Collateral

[fulty]

...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?

[Gamblour.]

Spoilers

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

-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.

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.

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.

[Gamblour.]

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.

[bonanzataz]

He'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.

[SHAFTR]

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Chest Rockwell]

and it wouldn't mean nothing

[bonanzataz]

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.

[Myxo]

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.

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

That makes a film special.

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Gamblour.]

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

[Gold Trumpet]

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

Only the bad ones.

[Gamblour.]

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

[tpfkabi]

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.