collateral

Saruman

Saw this last night, did not see a post. I have to say i thought this was the best movie i have seen in ages! Tom cruise is pretty good in it but the cab driver is excellent and he steals the show.

http://www.collateral-themovie.com/

ChipZilla

I watched it last night too. It was good, wasn't it?

Definitely worth a viewing...

ixoy

I was very pleasantly surprised with this one. Generally I think Cruise is alright, sometimes annoying, but he was delightful here as a completely cold-blooded killer who yet had the time to moralize (particularly liked his point about Rwanda).

Only let down was the final act, which was too formulaic but this is still, along with the Bourne Supremacy, an example of how Hollywood can do smashing little thrillers. The movie also looks abso****inglutely gorgeous.

fitz

Loved the graininess and blueish hue of the film. It was just fabulous looking. Great soundtrack too. The use of the Audioslave track as the dogs walked in front of the car was fantastic.

Anyone who says Jamie Foxx robbed it out from under Cruises nose, I really don't understand. The focus of the film was Max, not Vincent. Cruise was great, so was Foxx, but I think people are mixing up Foxx being the focus with him giving a better performance than Cruise.
Their performances were wonderfully sympathetic, Vincent being the catalyst for Max's growth out of his safe, naive existence.

Mann has delivered another marvellous, gritty story. Definitely one to see.

vibe666

what they said.

but yeah, wonderfully shot piece of cinema, and i agree about max's character being the focal point of the movie, rather than stealing the show. but he is an excellent actor.

thought the ending could have been stronger though, but only from a 'hollywood' point of view, rather than a piece of cinema (if that makes sense).

koneko

Cruise was great. Every once in a while he does he film that just makes him more interesting again (like Magnolia). I thought he was great, Foxx was good to but definitely didn't steal the film from Cruise, he held his own but wasn't standout in my opinion.

I didn't like the quality of the film though to be honest, first thing that bothered me about it when I went to see it. Grainy. I'm sure it was his intention, but I personally didn't like it, though after a while I didn't really notice it anymore to be fair (just nitpicking).
Great choice of songs in the film.

Raoul Duke

I thought that it was a well shot but fairly average thriller. Mann did a great job of filming the night scenes. The whole film was great to look at with some good set pieces.

My main problem is that I don't really like films with stupid coincidences like this one. It was a bit hard watching it knowing that this coincidence was coming up. You just knew it was coming up because of the first scene (which I loved).

Also the scene with Felix was terrible. Who the hell wrote that Black Santa/ Bad Santa trash? Not to mention the sudden "change" of the character in this scene.

Then there was the end of the film. A lot of people didn't like it. I didn't think it was that bad as it fitted in reasonably well with the what had gone on before. If the film had been a masterpeice up to that point I would probably have been pissed off with it though.

DirtyDog

koneko wrote:

I didn't like the quality of the film though to be honest, first thing that bothered me about it when I went to see it. Grainy. I'm sure it was his intention, but I personally didn't like it, though after a while I didn't really notice it anymore to be fair (just nitpicking).QUOTE]


It was shot on digital camera's so any grain was intentional, I personally thaught it was one of the clearest night time movies I've seen in a long time - and I'm not just saying that, i read the review of how it was shot on the digital cameras about 2/3 hrs before I went to see it so was watching out for it.

Film its self was good, the "coincidence" bit was very easy to guess, but all in all worth watching - and one I'll be buying on DVD.

Chad ghostal

Raoul Duke wrote:

Also the scene with Felix was terrible. Who the hell wrote that Black Santa/ Bad Santa trash? Not to mention the sudden "change" of the character in this scene.

Then there was the end of the film. A lot of people didn't like it. I didn't think it was that bad as it fitted in reasonably well with the what had gone on before. If the film had been a masterpeice up to that point I would probably have been pissed off with it though.

i thought the same about the same with felix, and what the hell was javier bardem playing such a steriotypical chameo for?? ..
the scene totally slowed down the whole movie, and foxx's character change was not really believable.not due to acting, i just dont think it was well handled..

if it was for the cheesey reference to the earlier story in the film i though the ending could have been much better..
i liked it despite that though.. , thought jada pinket<sp?> smith was good even though she was only in it for a few minutes..

liked the use of dv, especially the orange glow effect(like it actually should be)...gives good night atmosphere. .

