads%2Fposter%2Fteaser_poster_two.jpg&hash=d66f60cc67982b67ec7b628222f2fdb9dd1ad0c7)

That IS a really nice poster.  I wonder ... is Cruise graying, or is that makeup.  Not that it really matters.  At least he's not going bald.  Hehe.

makeup.

this looks damn good.

Staring into the darkness
Draining L.A. of light, and Tom Cruise of his soul, director Michael Mann spins a "No Exit" noir with Jamie Foxx at the wheel. Source: Los Angeles Times

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2004-06%2F13002559.jpg&hash=31deba0ddeb2b35892833eca395d4a95396d9239)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2004-06%2F13002568.jpg&hash=248bbc81a03e1585ebd33211ddf21addd1a360b1)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2004-06%2F13002564.jpg&hash=944148a7492ccc33ee1a5295a16bd0e7c7baec4e)

READ AT OWN RISK

On screen, Michael Mann's Los Angeles is full of helicopters careening through the hazy sky like angry buzzards, and forlorn taxicabs, little isolation tanks, hurtling up and down freeways. Feral coyotes wander into traffic, like ominous visions out of Native American legends, in the same fashion that the 61-year-old director once saw one wandering down Fairfax Avenue.

"There's a certain romance of the city at night that I confess I'm completely vulnerable to," says Mann, a Chicago native who's lived here since 1971. "What happens when the marine layer comes in and all of a sudden the vapor lights bounce off the bottom of the clouds and makes a sky that looks like late afternoon in Northern Europe, and what it looks like from up there. There are so many objects flying around over L.A. If you're up in a helicopter, you can see 15 to 20 airplanes on approach to LAX. There's a constant stream, which is metaphor for information."
 
Mann, who's best known as the creator of the pastel-colored cops of "Miami Vice," is pointedly not talking about the clichés of L.A., of palm trees and surfers, or what he calls "the self-imposed cultural ghettos," like Brentwood and Malibu, where the Hollywood mob congregates. (Mann admits he lives on the Westside.) This is multiethnic, multi-class L.A., the one he discovered in '95, riding around for months with a detective in an unmarked police car when he was researching his last L.A. film, "Heat." "This film is about the city of Los Angeles, and that's anything from Wilmington to City of Commerce to Pico Rivera to Koreatown," says the director, reeling off disparate communities that make up the cacophonous whole.

Mann will show clips from "Collateral" at the upcoming Los Angeles Film Festival on June 18, and the film, co-produced by DreamWorks and Paramount, debuts Aug. 6. Written by Stuart Beattie, with an uncredited rewrite by Mann, the film is the antithesis of his recent political biopics, "Ali" and "The Insider" — ambitious, historical epics "about visionary guys who were traumatized," as he describes them. Mann is one of those fierce talents who's had more acclaim than lucre, and the $60-million "Collateral" finds him working in a more commercial vein. It's a movie-movie, a story that could exist only in cinema, about a lonely cabby who inadvertently picks up a hit man, who happens to be played by the biggest movie star in the world, Tom Cruise. It's an absurdist buddy picture, Hollywood's gun-toting version of "No Exit," about two men locked together for 10 hours of escalating psychological warfare.

Given the film's preoccupation with night in the City of Angles, it's perhaps fitting that the only time Mann and his two costars, Cruise and Jamie Foxx, can manage to sit down and talk is at 10 p.m. recently in Mann's Westside offices. Cruise and Foxx have the rhythms of a married couple, an easy rapport born of night after night crammed together in a small space, the fate of the movie essentially hanging on their ability to connect. They're of similar size and shape, Cruise in the softest suede jacket, Foxx in a baseball jersey.

Cruise is friendly but focused as if all the mental fat has been carefully sheared away, the personal idiosyncrasies hidden. While the 41-year-old megastar has played vampiric ("Interview With the Vampire") and sociopathic ("Magnolia"), and even nutso (the long-ago "Taps"), he's never played a pure psychopath before — a totally amoral, cold-blooded killing machine. The 36-year-old Foxx, who's appeared in such films as "Any Given Sunday" and "Booty Call," has never starred in such a high-profile film. While Cruise is by far the bigger star, Foxx gabs with the gregariousness of a natural entertainer. Apparently, much downtime on the set of "Collateral" was spent listening to Foxx tell amusing stories.

Mann seems harried but energized, like the adrenaline's kicked in on the last lap of the marathon. He pops in and out of the interview, as he's simultaneously monitoring a screening of the film going on down the hall. There's a high level of tension permeating the edit in part because Mann shot the film using advanced high-definition digital — "only the second film to do so, after 'Star Wars' " — and there are constant glitches.

Mann's obsession with night led him to choose this technology, which permits viewers to see literally deep into the recesses of darkness. "We see things that the naked eye doesn't see," Mann explains. "You're seeing a mile down Wilshire. You're seeing three miles away the buildings of downtown and a flag waving in the distance." All in the blackness. "You've never seen this on film."

Another thing never seen before on film is Tom Cruise, the long-running poster boy for American vitality, with gray hair. Mann, who designed the look for Cruise's character, Vincent, on the computer, explains that the hit man's hair is less an allusion to his age than the mark of anonymity.

Why did you decide to make Tom's hair gray?

Mann: I had a vision.

Cruise: I woke up at 4 a.m. [laughing].

Mann: Boy in a rough trade. That's the basis of the character. We should call the movie that, "Rough Trade in a Good Suit."

That has a lot of connotations.

Mann: [Vincent has] a certain steeliness and also an anonymity so that when someone tried to describe him after an event, they'd say, 'Well, average height, gray hair, gray suit.' He could be anybody. In terms of the wardrobe and stuff, that was the concept. The picture all takes place in one night. There's one wardrobe change, and there's one hairstyle. So you change one thing, that really has a big effect on the totality. So like Tom's suit — he's got the best tailor in Kowloon, not in London, not in New York and L.A. So the cut is a form. It says 'not domestic' and that's what I wanted it to say. The idea of the character was to be very specific about whole contexts which we knew, but you only see the fraction of it, but the fraction suggests things without being expository or metaphoric.

Cruise: Michael couldn't choose the interior of the cab until he got the color of the suit.

Mann: There were 37 minutes inside the cab in a two-hour movie. A quarter of it was shot in the cab, so all these things were becoming very important.

Cruise: The way Michael shot the film, we were able to do takes for a long period of time without having to reload and stop. All the work we did prior — Michael choosing the fabric of the suit, the cab — just every time we were together it was very focused, very intense. The choices Michael made, the position of where I am in the cab … Because it's two of us, the way Michael did it, I could always see Jamie's eyes through the rearview mirror. You think, 'Well, that's obvious,' but sometimes you've got to pretend like you're talking to someone — but it's about these guys and their experience and it was important for the connection between the two of us — so Michael worked it so that we could actually work in a cab so that I could hear Jamie and he could hear me.

Is Vincent based on a real guy?

Cruise: Michael locks onto these characters. When I go to work on a character, you build research on the character. How many months did we spend where I'd come in?

Mann: Four or five months.

Cruise: We'd just sit right here and talk about the character and he had all these notes, I mean, literally pictures from Indiana and all these stories. It informs the scenes. And it resonates.

Mann: It's the enjoyable part without any stress. You are just really digging it. One of the things we did is Tom became a FedEx man. The objective was simply to be somebody else. This character when he was working — out and stalking — would be able to be somebody else, and for Tom to be somebody else is difficult. He could put a beard on, have sunglasses on and a baseball hat on and someone goes, 'There's Tom Cruise.'

It's hard to imagine Tom Cruise in little FedEx shorts. Did you wear a uniform?

Cruise: Yeah, we had a wardrobe.

Mann: You go figure out the little details of what the FedEx guy does, it's not so simple. He's got to scan it. You've got to prove who you are. And he has to get your signature. He's supposed to address people a certain way. And there's a whole routine. Tom schooled himself in that. Someone who wasn't in on the joke was the guy he was delivering a package to — a clerk at a liquor store in Central Market downtown.

So did he notice Tom?

Mann: No.

Cruise: I got my mission. Go in and deliver this package to this place, then go to this area, buy a coffee and sit down and just talk.

Who did you meet?

Cruise: This guy. He was retired and just comes to this place.

