Anyone seen it yet? Anyone intend to? For a week or two last month, I was basically living at the theatre and thus got bombarded with traliers for it and while it looked only vaguely interesting at first, the more I saw of it, the more interested I got until now I’m thinking about watching it sometime tonight, after I get off of work.
It’s running a 91% at Rotten Tomatoes, which is higher than just about any other big-ticket Hollywood film (except Spidey 2, which has a 93%). Michael Mann’s a terrific director, so I know I’ll be seeing it when I get a chance.
I saw it today at 1pm (not exactly by choice, we had originally planned to see Garden State but didn’t realize until today that it wasn’t opening in our city yet).
Pretty good movie, very dark, with periods of some good thrills, especially the ending. Jamie Foxx takes the cake here, but only because Tom Cruise has a pretty much one-note character (and I thought Cruise did a good job as a bad guy).
There were plenty of times where it had quite the “artistic” sense to it, lots of bright color (which is strange, being that the whole thing takes place at night) and odd angles.
Although the ending is somewhat “Hollywood-ish”, I really enjoyed how brutal the rest of it was. Stark, not overly glorified violence, but unexpected and harsh. Especially when the cop gets whacked at the end. I didn’t see that coming at all, at it was totally matter-of-fact too, they didn’t linger on it or anything. Guy just walks out the door, gets nailed, and the movie moves on.
Note that there are some rather unconvincing “coincidences”, some plot points seemed contrived.
But - well worth my matinee movie. In fact, I’d probably rent it on DVD in a year or so, and I almost never re-watch movies.
I just went to see it last night with my boyfriend. I wouldn’t have gone to see it if it was just me, but it was his pick. I’m glad I went. It was really really good. I expected it to be a dumb shoot-em-up flick but it wasn’t in the least. I’m not a big Tom Cruise fan, but I’ve never seen him play a character like this and I was impressed. I was REALLY impressed by Jamie Foxx, though. I’ve never seen him in a dramatic role (has he ever been in one?), and he had me sold on his character.
So whoever’s reading this: go see it.
I thought it was a stylish and entertaining thriller. Disappointed with the ending, though:
It looked to me like they were setting us up to have Jamie Foxx’s character framed as the killer. The cop was the only person who believed the cabbie wasn’t the killer and the cop got whacked (which I thought was to set up such an ending). To me, it would have been more interesting if Cruise’s character had completed his mission and vanished into the night leaving Foxx to take the rap.
I saw it this weekend and really enjoyed it. Several parts where I laughed out loud. Cruise did an excellent job, and Fox was superb. I definitely recommend it.
I was very impressed by Foxx too. He had at least one previous dramatic role, as the hotshot rookie quarterback in Oliver Stone’s Any Given Sunday.
I forgot I started this thread but found it on a vanity search.
Anyway, I saw the film on Sunday and I really enjoyed it. It wasn’t an over the top action flick nor did it try to be too cerebral… it was just a slice of life about a hitman and a cabbie and I loved it. Cruise and Foxx both impressed me with their departures from their typical characters and should be recognized for it. Foxx, to show he can do dramatic roles (although “Ray” looks like it will establish that moreso than this) and Cruise because he still has so many detractors crying about everything from his looks to his height.
I think I might go watch it again when it hits the second-run theatres.
I just saw the movie today and I went in sort of unsure about the whole thing. I wasn’t sure if I’d buy Cruise as a hitman and I wasn’t confident in jamie foxx’s ability to act quite frankly. I was wrong on both accounts.
The camera work added a lot to the movie in my opinion. It actually helped tell the story on a few occasions. The movie didn’t have anything unnecessary and they didn’t do something silly with the ending like have cruise live instead of die and have him wearing a bulletproof vest and walk out of the train alive. Unless I left the theatre too early of course…
Vincent and Max were good and interesting characters with enough to both of them to keep me intersted. Me being a Tom Cruise fan, I was impressed that in the end I wanted Jamie Foxx to come out in front. I did think Vincent was a good Villain and not completely evil. A littlle likeable actually. If I can borrow something from Gross Pointe Blank, he just has a certain moral flexibility.
The beginning with Jada Pinkett Smith was just the right length. She walked into the building exactly the time I thought to myself that this scene had worn out her welcome. I liked, also, that we learned something about her as well (i.e. how she prepared for trial). It didn’t bother me that the ending (as far as the 5th person vincent is supposed to kill) was a little bit predictable because the movie wasn’t really about fooling us. It is more important that Max doesn’t figure it out before it’s time. I think it is believable that he wouldn’t.
I thought the club scene was well put together and it was by far my favorite. I was sure Ruffalo’s character would have a different ending, that surprised me and I was happy with the surprise.
I also liked how they handled the violence and what I liked about it was pretty much the same as what rexnervous said so I won’t bother repeating it.
Overall, very enjoyable. So yeah, there’s my rather disjointed and somewhat amateur review of Collateral.