Saw it yesterday and I thought it was excellant. Well acted, superb directing and good use of music.
Personnaly I thought it was the best film I have ever seen to be shot on DV cameras. It gave the night a life of its own.

BlitzKrieg

hated it myself


thought cruise was rubbish.

The digital filming didnt work for it. (Grainy is good, but flat uninteresting footage mixed with poor scenes like the nightclub not so good)

only good part of the film was jamie foxx who was very good.


storyline was predictable.

its one of the few films where i went in with low expectations (thought it looked crap from trailers) and came out thinking i was even more disapointed.

Gav99

BlitzKrieg wrote:

thought cruise was rubbish.

Wow, your on your own there I think. This and Magnolia are the only 2 cruise films that I really like. And I thought he was excellent in both.

boudu

I enjoyed the setup during the first half of this film. It deteriorated quickly after that. The ending was way too predictable and much too pat for my liking. I generally dislike Tom Cruise (he looked like something out of Metal Gear Solid in this) and I found he bugged me more as the film wore on. His acting is always way over-wrought.

Jamie Foxx gave an engaging performance though, and the action sequences were totally stunning. You gotta love Michael Mann with his overhead city shots, his big male leads, his gun fetishism and his helicopters. Still, I fear he won't be making a movie as good as Heat again.

hyperali

I went on Monday it was a good action movie and i thought very good for a Tom Cruise movie. I generally don't like him but i think the grey hair and stubble made his image different from that of all his other movies.
the ending sucked but i thought Foxx was good and i liked that it could be funny in parts. a bit of black comedy is always good for any kind of movie.
i'd give it thumbs up but i don't think i'd pay to see it in the cinema again although i did love the way the club scene in Fever was shot it really looked throbbing and panicked

impr0v

Liked it a lot myself, however I can see the majority of the above criticism is well-founded, if slightly exaggerated.

segadreamcast

Saw this one in NY and again tonight.

Interesting how audiences react differently... the Americans would applaud, whoop and cheer everytime someone got shot - laugh like a studio audience when anything occasionally funny happened.

We're pretty conservative by comparison. Two loud laughs from the audience. Interesting stuff from a social perspective.

Anyway! The movie itself was far more interesting than my own above meandering rant, definite 4 out of 5. Foxx held his own - Cruise played his best role in years.* I shan't spoil anything by going into detail - but Cruise definitely shows an edgier side in this, and the camerawork is beautiful, it perfectly conveys and contrasts the isolation that one person can feel despite the sheer volume of people surrounding them, for instance, was just one of the facets that Michael Mann captured flawlessly.

* - I won't say since Magnolia because I didn't like that too much at all.

ShiverinEskimo

Gav99 wrote:

Wow, your on your own there I think. This and Magnolia are the only 2 cruise films that I really like. And I thought he was excellent in both.

Surely you didn't dislike Jerry Maguire, or am I putting my size 10 straight in it here...

Cruise has had some pretty good flicks I think, where the part he is cast allows him to...but thats not an excuse.

da_deadman

I too thought this was a very good film. I was looking forward to it because of Mann and from the trailer, and I was definitely satisfied with it. Ì thought Cruise and Foxx were very good, and the interactions between them were often very well done. I liked the look of the film, it is beautifully shot, in my opinion. And the music is very good throughout the film.

My favourite scene was mentioned above, when Foxx slows down and stops the car, Audioslave's 'Shadow on the Sun' starts playing, and a few wolves runs across the road. It's a great scene.

jor el

I thought it was an OK film, not great though. The ending really let it down, just the same old predictable Hollywood dribble, nothing new. I had expected more from Michael Mann. He really could have done something better with it as I thought it was going to be great, having heard all the reviews about it. I heard one reviewer on the radio say that this was movie of the year, if not movie of the decade quality. I really don't know where he got that from.
Overall, I'd say it's worth seeing, but not worth buying.

ixoy

Does anyone know if producers came in on this one and changed the ending? Because nearly everyone, myself included, faults the ending for being very derivative. It feels like it was written by someone else, a more generic type of movie scripting. Was it studio interference? I felt the movie would have ended almost better when

Foxx flips the taxi over

. The resolution is too pat and just doesn't sit right. In fact I reckon the movie would be better if you just left when it hits what I have in the spoiler tags - you won't reach the sense of disappointment then that the ending can bring.