Was it kind of nice not to be Tom Cruise in the world? To be anonymous?

Cruise: Yeah. I mean, it was just a great acting exercise.

Mann: We did a lot of different ones. Tom can do everything this guy does.

Cruise: We'd do dead drops. We were shaking tails.

Mann: Getting the habits of other people, knowing when they go, where they park their car, what time they go there.

Cruise: What exits and entrances and how would I get into a building.

So you can be a really good stalker now.

Cruise: I'm a very good stalker, excellent.

So why did you want Tom for this part? I mean, he's not the most obvious choice.

Cruise: Why the hell did you want me actually? [laughing]

Mann: I don't know.

Cruise: Did you want me for this role?

Mann: There's dimensions to Tom that I hadn't seen on the screen. It became an exploration to bring some of that out, some of the steel that's in there. Some of the toughness, the certainty and the very good kind of avid, proactive vibe towards a goal, and darker resonances within that. Tom has some deep currents of volition and where does that come from?

What a terrific collision it would be to take Tom and collide [him] with this character. We wanted to work together for a long time. He's got that same artistic drive and courage to go to those places. Pacino described it best. He said when you really are reaching for it, it's like playing a high E on the violin. If you're right on it's exquisite, and if you're this far off … [motions with his hands, a tiny bit].

Cruise: It's tragic [laughing].

Mann: We are all like that. You only need one good take. But 95% to 96% of the actors don't have the courage to get out there on the end of the limb quite like that, and Tom does.

Cruise: I never felt like it was too much. It was accurate. It was for the movie. It's the excitement of being creative for someone you really trust.

But do you ever feel like you're being humiliated at the end of the limb? Or do you feel liberated?

Cruise: I love what I do, so I don't care, and I trust Michael. I want to be directed. I'm not directing myself when I'm doing it. It's really an exploration.

Foxx enters, and settles down on the couch next to Cruise. He apparently was pressured into skipping the Prince concert to be here, but he seems cheerful enough. In the dialectic of "Collateral," Cruise provided the menace but it was Foxx's job to provide the heart.

You have to carry the whole heart of the movie.

Foxx: Working with Michael Mann's a process. That's the thing. That's the most grueling once we started shooting.

Mann: Tom didn't say it was grueling.

Foxx: Oh, he didn't say it was grueling? Oh, OK. Michael Mann could make you think for just a minute, 'Maybe I can't act like I thought I could.'

But that's a good thing because I come in with a little bit of ego too. I'm Jamie Foxx. I'm doing my thing. But when he says, 'How are you going to play a cab driver?' I said, 'Well I'm just going to play it.' He said, 'No you're not.' And then this starts this process. You want to be so good, you want to be so prepared, because this is the all-star game.

There's a story of Miles Davis in the movie. This bass player from England gets a call from Miles Davis. 'Meet me at 8 on Thursday.' He doesn't know the song, he doesn't know what's going on. He gets there, the band is already there. It's like 7:45 at this place, and he has to jump in. He said he knew that he had listened to everything that Miles had done. He studied all of his nuances and everything so when he got there he was ready. It's the same with this. I had to make sure that I was prepared, because they were already playing. Next thing you know, we started having fun.

What were you looking for in the cab driver?

Mann: You know, cab drivers are not what you think. My grandfather had a small cab company, Sand Man Cab Co., on Hartford Avenue in Chicago. I drove a cab when I was a kid. My brother drove a cab. And I knew that cab drivers had a real independent streak. So we just went to a cab depot and at random got 15 [cabbies]. One was a software engineer who was out of work for a while. Another guy's last name was Sherpa, he's from Nepal. Another guy was Dominique, who owned laundromats in Rwanda, who is West African. Basically it's people who don't want to be told what to do.

Foxx: I got into one cab, and he was dead serious. I came in with jokes and he said, 'That's all funny, but you're driving a cab in L.A., you know.' And then it came, 'Oh, OK, this is really serious.' And the one guy that had the yellow-leather cab, he was a relative lifer. You feel for him, my God. But he really dug it. He said, 'Oh, Jamie, when I get in this cab I take alcohol and I rub it on my neck.' I said, 'Well, why there?' 'Because there may be some dirt on my neck and if somebody is standing behind me or sitting behind me and they see that dirt, they know that I'm not about my business.' He opened up about this whole different world. He was the king in his world, which you draw from that. Maybe in a weird way I, as Max [his character], am the king of my domain. I've tricked myself into believing I'm the king of my castle.

Mann: Jamie has great poetry inside of him. He has methods unique to himself, that he acquires character via the tools that he has. A chameleon that has to do with mimicry, but that's just a means to access depth, which was profound. A lot of his technique has elevated to the point where he can access that zone. We are all trying to get into that zone. And sometimes it's difficult to get there. Lawrence Olivier believed it came from makeup and wardrobe. If he looked in a mirror and he felt like he looked like the guy, then he was the guy, and it was just all mechanical. And it wasn't all mechanical. Whether it's that or whether it's Pacino kind of learning scenes three weeks before he's going to shoot them, committing them to memory so that he dreams them, because it all comes out of his unconsciousness, or Tom's method.

Tom's method is very different. Tom applies himself in a way that has to do with a very rigid process of repetition. Almost like a mantra where he will learn something. He's very studious, but there's nothing mechanical about the output. I confess that I am completely prejudiced about it, that the chemistry between Tom and Jamie is very, very special, you know. I may have made some casting mistakes in my life. This is not one of them.

(To Foxx) You really have to capture the audience's sympathy. If people don't feel for you, the movie doesn't work.

Cruise: He does it easy.

Foxx: I've seen some of those things that he does in his character. I don't know if you've ever seen somebody shot. It is crazy. Dec. 23 a few years back, I was having a great time at a party. I go downstairs and there was an argument. We were in Oakland, a different kind of crowd, and I'm walking down the stairs and the dude said, 'Yeah, how about this?' Shoots the guy. And immediately I'm dizzy. I remember running up the stairs and I remember one of the guys, it was like the bouncers, who was kind of used to it because it was one of those kind of places, says, 'Look at Jamie Foxx, running like a little girl.' And I was like, 'I've got to get out, man.' And I never stopped running. And then, like, my breath shortened. I took that, see. If I could bring that to this character then everybody is going to feel it.

(To Cruise) You've never seen anyone get shot?

Cruise: No. I once saw a guy die dragging on a motorcycle. Crazy.

That is something that's hard to forget.

Foxx: It's not just that you can't get it out of your head. I just remember the feeling. I remember being so macho before that. For some of my friends who have been in that element [they say], 'Oh man, you're crazy, man. You know, it ain't no big thing, do you know what I'm saying?' I don't want to ever get used to that, because that was crazy.

this looks like utter shit -- visually, it looks like a film school class excercise shot on beta sp -- as far as the story -- iut looks best suited to be a shitty straight to video action film. horrible.

Tell us how you really feel..

New, Better Trailer Here (http://www.dreamworks.com/trailers/collateral/collateral_trlr1_qt_352.mov)

Time to get this out of the basement.

Gotta see this on Friday!!

Come ooonnnn Michael Mann. Help me recover from The Village.

;)

man, this got 10 Positive reviews and one Mixed review on Movies.com.

Quote from: Ghostboy
It's a neat trailer. Now imagine it with Sandler instead of Foxx.

I'm yet to see it, but I'd still pick Sandler over Foxx in pretty much any case.

Quote from: Walrus, Kookookajoob

Quote from: Ghostboy
It's a neat trailer. Now imagine it with Sandler instead of Foxx.

I'm yet to see it, but I'd still pick Sandler over Foxx in pretty much any case.

ESPECIALLY this new Ray Charles biopic. I mean, what's that all about..

Either Tom Cruise or Michael Mann must be a fan of The Transporter.

Anyway, this is a good thriller -- for the last fifteen minutes, which is a little unfortunate because for the first 100 or so it's something a littler bit more than a good thriller.

I'm in a hurry, so I'll just suggest reading Ebert's review (http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-collateral06f.html), which pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about the film.

