COLLATERAL
Product Description
A stipulate torpedo takes a taxi motorist warrant and orders him to expostulate him around so he can lift out his murders.Amazon.com
Collateral offers a shift of gait for Tom Cruise as a cruel stipulate killer, but that’s only one of most reasons to suggest this well-crafted thriller. It’s from Michael Mann, after all, and the director’s stellar lane jot down with crime thrillers (Thief, Manhunter, and generally Heat) guarantees a abounding multiple of smart plotting, well-drawn characters, and sharpening tension, commencement here when icy hit-man Vincent (Cruise) recruits taxi motorist Max (Jamie Foxx) to expostulate him by a nightly debate of Los Angeles, during that he will govern five people in a 10-hour spree. While Stuart Beattie’s screenplay skilfully combines insinuate impression investigate with tender bursts of movement (in gripping with Mann’s directorial trademark), Foxx does the most appropriate work of his career to date (between his glorious opening in Ali and his title-role showcase in Ray), and Cruise is fiercely credible as an ultra-disciplined sociopath. Jada Pinkett-Smith rises on top of the stipulations of a ancillary role, and Mann directs with the certainty of a master, branch L.A. in to a third vital impression (much as it was in the Mann-produced TV array Robbery Homicide Division). Collateral is a bit delayed at first, but as it develops pointed themes of fugitive dreams and lives on the edge, it shifts in to overdrive and races, with monumental precision, toward a nail-biting climax. –Jeff Shannon
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Michael Mann is out. Strike 1 was the Insider. Strike 2 was Ali. And this was Strike 3. The man can’t make movies. Heat was bad too.
Rating: 1 / 5
Collateral is a movie directed by Michael Mann (Ali, Heat) and starring Tom Cruise (Rain Man) and Jamie Foxx (Any Given Sunday). Looking at both actors’ resumes, I’ve realized that Tom Cruise hasn’t played a role of a villain for as long as one can remember. And Jamie Foxx hasn’t been recognized before for being a good actor, not even in a supporting role.
I understand that Cruise would want to play the role of a merciless cold blooded killer to expand his acting abilities. But honestly, the role of Vincent does not fit Tom Cruise’s character. The role would have been great for someone like Brad Pitt or, for an older generation, Al Pacino. Jamie Foxx does not fit in the entire picture, let alone the role of cab driver Max, a role that would have been perfect for somebody like Samuel Jackson. He delivers his lines like somebody reading off of a cue card. The scenes that are meant to be intense, like the scene when Vincent’s first victim comes falling out of the window and onto Max’s cab, become vague and dull with Foxx’s overacting and the loose dialogue.
Collateral could have been a very good movie if only the director and casting crew would have decided to hire different lead actors.
C-
Rating: 3 / 5
La peor pelicula de Tom Cruise, lo cual es mucho decir (cual ha sido buena?).
Rating: 1 / 5
Even though we havent seen this type of taxi-adventure-ride before, we sure have seen films failing despite a cool setting because of a very weak plot. Lots of them too.
“Collateral” has a solid premise to take off from, but the scriptwriter does a lousy job executing (pun intended) his job.
As a “too-bad-not-to-wear-shades” contract killer hires a cab in his route to deliver 5 very important hits in one long night weird twists start tangling up as the cab-driver and the killer find themselves all caught up in a fate game.
Sounds good? I thought so too which is why i ended up in the movie theater seeing this. But then, just as the problems begin for the hostage taken cab-driver so do those for the viewers.
Tom Cruise (playing the hitman) is not a bad cast for this per ce, he’s even given some above average dialogue to work with, but he’s also made into a walking cliche. Slick suit outfit, obligatory shades, able to use slang as well as namedrop I Ching and Buddhism all in a night’s work, hi-tech gadgets, bad-a** walking style, it all looks like he was ripped out of a manga strip and inserted into this movie.
The cab-driver, hmm, well, there we have an attempt to work away from the cliches which fails because it’s too rare a picture (and too awkward) to be believed: clean, punctual, orderly, a genius for the fastest route available (timed to the minute), philosophical, charming, among a variety of other virtues. Sounds like your average big-city cabbie to you? Didn’t think so. Far from even? Right on.
All this could’ve worked despite its clumsiness. As said above, the dialogue is not bad, there’s a couple of brilliant punchlines, the subtle humor is well mixed-in. Following par is the cinematography, the photography, and the direction. L.A is given a pretty smooth nocturnal look and the characters flow through the city streets in their cab effortlessly. There’s a maze but they are not hindered. It’s all charming really and this is quite undeniable. The setting is achieved in convincing manner.
But.
Yes, there is a a but, and perhaps predictably it’s the plot. Stretched so much you’ll think it’s about to snap any given moment and shatters will jump out of the screen, it undermines all and whatever good things “Collateral” has to offer. Stretched so much in fact, that at times i thought whether the scriptwriter was actually intending a very dark comedy but failed spectacularly to bring it across as such.
Giving away all the plot failures would obviously spoil it for those that havent seen the film (which might be a good thing actually) so I’ll sum it all up saying that when the supposedly big twist arrives towards the end of the film it’s so cheesy the screen almost turns yellow with holes. For the viewer who’s long past the impressionable stage, the plot cracks will become apparent within the very first half hour and will only increase dramatically as the film progresses. They are that obvious.
Which is a pity of course, because “Collateral” does have great potential written all over it especially because the idea behind it is very intriguing.
As has been proven though in the past, it becomes for once more apparent that no matter how good the rest of the components of a film are, if the script is not solid the whole construction starts crumbling right before your eyes. We’ve seen far too many such crumblings before to tolerate one more, havent we?
Rating: 2 / 5
This product bites the big one. Visually chaotic, the auditory equivalent of having your ears used for a public lavatory, and with a plot as crisp and distinct as a moldering roadkill carcass, “Collateral” is thoroughly sucky, despite Tom Cruise’s putative “best ever” performance.
Avoid this thing even if it’s free. Life is too short to waste any of it on such trash.
Rating: 2 / 5