Collateral, Directed by M. Mann

Collateral, starring Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx, is getting some kind of reviews in the US.

It seems Cruise might be a good actor after all; I’ve never really been convinced of it, myself.

I can’t wait to see this one. David Denby of the New Yorker says that of The Manchurian Candidate, The Bourne Supremacy, and Collateral the best is Collateral.

Directed by Michael Mann and based on a story by James Beattie*, it sounds as if Cruise’s Vincent may have had uncredited help from David Mamet, at least with establishing Vincent’s internal demons - and that’s saying a lot in my book.

It sounds as if the only real weakness in the film is its ending, which is sometimes a Mamet trait as well (Spanish Prisoner, for example, posits US Marshalls who are apparently omniscient, although that it could be argued - plausibly - that Mamet’s one consistent theme is that there exists some higher power everybody’s got to answer to in the end).

EDIT: Stuart Beattie, not James

I just saw it and I thought it was great. Wonderful warm performances from Jamie what’s his name and the chick, and a cold as ice performance from Cruise. Interesting change of pace for him I should think. Beautifuly shot. Fabulous soundtrack. Like most films of it’s kind however it generates far too much sympathy for the lead character who is basically just another sociopath with good groming. Still, I would definitely recommend this film.

My wife and I just went to see this new Tom Cruise film. I’m not normally a big Tom Cruise fan, but this film and his acting were absofuckinglutely amazing. The story idea was good, but nothing spectacular. What carried the whole film was Cruises portrayal of his assassin character and all the supporting actors. The scenes and music fit together like a work of art. This is the best film I’ve seen in a while. Definitely check it out in Taiwan.

I saw it and what I liked about it was that despite the predictable cliches, there was one cliche that it didn’t follow, thankfully, and that’s what I really appreciated about this film.

SPOILERS (highlight only if you want to see the spoiler below…)

[color=#DEE3E7]People who get killed in the movie stay dead with only the exception of Tom Cruise getting shot in the chest. It’s tedious seeing a movie knowing that the good guy or the bad guy will invariably get up after receiving what should have been the fatal shot and shooting or attacking his or her opponent by surprise (ooh big surprise.) or taking out some kind of revenge (see The Negotiator) after the bad guy thinks they’re dead. This time, the cop chasing Vincent gets shot and is presumed dead because of Jamie Foxx asking Cruise “Why did you have to kill him?” and the fact that we don’t see that guy again. Then the best part is Tom Cruise dies at the end, and while I was expecting him to get up one last time, he just slumps over and dies. Personally, I like it when the surprise is that there is no surprise. Not only did he die, but he died of the fatal wound he received earlier and nothing new. It made sense. I like sense. Unfortunately, this very cliche is what made audiences laugh at what should have been very touching scenes in House of the Flying Daggers. Perhaps Zhang Yimou could use a few tips from Michael Mann on how to do a death scene:

STOP MAKING THEM GET BACK UP!

But then I’m digressing.[/color]:slight_smile:

Anyways, I would recommend this film even if you don’t like Tom Cruise. You might find yourself pleased in spite of that.

I actually want to see this. Normally I find Tom Cruise wooden as an actorbut enjoyed him magnolia but then that had William Macy in it so it couldn’t fail with me. I tried to find a nightmarket copy as I don’t usually want to pay to see a cruise movie.

Watched it last week with the ‘movie club’ and it was great, including the good ending.

I had 2 problems with the end.

Hightlight below for spoiler kind of stuff.

I think Vincent would have killed that girl before Jamie Fox would have had a chance to shoot him (ie he had no trouble handling multiple attackers and shooters in that club) and I’m pretty sure that shoot out in the subway car would have ended up with either both of them severely injured, or just Jamie Fox dying (since we know Vincent was an Ace shot)

Other then that, I really dug the movie.

Did Mamet have anything to do with it? As usual, they shut the film down as the credits started to roll. Yes, I agree. Cruise has outdone himself. Still gonna miss out on that elusive nomination, but it is a really big step for him.

I like it when actors get to work with true artists such as Mamet. It really gets them on the true path. David Caruso is a good example of this. He sucked in his earlier films (First Blood, Thief of Hearts). I could always tell he was “acting”. But then he worked with Bobby D on Mad Dog and Glory. He has really become a watchable, interesting actor since then. Although, I really don’t think he is as tough as he talks. I could take him.

If Cruise did indeed work with Mamet, watch for more brilliance from him. Truth be told, I didn’t see Tom Cruise in this movie. It’s the first of his films where I didn’t see him. I saw Vincent. Likewise, Jamie Foxx was deliciously under-stated. A real growth film for him too. I really have been enjoying Foxx’s work as of late. He was perfect in Any Given Sunday and as Mohommed Ali’s boozing womanizing buddy in Ali, he was fantastic.

ToeCritiques

I had 2 problems with the end.

Hightlight below for spoiler kind of stuff.

I think Vincent would have killed that girl before Jamie Fox would have had a chance to shoot him (ie he had no trouble handling multiple attackers and shooters in that club) and I’m pretty sure that shoot out in the subway car would have ended up with either both of them severely injured, or just Jamie Fox dying (since we know Vincent was an Ace shot)

Other then that, I really dug the movie.[/quote]

miltown, I totally agree with you. I guess one would need a brief suspension of disbelief (unlike the long-term one you need in order to swallow all the b.s. Zhang Yimou sprays your way with House of Flying Daggers). The beginning reminded me of the Anton Chekhov quote “If a gun is on the mantle in the first act, it must go off by the third.” Despite the predictability, the parts that did not follow typical Hollywood cliche is what this movie stand out above most others of its genre.

A response to ImaniOU’s spoiler:

You said that Vincent died because of an earlier fatal wound. My parents said the same thing and thought it was silly that Vincent was able to chase them onto the train. When I saw the movie, my immediate interpretation of what happened was that the taxi driver just got lucky when he shot through the train door. I don’t recall Vincent being shot in the chest before the train scene. I went back and watched it on DVD and can’t find anywhere where Vincent received a fatal wound before the very end. At what point in the movie do you think he was hit? The only gunshot wound I recall him receiving was when he was hit in the ear/head in the US Attorney’s office. Have I missed something?

[quote=“Jive Turkey”]A response to ImaniOU’s spoiler:

You said that Vincent died because of an earlier fatal wound. My parents said the same thing and thought it was silly that Vincent was able to chase them onto the train. When I saw the movie, my immediate interpretation of what happened was that the taxi driver just got lucky when he shot through the train door. I don’t recall Vincent being shot in the chest before the train scene. I went back and watched it on DVD and can’t find anywhere where Vincent received a fatal wound before the very end. At what point in the movie do you think he was hit? The only gunshot wound I recall him receiving was when he was hit in the ear/head in the US Attorney’s office. Have I missed something?

I agree with you. It was one of the thing I didn’t like about the end.