Tom Cruise continues to play "star" and muddles yet another film.  The set up is total movie gimmick: contract killer totes around a taxi cab driver for a night doing killings to cover his tracks and put the blame on the taxi. Mildly interesting for a set up, its exploited here to no end. On the chart of believability, Cruise is a poor contract killer. He continually makes his presence known to people that "yea, he's the passenger of this taxi for the night", from Foxx's mother to even his supervisor and also many witnesses of people who are near the scene of eventual murders. Any after investigation will show with clarity who the killer likely was and for Cruise to have picked up this cabbie in the first place was only to hide his identity in the killings. This purpose of the film is not that. Its a gloating of Cruise turned bad guy, filled with speeches clever enough to make even Harry Lime smile and skills of killing that could mirror any B movie action star. It's all about Cruise. *spoiler* He is indestructable to end and dies in a way that seems to be of almost compassion to Foxx. He never fails, he just gets to a point. Tom Cruise is America's movie star and with each film, he manages to find a new corner of the film star persona to occupy.

Without even having to look back, I remember what I said at the end of my review for "The Last Samuari", talking about how Cruise has occupied a type of persona he wanted his image to be and how he's just moving on from film to film, finding the roles that will do wonders beyond what any studio publicist could do. Next up is Mission: Impossible 3 and word has it that film will again change the outlook of how you look at the leading character of the series. The change, according to the rules of Cruise as star, will of course be whatever is most fashionable.

i actually liked this film quite a bit. the "Fever" scene was awesome. cruise and foxx are a great team together.

GT, its pretty obvious you have a vendetta against tom cruise and anything he does.  he is the one playing different characters and YOU are the one who refuses to see past his 'star'.  the setup is a total movie gimmick, because its a genre exercise.  its a THRILLER, but its also a character study.  and its a pretty good one.  so you can dwell all you want about every movie cruise makes being some sort of career move, and always playing the same character, but why do the top directors keep wanting to work with him?  if he kept muddling up movies by refusing to play anything but his 'star', why does he keep taking chances in movies like this?  i'll admit when you have an actor a big a star as cruise in this, or hanks in terminal its a little difficult to suspend disbelief completely no matter how good they are you cant see past their 'star.'  but really, thats on the part of the audience and not the actor.  i could make a case that mark ruffalo was just a variation on his character in eternal sunshine or you can count on me etc. but most people wouldnt say that because mark ruffalo isnt yet MARK RUFFALO.  and when he is, i'm sure people who wish to be cynical about him will accuse him of doing the same character in all his films.  

regardless, i liked the movie.  it was an interesting experiment, i liked the look of the film (DV) and the way it was shot along with how it took place in a confined amount of time.  i thought jamie foxx was great (and formally apologize for whatever i might've said about him replacing Sandler because honestly i dont think he could've handled the part.)  it was thrilling and mostly unpredictable but a little uneven.  SPOILERS MINOR the jada pinkett thing was alittle too obvious, but alas it was needed for the genre, and i didnt like how the police dropped out of the movie for the whole climax although i can see how it was more important to see the 1 on 1, it seems like they would've found their way there and them about to arrive could've added another layer of tension as well as keeping up with their characters.  END SPOILERS  so, i liked it.  RECOMMENDED.

simply put, one of the best movies of the year...and one of the best movies in it's genre ever.

SPOILERS!

I thought it was really good. Foxx was unusually good in his role and Cruise is great as always. I thought the ending got too routine and was contrived. I didn't know the woman at the beginning of the movie would show up again the way she did. But I thought it was ridiculous that she was one of Vincent's victims. I think it would've been a really good character piece if not for the final action scenes. But I thought it was good on it's own terms.

Quote from: themodernage02its a THRILLER, but its also a character study.  and its a pretty good one.

Where is there any depth to Cruise's character? Besides a few choice speeches, I saw none. And if you want to look at this as just a thriller, like I said before, with all the mistakes in trying to cover up his crime, he's a pretty poor bad guy. I never said Cruise is trying to playing the same character over and over again. He's hardly being any character. He's just moving from one movie persona to another.

Quote from: themodernage02so you can dwell all you want about every movie cruise makes being some sort of career move, and always playing the same character, but why do the top directors keep wanting to work with him?

He has worked with some great directors and honestly, have made some great movies in great roles, but I've never considered Michael Mann or Edward Zwick "top" directors. Why use the populous argument? That replaces logic in arguments.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: themodernage02its a THRILLER, but its also a character study.  and its a pretty good one.

And if you want to look at this as just a thriller, like I said before, with all the mistakes in trying to cover up his crime, he's a pretty poor bad guy.

Since when is it a good idea to question the logic of a movie?

Quote from: SHAFTR

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: themodernage02its a THRILLER, but its also a character study.  and its a pretty good one.

And if you want to look at this as just a thriller, like I said before, with all the mistakes in trying to cover up his crime, he's a pretty poor bad guy.

Since when is it a good idea to question the logic of a movie?

Are you serious?

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: SHAFTR

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: themodernage02its a THRILLER, but its also a character study.  and its a pretty good one.

And if you want to look at this as just a thriller, like I said before, with all the mistakes in trying to cover up his crime, he's a pretty poor bad guy.

Since when is it a good idea to question the logic of a movie?

Are you serious?

Yes,  I always look at versimilitude over realism in a movie.  It's not important if something could happen in our reality, but if it could happen in the film's reality.  With that said, I think Collateral works.

I realize there is much dialogue in the cab scenes.   But!  What is the exact line Vincent says to Max while in the cab, about parents placing fault on their kids?  I am writing a paper and would love to quote Tom Cruise.  If anyone can give me the exact line I would be ever so greatful.  -Tina, daughter of Fulty

I saw this tonight and thought it was really good.

Though, I do have my reservations with the ending. I thought it was a bit too contrived for my taste. Hmm..

I'd love to read about redemption in American cinema sometime. I never have understood the need for most writers to redeem their bad guys.

SPOILER..

Also, is it just me or was the ending of this thing just like Heat?

All we are missing is a plane and a nifty shadow. Instead we've got the lights going out and the same exact scenario.

Begin Spoilerish Review
I really loved this movie. It is only the second film that blew me away this year. The first being Eternal Sunshine. I have yet to see The Notebook but I heard more than a few great reviews from fellow xixaxers about that one. Anyway, I came out of that movie ready to see it again. Michael Mann's claustrophobic taxi cab shots were great and gave the film an "in your face" feel that many so called hip nowaday thrillers try to do and unfortunately fail. I think Cruise did a wonderful job at pulling off the baddie character, Even though Sandler was in talks to do this, Foxx played his character with the kind of calmness that we rarely see in actors today and Adam I think would have played it a little differently. The scene that jumped me out of the seat was when Vincent killed those two petty robbers. The gun shots were so loud that made my eyes widen with a slight bit of shock. Thank god for THX. I always try to suspend disbelief whenever I go the movies, believe me, it can be tough for us sometimes, but I agree with Shaftr here (yes I agree, what a surprise huh?) when he says and I quote

Quote from: SHAFTR
It's not important if something could happen in our reality, but if it could happen in the film's reality.  With that said, I think Collateral works.

Ok, that's my two cents. It will be a definite buy in December. That is when it is supposedly coming out on DVD. End of Slightly Spoilerish review

Quote from: SHAFTR

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: SHAFTR

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: themodernage02its a THRILLER, but its also a character study.  and its a pretty good one.

And if you want to look at this as just a thriller, like I said before, with all the mistakes in trying to cover up his crime, he's a pretty poor bad guy.

Since when is it a good idea to question the logic of a movie?

Are you serious?

Yes,  I always look at versimilitude over realism in a movie.  It's not important if something could happen in our reality, but if it could happen in the film's reality.  With that said, I think Collateral works.

I'm not arguing that at all. Of course what happens in this film with Cruise's character could happen, but my point though is that Cruise's character is so dumb with carrying out his tasks that I think that film is an exercise in bad writing than anything else. Cruise's character does so much to make it known to Jamie Foxx's character how much of a bad guy he is that I don't think it is because of his emotional flaws; he'd need to have actual depth for that, but that this is just an exercise in a story playing possum to Cruise wanting to over act and gloat through an entire film and say, yea, he can play bad guys.