I gave COLLATERAL 7 out of 10 in my own movie rating system. I liked Cruise and Foxx a lot but thought the hunt for the fifth victim was way too obvious and the scenes at the Fever nightclub were way too drawn out (and too blue). Seemed to me that a body falling onto a taxi from four floors up would have done more damage. Also thought there was very little traffic in LA that night. I thought it was one of those cities that never sleeps. Had no clue that the detective was Mark Ruffalo until I read the credits at the end. Props to him! Definitely a movie worth seeing, however.
Actually, that’s one of the reasons I liked the movie the most. I admit, I’m no expert on LA. I’ve lived in So Cal for 3 years, but I rarely venture into the Big City. However, this is the first movie that’s matched my expectations and experiences of LA. Traffic does thin at night…except around the Staples Center… The conversation he has with Annie at the beginning? About taking the 105 to the 110…yeah, it scared me that I understood the whole thing. I commented to my husband that maybe we’ve been down here too long…
[spoiler]
I thought they were setting up Max to kill both of them in a spectacular car crash. I kinda wish they had. I don’t like long, drawn out chase scenes at the end of the movies. Why did they have to go through the Metro? Why couldn’t Vincent die in the library when he was shot in the head? That ending would have worked for me, and would have continued with the matter-of-fact view of violence. Yeah, it would have been a lucky shot, but then, wasn’t the whole night about all the unexpected fucked up shit Max went through? Why couldn’t he pull off a lucky shot? No reason.
That’s really my only complaint. maybe I’m just impatient. maybe it’s just because I really had to pee. Either way, the final chase didn’t do anything for me. [/spoiler]
Loved all the actors, the directing, the cinematography. I liked it a lot more than I expected to.
Vincent had to die in the Metro to bring the story round full circle to his distasteful opinion of Los Angeles as a place where people didn’t connect. Remember, he told the story of the man who had gotten on the Metro and died and wasn’t discovered as being dead until 6 hours later. People had gotten on and off the car, sat near him, etc., and simply weren’t aware. So one is left to assume that that’s exactly what’s going to happen to Vincent. . . who was so detached himself that he considered killing people for money “just a job.”
annieclaus
Oh, I got the point of it. I just don’t like protracted endings that are supposed to be suspenseful but just annoy me.
My wife and I just saw the movie tonight; we both are glad. It was excellent – kind of an action movie, but with realistic and meaningful character reactions. The human growth was just as important as the thrills were.
I didn’t guess who the fifth victim was going to be, but I never see stuff like that, even if it is obvious to all you smart people. My wife figured it out.
The hit on the US Attorney was a plot hole. No criminal would ordera hit on a prosecuter like that. What would be the point? If she died, they could have someone take her place in a matter of days. It was especially stupid seeing as how all the witnesses the case would built on were already dead.
Just saw it tonight and searched for this thread. I liked the movie, and am left with a queasy stomach, not because of the violence but because of Vincent’s dark, cold, inhuman, yet attractive character. It’s the attractiveness that disturbs me.
Question (not a spoiler): What was Vincent doing in the federal courthouse at the start of the movie?
I liked that the cop mentioned the similar case in Oakland, where the cab driver had been found dead. I knew there was no hope for Max, so I could relax and not worry myself about whether Vincent would let him go when the job was over.
I think he was looking for Jada Pinkett Smith but didn’t find her so put her off until the end. That was my interpretation, at least.
Sorry to revive. It’s the only thread I found, and I finally saw it on DVD.
I’d been eagerly anticipating it, and for a while it did not let me down. The opening scenes were slow-paced, but interesting, moody, cool.
Then, not knowing what Cruise’s story kept you interested. Perhaps he could have kept the suspense going a little longer by not having the FIRST guy killed land on the cab, but that’s nitpicky.
What I really didn’t like was when it got real Hollywood. Probably starting with the dance club scene where Cruise kills his way through a crowd without anyone noticing, and then takes out about 8 other giant armed men.
Then, they killed Ruffalo. He was the major element that gave the action some rerflection. Without him, it’s just cat-and-mouse.
And, then, the cat-and-mouse got bad. Jamie Foxx disarms a cop, watches the action on the 16th floor unfold from a parking garage. Then, when he finally makes it to the subway, Cruise hitches on to the back of it with the old “magic edit” – he’s standing one floor up as the train is pulling out, quick cut, he’s latching onto the back of it. AND THEN, was somehow in front of Foxx and Smith on the trains.
It just got so sloppy and normal at the end. Like Mann gave up.
Still, I thought Foxx and Cruise were interesting enough characters to hang with it. The movie was a ‘9’ for the first 3/4, a ‘5’ – at best – for the last 1/4.
Didn’t catch those! But I did note several shots of an unwounded Cruise chasing them through the subways shortly after getting shot in the shoulder. (Foxx did get him on the rooftop, didn’t he? I’m almost positive.)
All in all, I was pretty pleased with Collateral. The script was imaginative enough, and Cruise was more than tolerable as the baddie. (Generally feel TC earns a grade of tolerable or non- when not flat-out bad.)
“Non-tolerable”? :smack: Perhaps intolerable was the exotic adjective I was looking for.
And if someone’s perf. is intolerable, that kind of assumes “flat-out bad,” dunnit?
Please disregard any future contributions from this Doper for the remainder of the day. . .