Collateral

[modage]

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.

[SHAFTR]

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

[Finn]

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

its 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.

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?

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.

[SHAFTR]

its 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?

[Gold Trumpet]

its 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?

[SHAFTR]

its 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.

[fulty]

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

[Myxo]

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.

[SiliasRuby]

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

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

[Gold Trumpet]

its 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.

[MacGuffin]

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.

[kotte]

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

[MacGuffin]

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

The entire film takes place in one night.

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

[kotte]

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

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.