As with "Heat," Mann makes great use of Los Angeles, and showcases the not-usually-shown-parts of my beloved city. His shot selection and the framing keep each ride in the cab fresh. Cruise and Foxx, both great in their roles, have great chemistry and play off each other nicely, but I kinda wanted more of their deeper discussions. The film also, I felt, had too many comedic moments that cut and released the built tension, and some music cues were a bit loud and/or distracting. I didn't mind the ending so much, and it does work as a thriller. At that point, I felt that those scenes were more of Max's character than when he was 'in character' at the spanish club.

The digital cinematography looked great on the screen I saw it on, but, as with "Once Upon A Time In Mexico," it's when action moves quickly through the frame that you can really tell it's video.

So I just read the night scenes were shot in HD...the rest in 35mm... :cry:

Quote from: kotteSo I just read the night scenes were shot in HD...the rest in 35mm... :cry:

The entire film takes place in one night.

The only scenes that I thought were on celluloid were the opening ones at the airport.

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: kotteSo I just read the night scenes were shot in HD...the rest in 35mm... :cry:

The entire film takes place in one night.

The only scenes that I thought were on celluloid were the opening ones at the airport.

Yeah, I read in AC, all the scenes outside and in the cab were HD...the rest in 35mm.

Quote from: kotteYeah, I read in AC, all the scenes outside and in the cab were HD...the rest in 35mm.

All scenes outside and inside the cab....? That's the entire film.

I don't get what you explaining.

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: kotteYeah, I read in AC, all the scenes outside and in the cab were HD...the rest in 35mm.

All scenes outside and inside the cab....? That's the entire film.

I don't get what you explaining.

Okay, I haven't seen the film but I guess they mean all the scenes outside (streets etc) and in the cab are in HD...the scenes indoors are 35mm.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I got from the article.

Mann has said that 80% of the movie was digital. The majority of the cab scenes used this new camera called the Vipercam...most of the other digital stuff was accomplished with the HDW-900 (Lucas/Rodriguez model).

Watching the film, the two club scenes were the only ones I noticed as being shot on film. Which is probably about 20% of the movie, so that makes sense.

I think the movie looks fantastic. Mann's put HD to its best use -- it never looks like film, almost never looks like video. It's a new animal.

So I saw a sneak preview of this Thursday. It might just be my favorite Mann film to date. Performances were brilliant. It looked great (which I see has already been covered). It left me tense during most of the movie and yet the atmosphere was so moodily chilly at the same time. Very, very nice.

After seeing this film, which i loved, i now want to say that this film takes place the night before Heat begins, I feel like DeNiro is on that same train and at the next stop he will get off and go steal that ambulence, am i just weird or does that seem like something that kinda makes some sense?

MILD SPOILERS

Quite a tense, attention-grabbing film.  Jamie Foxx's performance here is excellent, as the cab driver who is forced to drive around an assassin.  When he suddenly starts acting confident in that night club scene where he pretends to be Vincent it is completely convincing.  Tom Cruise's coolness is great for his character.  The end was a little by-the-numbers, and Tom Cruise does some superhuman things that were out of place here.

The little dialogue scenes here are wonderful.  Like the scene with Jada Pinkett-Smith in the beginning and with Jamie's mother.  But seeing that Jada's character was played by Jada, we know that she is going to figure into the plot later on.

*SPOILERS*

Quote from: RaviMILD SPOILERS
When he suddenly starts acting confident in that night club scene where he pretends to be Vincent it is completely convincing.

Why, after his constant whining about 'I can't do it, I can't do it,' did you suddenly believe he grew some balls sitting at that table? I can understand him repeating Vincent's words, but to all of a sudden 'toughen up' even before that seemed way too against Max's character.

SPOILERS

Mac, I thought it was convincing because he knew that he had to be Vincent to get out of the club alive.  If he had stayed nervous and jittery the guy would have suspected something was up.  Like the story of the mother who lifts a car to save a child  :)

SPOILERS

Quote from: Ravi
Mac, I thought it was convincing because he knew that he had to be Vincent to get out of the club alive.  If he had stayed nervous and jittery the guy would have suspected something was up.  Like the story of the mother who lifts a car to save a child  :)

I understand why he did it, but I thought he was too 'together' (and I didn't think was 'being' Vincent, just using his words) that it was not something I believed Max's character had in him; taking his glasses off and suddenly being laid back and cool.

Quote from: MacGuffinSPOILERS

Quote from: Ravi
Mac, I thought it was convincing because he knew that he had to be Vincent to get out of the club alive.  If he had stayed nervous and jittery the guy would have suspected something was up.  Like the story of the mother who lifts a car to save a child  :)

I understand why he did it, but I thought he was too 'together' (and I didn't think was 'being' Vincent, just using his words) that it was not something I believed Max's character had in him; taking his glasses off and suddenly being laid back and cool.

I think it kind of goes back to what his bother said, about having to hold a gun to his head for him to do something.  Max's life is a story of someone who doesn't have the motivation to step up and achieve.  I think when he's pressed, life for death, he finally does something.

Continue Spoilers

Quote from: SHAFTRI think when he's pressed, life for death, he finally does something.

I think you nailed it.
Vincent groomed him nicely with the improvisation lecture at the jazz club.

But I agree with Mac that Max didn't have it in him, to that degree.
He didn't completely fool the drug king.
Having him followed to the night club restored the credibility.

this was a very good movie. it was even better on the cinerama screen in seattle. get this. since there's only one giant screen, the bathrooms all have speakers in them playing the sound so you don't miss anything. well... you don't miss any of the dialogue.

Wow, thats a cool idea.

Do they play the sound from the main theater then? Or is there only one theater?

Quote from: bonanzatazsince there's only one giant screen

I hate myself.

Quote from: bonanzataz...the bathrooms all have speakers in them...

Jeez, I wet myself as it was during some of those gunshots.
What would happen if I was....er....reading the paper?

Spoilers

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Where is there any depth to Cruise's character? Besides a few choice speeches, I saw none. And if you want to look at this as just a thriller, like I said before, with all the mistakes in trying to cover up his crime, he's a pretty poor bad guy. I never said Cruise is trying to playing the same character over and over again. He's hardly being any character. He's just moving from one movie persona to another.

No depth? Sure, I'll be defining what 'a heap of sand' is, and you probably won't be satisfied, but anyhow:

-The amount he knows about jazz and his appreciation for it
-His justification of murder
-The fact that he's pretty damn funny despite being a hitman (if you didn't laugh, something's wrong with you)
-His seemingly nihilistic perspective about the insignificance of human existence in the scheme of the universe (not deep at all)
-His turn of confidence to fear when Max begins speeding up the car

To me, especially his whole philosophy on human existence and Max's reaction to it, these "choice speeches" added so much depth, how could you say that it lacked any? I mean, what did you want? A genre flick with character development that, according to most except you, is damn good is more and better than we get from your standard Tom Cruise fare.

And poor bad guy? What do you think of the James Bond villains like Goldfinger, who tell Bond their whole plot? That's pretty dumb on their part, but they still kick ass. I'm just trying to exhibit a good bad guy that behaves stupidly, which Vincent didn't even do. He was very smart, remember that Felix had never even met him, so he sent in Max? That's pretty smart. Instantly changing identity to a courier (the second guy he kills but we don't see) and a lawyer (over the CB) seems to make him a pretty good assassin. I'd say his only mistake was the first guy he killed, letting him crash the taxi, but he improvises, as he says, and handles it well.

And to say that he isn't any character but moving from one movie persona to another, doesn't that make him diverse, if we're going by your defintions? Not being the same character, but playing different personae? Sounds like diversity, sounds like he's able to play multiple characters. Sounds like he's a flexible actor. And this is definitely some grudge you have against the norm, I'll admit Cruise is a pompous douche in interviews, but that's not 'logical' in terms of arguing whether or not his acting works, which it does for everyone, except you.

Regardless of what you think, Vincent's ideas on life made this movie so worth seeing, the DV rocked, and the action scenes ("Yo homey, is that my briefcase?") were awesome, Cruise is badass with a gun. Did anyone else feel that it had a "video game" feel, like almost Max Paynesque in its reality of the shootings? That's one thing that I think movies can rarely achieve is a video game's realism and emergence into violence, I think I saw a Wong Kar Wai scene that was handheld right over the shoulder of a guy just destroying a room full of people with two handguns, it really "felt" like the subconscious attachment one has with video games, but maybe I'm taking this too far. Collateral rocked.