Swifty

Alright the endling was a little "generic" as some of you put it,

frightened woman in dark room blah blah..

But I thought it was well shot like the rest of the film,

when the camera switched to Cruise searching her office and Foxx outside on the roof running out of battery on the phone,

it was a tense moment and a film hasn't made me feel tense in a long time.

Overall I loved the movie, beautifully shot and great music.

Fuhrio

Oveall i was pretty disappointed with it, story didnt movequickly enough, + there wasnt much variation throughout it.

just an opinion though

Pigman II

It was a good (and even logical) film ... up to a point.

However once it gets onto to Assassination #4 it just completely fell apart for me and lessened the excellent tension and level of involvement it had managed to build up beforehand.

Things that bugged/puzzled me:

1) How do an assassin, a rival gang AND the FBI all manage to get into a nightclub (armed to the teeth) without the security even noticing until the bodies start hitting the floor?

2) That Felix+Foxx scene sucked. Pedro Allegro eh? ... oh please continue! :rolleyes:

3) How do 2 guys (esp Cruise considering his positioning) just walk away from a rolled car like that? Yeah it's hollywood I know .... but aren't Mann movies meant to feel 'realer' than your average thriller?

4) How does a clinical killer like Cruise manage to fire off an entire clip at point blank range at Foxx on the train and not manage to hit him even once?

Anyway, good performances by Cruise/Foxx. It's just a pity the film lost the run of itself towards the end.

Optikus

TBH.. i thought this was the second best film i've seen this year (SAW being the best!) as i already posted in the "what movie are you watching tonigh thread" .. its brilliant tom cruises best proformance ever. it gets into the action quick enough.. excellant dialogue.. some real good realistic shooting.. sheer class if you ask me.

Raoul Duke

Pigman II wrote:

It was a good (and even logical) film ... up to a point.

However once it gets onto to Assassination #4 it just completely fell apart for me and lessened the excellent tension and level of involvement it had managed to build up beforehand.

Things that bugged/puzzled me:

More or less my sentiments. Speaking of the nightclub scene - wasn't it amazing how many stupid people (seemed to be mainly women from memory) were rushing about around the shootings. Wouldn't you think they'd be running away? No, there they were, adding nicely to the chaos of course, running between the shooters.

If you are trying to create an air of realism you have to stick with it all the way. You can't resort back to Hollywoodism. It sticks out more as a sore thumb then than in an crap film from beginning to end.

ixoy

Raoul Duke wrote:

More or less my sentiments. Speaking of the nightclub scene - wasn't it amazing how many stupid people (seemed to be mainly women from memory) were rushing about around the shootings. Wouldn't you think they'd be running away? No, there they were, adding nicely to the chaos of course, running between the shooters.

I'm willing to allow that. Initially the loud Paul Oakenfield track drowned out the sound of gunshots. When people realized what was happening they panicked where you don't always think rationally. Additionally they didn't know always who was armed (there were a fair few) so, like dumb sheep that people often are, they milled about.

I'm less forgiving of after the club, as stated before....

Pigman II wrote:

no3) How do 2 guys (esp Cruise considering his positioning) just walk away from a rolled car like that? Yeah it's hollywood I kw .... but aren't Mann movies meant to feel 'realer' than your average

Agreed and

it does seem unrealistic given the air of the movie before. At the very least a couple of injuries would have been more satisfying, rather than the hell-bent chase sequence that did follow. It still feels to me that once the car flipped, a different set of writers took over, which also explains the bizarre shoot sequence at the end where Cruise doesn't land a bullet. The only way to explain that is his injuries have thrown him off balance but it still doesn't 100% wash...

Now I still thought it was a great movie by Hollywood standards this year, it's just a shame there's those niggling bits near the end...

Raoul Duke

ixoy wrote:

a different set of writers took over

Donald Kaufman maybe?

Pigman II

Raoul Duke wrote:

Donald Kaufman maybe?

Would make sense! Perhaps Foxx, Cruise and Pinketts characters were all the same person?