Quote from: Gamblor geht weg.-The amount he knows about jazz and his appreciation for it
-His justification of murder
-The fact that he's pretty damn funny despite being a hitman (if you didn't laugh, something's wrong with you)
-His seemingly nihilistic perspective about the insignificance of human existence in the scheme of the universe (not deep at all)
-His turn of confidence to fear when Max begins speeding up the car

Sorry, but I'm not buying it in the least. Everything you said there is a sketching of a movie persona bad guy, not a character. There is a difference because attributes to defining a character are detailing flaws that bring him there and all the qualities you defined are just the qualities of how he is like when he got there. The difference is you can spout off a list of different cool and weird things he says and it wouldn't mean nothing if you didn't begin to explain his pysche of how he got to such a point. If you want a real movie of this genre that is as humanistic as it is purely genre, watch Kurosawa's High and Low. It has a bad guy who does nice similiar speeches of a warped world but it also has an explosion of feeling that illustrates how he got to such a point in viewing life.

Quote from: Gamblor geht weg.And poor bad guy? What do you think of the James Bond villains like Goldfinger, who tell Bond their whole plot? That's pretty dumb on their part, but they still kick ass.

Different genre. Bond is fantasy affair while Collateral operates in a very real universe with some real very human themes attatched to them. With its realistic filmmaking and attempt to prescribe itself to a drama while remaining genre, it only goes so far for the mild attempt it does in trying to make Cruise's character humanistic. He is not in any sense. He's as ridiculous as the fantasy genre of shoot them up can get and almost has no place in this film at all.

Quote from: Gamblor geht weg.And to say that he isn't any character but moving from one movie persona to another, doesn't that make him diverse, if we're going by your defintions?

Diversity by that explanation has nothing to do with being interesting. It all goes back to my original argument.

The fact that he believes the things he says suggest a background of how must've gotten to that point. You want them to explain every detail of his life, you'd then complain they bashed you over the head with background. The fact that he is mysterious, an assassin with a philosophical outlook, makes him interesting, but you think that's boring. The only point of view we need to know Cruise from is Max's point of view, but you want more than that? That'd be going outside the boundaries of what the protagonist needs to know. He just needs to know what he immediately sees and understands about Vincent. Vincent gives background, he tells the story of his abusive father, tongue-in-cheek, but was it a lie?

Don't go to a Tom Cruise movie directed by Michael Mann wanting Toshiro Mifune directed by Akira Kurosawa. You'll never be satisfied. Ever.

A humanistic assassin? explain please. You want him to be, or the film tried to make him but didn't succeed?

And you're saying that every character Tom Cruise has ever played has never been interesting? Or that he can't make them interesting? Either way, you're saying a lot, probably enough to collapse under.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetHe's as ridiculous as the fantasy genre of shoot them up can get and almost has no place in this film at all.

the "shoot them up" genre. that made me laugh on the inside.

Quote from: Gamblor geht weg.The fact that he believes the things he says suggest a background of how must've gotten to that point. You want them to explain every detail of his life, you'd then complain they bashed you over the head with background. The fact that he is mysterious, an assassin with a philosophical outlook, makes him interesting, but you think that's boring. The only point of view we need to know Cruise from is Max's point of view, but you want more than that? That'd be going outside the boundaries of what the protagonist needs to know. He just needs to know what he immediately sees and understands about Vincent. Vincent gives background, he tells the story of his abusive father, tongue-in-cheek, but was it a lie?

.

agreed.

Quote from: Gamblor geht weg.Don't go to a Tom Cruise movie directed by Michael Mann wanting Toshiro Mifune directed by Akira Kurosawa. You'll never be satisfied. Ever.

Who says I did? I knew nothing about this film before hand and went in quite optimistic, having appreciated the talent of Michael Mann with most of his past films. My comparison to High and Low is just a useful comparison considering the identity of both films.

Quote from: Gamblor geht weg.You want them to explain every detail of his life, you'd then complain they bashed you over the head with background.

Not at all, but some effort to detail why his flaws as a human being at this point in his life would be interesting. His life lessons themselves and demeanor as bad guy hardly interested me, honestly. Its too easy for the film to have say the lines he says, go from killing to killing and act as macho and as absurd as he does. If there was some diagram to suggesting how his pysche got to this point, it would be more enthralling for me dramatically instead of being just a movie that asked me continually to suspend belief as he makes dumb mistakes in carrying out his crimes. With no effort to explain who he is, I just take this as bad writing.

Quote from: Gamblor geht weg.Vincent gives background, he tells the story of his abusive father, tongue-in-cheek, but was it a lie?

Doesn't matter because the expression of how he says it so nonchantaly  suggests its just filler information which is information of a character that can be quickly expressed in a meaningless piece of dialogue to say they did it and move on. Thing is, dramatically it speaks to me on addressing no issues of importance for who he is at all. I want the issues of his past to be felt.

Quote from: Gamblor geht weg.ts weird The fact that he is mysterious, an assassin with a philosophical outlook, makes him interesting, but you think that's boring. The only point of view we need to know Cruise from is Max's point of view, but you want more than that? That'd be going outside the boundaries of what the protagonist needs to know. He just needs to know what he immediately sees and understands about Vincent.

See, this is where I don't understand your argument. You say I want a completely different film and even use my comparison to High and Low against me, saying if I wanted that film, then not to expect it here. Thing is, with my comparison to High and Low, you then would understand I wanted nothing of what you said here. High and Low never takes on the point of view of the killer at all. You see him commit crimes, but you never understand life through his eyes. Its just with the filmmaking tension that Kurosawa displays in telling the story, does the film erupt into getting the audience to feel where he is coming from. Collateral attempts a similiar effect at the end, but so little is known about his desire to kill in the first place that it never really hits home the way it could have. It just wraps it up nicely along the lines of one of his choice speeches and that does little for the dramatic in my eyes.

Quote from: Gamblor geht weg.And you're saying that every character Tom Cruise has ever played has never been interesting? Or that he can't make them interesting? Either way, you're saying a lot, probably enough to collapse under.

Not every character, but most of his characters lately. He's played some great roles and done them well and off hand, thinking about it, I know of 4 roles by exmaple I would say are great roles all on their own.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpetand it wouldn't mean nothing

gold trumpet, i disagree. why should tom cruise's character open up to foxx's character at all? the whole movie, he's just fucking with this cab driver. if he opened up to foxx and told him his whole life story, THAT would have been lazy writing. i was cringing when cruise was relating to foxx the story of the abusive father and was so happy when he broke out into laughter, negating the whole thing. why does cruise kill people? he gets paid for it and he doesn't value human life. why doesn't he value human life? who cares. it's not important to moving the plot along. essentially, collateral is an action film, and the film's main purpose is to get to the climax and witness a character change in foxx, not cruise. foxx is our main character. cruise is the catalyst for change. sure, it's not the best writing in the world, but i thought mann pulled it off well. i enjoyed it.

Quote from: bonanzatazgold trumpet, i disagree. why should tom cruise's character open up to foxx's character at all? the whole movie, he's just fucking with this cab driver. if he opened up to foxx and told him his whole life story, THAT would have been lazy writing. i was cringing when cruise was relating to foxx the story of the abusive father and was so happy when he broke out into laughter, negating the whole thing. why does cruise kill people? he gets paid for it and he doesn't value human life. why doesn't he value human life? who cares. it's not important to moving the plot along. essentially, collateral is an action film, and the film's main purpose is to get to the climax and witness a character change in foxx, not cruise. foxx is our main character. cruise is the catalyst for change. sure, it's not the best writing in the world, but i thought mann pulled it off well. i enjoyed it.

Don't forget, the movie had guns and people shooting at each other.

That makes a film special.

Quote from: bonanzatazgold trumpet, i disagree. why should tom cruise's character open up to foxx's character at all? the whole movie, he's just fucking with this cab driver. if he opened up to foxx and told him his whole life story, THAT would have been lazy writing.

Never never never said it had to come that way at all. I actually agree with you. It'd be lazy writing.  There are so many ways to go about it.

Quote from: bonanzatazi was cringing when cruise was relating to foxx the story of the abusive father and was so happy when he broke out into laughter, negating the whole thing. why does cruise kill people? he gets paid for it and he doesn't value human life. why doesn't he value human life? who cares. it's not important to moving the plot along. essentially, collateral is an action film, and the film's main purpose is to get to the climax and witness a character change in foxx, not cruise. foxx is our main character. cruise is the catalyst for change. sure, it's not the best writing in the world, but i thought mann pulled it off well. i enjoyed it.

And here lies the main difference between me and what it feels like everyone else: It just didn't work for me. It really didn't at all. I understand what everyone else is trying to say, but I never was sucked in. I didn't see credibility to much of the story at all. I was actually bored for most of the film. The filmmaking felt lazy and without spirit or even guidance and the performances were null, all of them. I could explain myself further but my words seem misplaced too often to do so.

GoldTrumpet, maybe you should stop thinking at movies. It seems to ruin them for you.

Quote from: Gamblor geht weg.GoldTrumpet, maybe you should stop thinking at movies. It seems to ruin them for you.

Only the bad ones.

Witty retort that leads to stalemate (I love Schizopolis).

i liked it.

i think the song in the jazz club was one of the cuts from Bitches Brew, but i can't remember which.

i was really taken out of the movie when the Audioslave (i'm guessing this is Audioslave, i know it was Chris Cornell's voice) song came on. it really didn't fit with the vibe of the film or even the rest of the music.

Quote from: bigideas
i was really taken out of the movie when the Audioslave (i'm guessing this is Audioslave, i know it was Chris Cornell's voice) song came on. it really didn't fit with the vibe of the film or even the rest of the music.

Agreed, and this reminds me of somethign I meant to mention earlier, which is that Mann seems to have developed an interesting (to me at least) habit of re-using music. He used the song Armenia from the Heat soundtrack in The Insider, and another piece from Heat (I forget which one now) is in Collateral. I guess I should see Ali again to see if my hypothesis is correct.

I actually thought the Audioslave song fit well... Mann seems to use an original score thoughout most of his films then during a more pivotal scene, he'll drop the needle.  It's just part of his thing... I like it.

The only thing I didn't like about it was the fade out didn't fit well, seemed a little abrupt.  But when it came back on later, it matched the mood really well.

not that I loved it or it moved me or anying, but can't really find much wrong with this movie, save from the music and the cheap shots at action genre conventions ("how can anyone survive a trauma/ wound like that?  wouldn't you bleed to death?") I don't believe anyone can pick this movie apart.  It's original, it's witty, well-written, acted, choreographed, and never tried to be more than an action film, despite all the metaphysical chats about The Bigger Picture, it's a perfect movie.

DVD Release
Source: www.davisdvd.com
Release Date December 14

Quote from: SiliasRubyDVD Release
Source: www.davisdvd.com
Release Date December 14

Yeah..

They'll release a single disc, no insert, stripped down crap version of it I'd bet. Then, about 6 months later the real one will come out.

:?

Quote from: Myxomatosis

Quote from: SiliasRubyDVD Release
Source: www.davisdvd.com
Release Date December 14

Yeah..

They'll release a single disc, no insert, stripped down crap version of it I'd bet. Then, about 6 months later the real one will come out.

:?

You're probably right.

There are certain films which are worth waiting for.

The general public can buy this stuff but personally I wait for things like the Matrix trilogy and what not to be released in a box set.

Cruise Goes Undercover on 'Collateral' DVD

When DreamWorks' double-disc "Collateral" DVD hits stores Dec. 14, film buffs will get an unprecedented look into director Michael Mann's style of filmmaking and a view into how stars Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx trained for their roles.

The DVD's bonus materials capture Mann's private exchanges with the cast and crew and include a wealth of footage that unveils the creative and technical process that brought the actioner to life.

"City of Night: The Making of Collateral" highlights footage specifically shot for the DVD, with segments on Cruise as he goes through weapons training, Foxx's preparation with cab drivers and his stunt driving practice and Mann's use of state-of-the-art equipment that enabled him to capture a gritty view of nighttime Los Angeles.

Another DVD bonus feature, "Special Delivery," shows Cruise donning a Federal Express uniform and striding through a busy marketplace in Los Angeles to hand-deliver a package, all captured on hidden camera.

The film squeaked past the $100 million mark at the Oct. 8-10 weekend box office after more than two months in release.

What It Took to Create "Collateral"

Hit man Tom Cruise sits in the back of a taxi, driven by a frightened Jamie Foxx from appointment to appointment. But, in Michael Mann's newest thriller, "Collateral" (DreamWorks/Paramount), Cruise and Foxx are not the only characters on screen.

"Michael wanted a look for the film that would be unlike any other," explains cinematographer Paul Cameron. "He specifically wanted a film that would include nighttime Los Angeles as a character, much like your eye sees L.A. glowing at night. It's something he wanted to pervade the whole film."
 
Cruise and Foxx star in 'Collateral'
Most of the movie takes place at night: Foxx, on the graveyard shift, inadvertently picks up a hit man who forces him to take him from job to job. With existing film technology unable to bring the night into the picture, Mann turned to another medium, high definition video, to help capture his third character.

Mann had used HD for several scenes in his 2001 film, Ali, utilizing the Panavision HD-900F (the "Panavised" Sony HDW-F900), according to Dave Canning, who has been the director's digital imaging technician since 2000. Full study of the equipment came during a long-form Mercedes commercial Mann shot shortly thereafter, followed by the short-lived USA Network series "Robbery Homicide Division," also filmed with a pair of F900s.

But it was during prep for another film, "Worcester Cold Storage," which never made it to the screen, that Mann first tested Thomson Grass Valley's Viper camera system. The Viper, operating in its "FilmStream" mode, captures uncorrected CCD data at 4:4:4 RGB and outputs it as 10-bit log data, which requires post-process color correction, as opposed to a processed video image signal, which results when operating the camera in its "VideoStream" mode. VideoStream also permits adjustments to white balance and other video image parameters. "We realized the Viper, particularly in FilmStream mode, held great promise, especially for a film-style production where you just want to go out and acquire and not have to make image decisions up front," says Canning. "But I also knew Michael would want to see the final image on set."

When the "Collateral" project came up, however, Canning suggested using the new version of the Sony camera, the F900/3. "It was our same old friend but with a huge improvement in the dynamic range and a color viewfinder." Canning and associate producer Bryan Carroll took the camera for a test drive, shooting test footage one night at locations Mann expected to use in the film. Canning then pulled frames from the shoot and adjusted the color balance in Adobe Photoshop, to reduce the red in the images, before showing them to Mann. "HD cameras tend to capture sodium vapor lights as very red because of the broken spectrum lighting sources." The result of the reduction in red leaves actors' faces looking cyan or greenish-a look Mann actually liked.

Testing continued, at this point with cinematographer Paul Cameron, who was brought on board three weeks before principal photography was to begin. Mann, Cameron and their team decided to shoot tests on location using the real actors (Cruise and Foxx), though the battery of equipment now included not only the F900 but the Thomson Viper, Sony F950 and a variety of film stocks. "We tested [Kodak] 5218, 5279 and 5284, along with the video cameras; we shot the same material, with the same framing, with two video cameras and one film camera with the various stocks," explains Cameron. Digital intermediates were created at LaserPacific by colorist Mike Sowa, and the results were printed to film and compared.

From the tests, it was determined that the F950 tended to produce a softer image than the F900, which removed the F950 from consideration. The Viper, which was tested in its FilmStream mode, required color correction to compensate for its capture of the tests' raw image. "We found that the noise level on the Viper emulated film grain in a way much better than the F900 did. It had a certain quality that was both unlike the F900 and unlike film," explains Cameron. "We decided to go with a combination of the Viper, the F900 and film."

While the F900 and film cameras were ready to roll at the start of production in September 2003, the Viper was not. "It was not well-designed ergonomically," says Cameron. Modifications were made to a number of components by equipment supplier Plus8 Digital, including base plates, matte boxes and eyepiece levelers, based on suggestions from Cameron and A-camera operator Gary Jay.

Production, in the meantime, started, using both the Panavision 900F (the "Panaversion," as Canning calls it) and stock Sony models and film cameras. The basic camera and film setup was the Panavision Millennium using Kodak 5218 stock. Canning made adjustments to the 900F's color matrix and gamma, carefully matching its look, as closely as possible, to that of the Viper. "Michael liked the look of the Viper," he notes. "Thankfully, the control system on the 900F is much more accessible than on the Viper."

For lenses, Cameron used the Panavision DigiPrimes; however, particularly after the arrival of the Viper cameras two weeks into production, he made a change. "We switched to Zeiss primes pretty quickly. We wanted to have zooms on the cameras, the but Zeiss primes were just infinitely sharper and had better resolution," he says.

Recording video signals at full 4:4:4 RGB meant lots of storage would be required. The team tested a hard disk recorder and S.two disk recorders; though fast, the latter posed a problem. "We ran into a glitch early on," says Cameron. "There was a 72-hour period when we couldn't retrieve the material off the recorder's drive, which didn't make the studio too happy."

Canning opted to set the team up with a pair of Sony HDCAM-SR SRW-5000 digital videotape recording decks. While the SR would have recorded the Viper's output if operating in FilmStream mode, the camera was actually run in its VideoStream mode, even though the Viper had been tested initially using FilmStream. As noted above, VideoStream outputs a corrected or processed video signal output, as opposed to the uncorrected CCD data that the FilmStream mode outputs. The SR deck, then, recorded the video signal slightly compressed, in 10-bit linear 4:4:4 (as opposed to 10-bit log 4:4:4, as would have been recorded for FilmStream data).

During testing, the team found that it was difficult to view the image correctly on many HD monitors when shooting with Viper in widescreen mode, especially when trying to compare with footage shot on the F900. While the F900 produces the desired 2.40:1 widescreen image simply by masking off the top and bottom of the image, the Viper creates native widescreen by using triple the usual number of vertical rows for HD (1920x3240 instead of 1920x1080) sensors in its CCD, using data from two of the rows (thus oversampling) and ignoring data from the top and bottom areas. When sent to a monitor, the image would appear stretched, necessitating the use of an Astro Systems scan converter to reshape the image to proper aspect ratio. Unfortunately, the Astro system introduced a delay of several frames, which was frustrating to camera operators trying to capture fast action while viewing on their on-set monitor.

Even then, due to the high gain used on the camera to pull in the dark images, the monitor image didn't give a true view of what the final picture would look like-that was visible only after the film's colorist made adjustments. Operating in VideoStream mode allowed real-time image control by permitting Canning to make adjustments in camera, so the image Michael Mann wanted could be accomplished on set.

The SR decks were also used to record signals from the F900 cameras, at 10-bit 4:2:2, as long as they weren't busy recording Viper signals. When the latter was the case, the F900's on-board recording deck was utilized, recording to tape at 8-bit 3:1:1.

With three types of cameras available, some general rules of thumb were developed to help decide which-or how many-cameras would be used in any given situation. The movie was, for the most part, filmed in continuity, from autumn 2003 through early February 2004, starting with afternoon and early evening parts of the story and then throughout the night's cab journey into daybreak.

Paul Cameron left the production three weeks into filming and cinematography duties were taken over by Dion Beebe (Chicago). Beebe's first task was shooting the exciting Fever nightclub scene, which took two weeks and was captured almost entirely on film. "The sequence gave me the opportunity to get up to speed on the video equipment, which we ran side by side with the film cameras," he says. Dave Canning helped the cinematographer become familiar with the video gear during filming. "We ran some tests in the cab at night during this same two-week period."

Beebe says, "We typically would use film whenever we were working in a controlled environment," such as the film's three nightclub sequences, which the cinematographer was able to light himself. Daylight shots were typically shot on film. "But these are rules that were constantly broken."

The less obvious choices were between the Viper and the F900, though the Viper was used for about 80 percent of the images captured digitally, which comprise about 80 percent of the movie. (In the first two weeks of shooting, before the Vipers arrived, Cameron did use F900s for nighttime shooting, since that was what was available, and, he notes, they performed admirably.)

While the Viper was the HD camera of choice for the film, there were occasions when the F900 was preferred. To draw in the nighttime detail, the cameras were all typically operated at a gain of +3dB, though this level was often pushed to +6 or +12dB. "The differences were subtle between the two cameras, but when you went to the telecine and film out, they became more apparent," says Cameron. "Under certain circumstances, when we pushed the F900 to +6 or +12, we had more exposure. We could push the Viper, but it just wasn't the same kind of gain in exposure as with the F900. We wanted to be able to take the risk of shooting +12dB when there was very little atmosphere in the air and still capture whatever nighttime glow existed, sacrificing a little noise in the film out."

The Viper, on the other hand, tended to be free from video-type artifacts, particularly on lights, says Canning. "The Sony camera tended to produce starring-type artifacts around small speculars, mostly because of the way the CCDs are designed. It's something you don't see with film, and it's something the Viper doesn't have."

The F900s were always used for Steadicam shots and were recorded, whenever possible, on the SR decks (connected through lightweight fiber optic cable) rather than the onboard HDCAM devices, to record at the highest bit depth possible. "We also used them inside the cab, when photographing Jamie from the back seat to capture him when he was actually driving the car," explains Beebe. This cab footage was captured on the camera's onboard HDCAM tape drive. When the cab was on a process trailer (any of a variety of cab configurations built by Cameron), the Viper could be used, tethered to its SR5000 deck.

With a majority of the interaction between the two lead characters taking place inside Foxx's cab, a system had to be devised to light the actors in a way that would avoid the "incandescent light in your face" look while still drawing in the surrounding nightscape. "Michael wanted this sort of wraparound, nondirectional light," says Beebe. "He wanted it to feel like there was no real source, to make it appear that everything was lit from the street by the street's own ambience."

To accomplish this illusion, Paul Cameron early on developed a system using electro-luminescent panels, such as those used to illuminate digital watches. Having noticed the material illuminating transit bus shelter advertising, Cameron located a local manufacturer, Novatech Electro-Luminescent in Santa Ana, and commissioned the company to make dozens of the panels for use in the cab (and 16 other vehicles). Roughly 5" x 15" in size, approximately 30 of the panels were placed inside the cab, attached with Velcro and controlled by individual dimmers, allowing the units to be shut off or removed, depending on the requirements of the shot.

The panels lent an eerie, greenish look to the actors' faces, which was further amplified by the production process. "To pull in the nighttime environment outside the cab, we always had the cameras wide open, with the gain at +6dB," explains Beebe. The resultant image was extremely overexposed, says Cameron, "to the point that it was a little freaky." To remedy the situation, the footage was then brought to colorist Stefan Sonnenfeld at Company 3 in Los Angeles, who, using Power Windows (sometimes as many as 10 or 12) on a digital intermediate, brought the levels of the faces back down to an acceptable level, leaving natural looking faces surrounded by the L.A. nightscape.

While depth of field is often an issue when using HD, the large depth worked to the cinematographer's advantage in many instances by helping to include the nighttime environment as part of the shot; however, a few tricks had to be used to capture the actors in close-up with the background slightly out of focus, to create footage that would cut well with longer shots. Cameron applied some know-how from his anamorphic experience. "I would pull the focus as far forward as we could, so that it would appear sharp on the monitor. I'd have the camera five feet from Tom's face but have the assistant pull the focus for two and a half feet, in order to get the background a little softer. It made the assistants a little uneasy, but it worked well."

The Viper also offered the advantage of deep focus, evident in the climactic scene in which Cruise stalks Jada Pinkett Smith in the dark in her 14th floor office while Foxx attempts to alert her from his cell phone from the roof of a nearby parking garage. Beebe's camera focuses on Cruise's face, a few feet from the camera, and then does a rapid focus pull to Foxx, who's several hundred feet away. "Michael has a great sense of cinema geography. He's a master at creating tension in the frame," says the DP. "The fact that these cameras go from one foot to infinity really quickly, because of the chip size and the optics, means you can make that throw with just the slightest turn."

Michael Mann's full coverage style -- he used as many as a dozen cameras to film an exciting crash sequence, for example -- meant that a multitude of formats had to be able to be cut together and appear to have been filmed in a single format. A digital intermediate process was, of course, invaluable. "Some angles within a scene" -- such as the above-mentioned rooftop scene -- "had some shots taken with the Viper and some with the Sony," says colorist Stefan Sonnefeld. "If the cameras are side by side, shooting the same thing, the footage won't look the same. If you throw in film as well, like in the Fever nightclub scene, it gets a little tricky."

Working, essentially, with HD footage to produce a film output that didn't look like film was another challenge, particularly with telecine equipment designed to create a film look. "Michael wasn't trying to emulate film," says Sonnenfeld. "He was using the HD medium to create a different environment, one that fit this story." To further complicate things, the film was also mastered and timed for digital cinema projection, which has a look of its own.

With "Collateral," Michael Mann made the most of both the technical expertise and cutting-edge equipment available to create a film with a look that's made for both. "Michael is totally proficient with all of the latest equipment, and his knowledge is up to date," says Sonnenfeld. Adds Cameron, "I don't think anybody has gone through the testing process as much as we went through it -- ripping the HD medium apart and finding the true core of what makes it tick."

there's a better article covering the same thing on last month's American Cinematographer.

Quote from: petethere's a better article covering the same thing on last month's American Cinematographer.

You win some, you lose some.

Did the AC article happen to mention why Paul Cameron left the production?

not directly, but it sounded like they just drove each other nuts:

http://theasc.com/magazine/aug04/collateral/index.html

thanks for the link, pete, that was a great article.

Quote from: SiliasRuby

Quote from: Myxomatosis

Quote from: SiliasRubyDVD Release
Source: www.davisdvd.com
Release Date December 14

Yeah..

They'll release a single disc, no insert, stripped down crap version of it I'd bet. Then, about 6 months later the real one will come out.

:?

You're probably right.

Sorry but it looks like we were both wrong about the DVD...

Source www.dvdanswers.com

Title: Collateral
Starring: Tom Cruise
Released: 14th December 2004
SRP: $29.99
Further Details
DreamWorks has released some early details on the region one release of Collateral which stars the likes of Tom Cruise, Jamie Foxx and Jada Pinkett Smith. This recent Michael Mann directed film, will be available to own from the 14th December this year, and should set you back somewhere in the region of $29.99. The film will be presented in 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen along with English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround, DTS 5.1 Surround and Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo Surround tracks. A French Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround track will also be included. Extras will include a City Of Night: The Making of Collateral featurette, a Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx Rehearse feature, Visual FX: MTA Train, a selection of deleted scenes and some trailers.

So I finally got around to seeing this and I thought it was alot of fun. It was a typical action movie, trying to costume itself as a character study but it worked and kept me entertained. I'm not a Crusie fan but he was such a badass motherfucker in this movie. SPOILERS coming up. I liked how Max tells Vincent about human life and how every life is important and Vincent used that against Max time and time again in the movie with comments like "If you fuck up, innocent people will die" I thought that was cool, it was almost more powerful than a gun in controlling Max. When Vincent shoots Mark Ruffalo I about lost it, that was an awesome scene and completely unexpected and ISN'T supposed to happen in movies. The ending was pretty bogus and followed the action movie cliche of the villian saying some last words before they die, but it was all good.

this film kicks fucking ass. bu tits not the story of the acting or the pseudo-pyschcology babble that rocks in this film but rather

michael mann's direction
dion beebe's cinematography
and every fucking music cue, song, or whatever rules...........

just the aesthetics of this film are beatufil and energetic.  i have never seen LA look this cool........its a audio/visual  dream........

thank you michael mann........you have now made up for the garbage that was ali.

and i like how the dvd has a unadvertise commentary track by mann.....

I realize more and more how unheralded Michael Mann is with each film he creates. Sure, Ali was a stinker, but there aren't many directors as consistantly good as he is.

Thief
Last of the Mohicans
Insider
Heat
Collateral

I mean, look at that list. Sadly, if you walked up to the average person and said,

"Hey, name one film you've seen that Michael Mann directed."

You'd get a blank stare and a "no idea.." from most.

yeah goddammt I hate average people.

Quote from: MyxomatosisSure, Ali was a stinker...

Why does Ali stink?

Quote from: life_boy

Quote from: MyxomatosisSure, Ali was a stinker...

Why does Ali stink?

Because of all people, they chose Will Smith to play Ali.

Will Smith = Fecal matter

Quote from: Myxomatosis

Quote from: life_boy

Quote from: MyxomatosisSure, Ali was a stinker...

Why does Ali stink?

Because of all people, they chose Will Smith to play Ali.

Will Smith = Fecal matter

I thought Will Smith did fine in that movie.  He wasn't what was wrong with it.  It was long and boring after a while, that was it's problem.

And again, I am going to have to remind everyone that Will Smith DID star in The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, one of the best things ever to happen.  Ever.

And if you shall permit me, I must break into song...

(Ahem)

..Nowwww this is a story all about how
my life got flip turned upside down
and I'd like to take a minute just sit right there
I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel Air.

..Innnn West Philedelphia, born and raised
on the playground is where I spent most of my days!  
Chillin' out max and relaxin' all cool
and all shootin' some B-Ball outside of the school
when a couple of guys, who were up to no good,
started makin' trouble in my neighborhood!  
I got in one little fight and my mom got scared,
and said, "You're moving with your Auntie and Uncle in Bel Air!"

..I whistled for a cab, and when it came near
the license place said "FRESH" and he had dice in the mirror!
If anything I would say that this cat was rare,
but I thought, "Nah, forget it!  Yo Home to Bel Air!"

.. I pulled up to the house about seven or eight
and I yelled to the cabby, "Yo Homes, smell you later!"  
Looked at my Kingdom--I was finally there!  
Sit on my throne, as the Prince of Bel Air!




Thank you.  Good night.

when Nick at Nite started airing Fresh Prince a few months back i noticed there is a longer version of that theme song/opening credits. i can't remember it though.

Quote from: Myxomatosis

Quote from: life_boy

Quote from: MyxomatosisSure, Ali was a stinker...

Why does Ali stink?

Because of all people, they chose Will Smith to play Ali.

Will Smith = Fecal matter

I've heard a similar argument given to discredit Collateral.  

(Jamie Foxx = fecal matter)

The argument only begs the question...
How does:
dislike for actor = shitty movie?

Quote from: life_boyThe argument only begs the question...
How does:
dislike for actor = shitty movie?

Bad acting can sink a movie just as easily as a bad script can. Everytime I see Will Smith, I have this image of his Independence Day, Bad Boys, Men in Black and Wild Wild West characters all rolled into one. It's the same fucking character. I'll include George Clooney on my hate list along with Renee Anorexiaweger.

Ali did indeed stink. I got the strong feeling than Michael Mann was writing a college paper that he really didn't want to write.

Quote from: MyxomatosisRenee Anorexiaweger

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243155/

finally got to see this a second time in the comfort of my home.

i like it quite a bit. i think Cruise nailed it. some of his responses make me laugh. who doesn't like the ruwanda speech, the scene where foxx's wallet is taken......and then Cruise takes the punks out...........and the visit to mom in the hospital..........and freaking Miles Davis?

my favorite line: "Man I don't know no rwandas!"

another thing is that i'm essentially the Max character.

-doing a crappy job, while dreaming of making films and music, but not really doing much about it.

Great movie


.... until the last fifteen minutes, when it turned into a horror movie with Monster Tom chasing them in a subway car. Fucking stupid. I have the perfect ending for this movie (well, Seven kinda did it, but still, they shoulda called me):

Foxx runs to that building in hopes of saving the girl. Catches up with Cruise, cool scene of semi action, kills him. Goes up into the place thinking he's saved the day, finds that Cruise has already offed her, and he's too late to really make any damn difference. Audience would be gutted, I wouldn't feel cheated with a tacked-on "happy ending" where Foxx all of a sudden finds a way to defeat a super killer, and the existential stuff whereby the line "you can take comfort in the fact that you had no choice" would have been personified. Oddly enough, this line (pretty much exactly) is in the script I'm trying to get made right now. Weird.

In my mind, Mann's still only made one complete film: The Insider.

Indian remake of Collateral:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiafm.com%2Ffirstlook%2Fekajnabee.jpg&hash=93cdff309119c5d4f4e8cad63a978bf43a011f36)

The title translates to "A Stranger."

I gave myself a stranger once.  well, half a stranger, 'cause the blood circulation resumed in my hand towards the end.

Well, it turns out that "Ek Ajnabee" is a remake of Man on Fire.  Given that the actor's look and the poster design very similar to Collateral and that the plot sounds like Man on Fire, I think we are in for a lot of originality.  Keep watching Indian films, folks!