Collateral
Year: 2004
Grade: B+
Country: USA
Director: Mann
Reviewfor me every michael mann film i see from now on will be measured against “heat” because that’s clearly his best work, and a modern masterpiece. thought collateral doesn’t match up to heat, it is a solid rebound after the mostly uninspiring “ali.” jamie foxx and tom cruise essentially carry the film, for if it were not for there solid performances, the film would have been a bit flat. my biggest complaint about the film is the law enforcement aspect of it. in heat al pacino is the perfect counterweight to deniro’s crew. in this film, though, the cops aren’t nearly as sophisticated or played by the same caliber of actors. the film needed some sort of device to squeeze the action that is occurring with foxx and cruise, and the police subplot was a sufficient tool towards that effect, but i didn’t feel that aspect of the film was executed as well as it should have been. about three quarters of the way through the film things get a little contrived and a bit conventional. some of the action and style seems a bit stock and un-mann like. however, mann quickly rights things by ditching the police, and refocusing the film’s attention on foxx/cruise.
andrew sarris comments that the (john) fordian hero knows why he is doing something, but not how to do it. the (howard) hawksian hero knows how to do what he is doing, but not why. and the (raoul) “walshian hero is less interested in the why or the how than in the what. he is always plunging into the unknown.” without getting into that broad statement too much here, i will say that jamie foxx represents the fordian hero and cruise represents the hawksian hero. it’s not just that cruise is eminently qualified as a killer in the film, it’s also the philosophical discussions the two have throughout the night. foxx certainly is a precise character, but to no avail. his proposed business hasn’t gotten off the ground, and he’s been driving as a cabbie “temporarily” for 12 years. foxx is clearly the ideologue who also happens to be inept in long-term life. cruise, though, is completely able in whatever he does – whether it be his profession as a hitman or posing as a lawyer or as a jazz connoisseur. but unlike foxx, he doesn’t have a driving force behind his capable mind and body. in this sense the film creates a great duo that is worth the price of admission alone.
the film’s style is also noteworthy. it struck me that in some ways michael mann may be the west coast version of martin scorsese. though i haven’t really thought about it in much depth the theory is supported by some minor points: mann’s films often feature urban protagonists who live outside of the mainstream, similar to scorsese’s work. in some of mann’s films the landscape becomes its own character, much in the way that the old neighborhood is itself a character in scorsese’s films. in this film two things struck me about the style. first was the filming method being used – it looked like a cross between video and dv, but better quality than either. it looked grainy, but not like a 16mm film, it was more of a digital grain. turns out he used hdtv cameras in the filming to achieve the look. i like the choice. sure he could have used dv or even film and had decent results, but the camera he used gives it a big budget quality (unlike 28 days later…) while maintaining a grainy, documentary look that supplements the feel. video does seem to have its aesthetic advantages from time to time. a lot of the exterior shots, particularly around the cab, were…not quite good looking, but somehow they had a unique style and visual impact. i can’t really describe it. some of it was the camera and some of it was the lenses he was using because there were a lot of shots that had an odd sort of deep focus or, conversely, a sharp focus on the foreground. i can’t really describe it, and i don’t know why i liked it (other than the simple fact that it was different) so i’ll just leave it at that.
early in the film he also has a lot of shots of LA which is similar to scorsese’s “taxi driver” which features voice-over and shots of the urban cesspool. with heat and collateral mann sold me on thinking he was from LA. in a lot of ways mann shoots LA better than tarantino shoots it in jackie brown. in those two films you really get a sense of the city, and the landscape comes more to the foreground than it does in most other films (probably because so many other films are shot on backlots anyway).
despite a couple of lapses the film is solid all-around and visually interesting. foxx and cruise both advance their careers – foxx by adding a third (ali and any given sunday being the other two) solid, serious film to his filmography; and cruise by showing (again – remember magnolia) that he can step outside of the good guy role.
interesting note: this film begins in an airport and ends on the railway; heat begins on a railway and ends in an airport. B+.
actually, forget my review this imdb.com review from donnyzona (Donnyzona@aol.com) is better:
“Cruise was excellent as VINCENT THE ASSASSIN!!! He was so ruthless and mean that you actually FORGOT he was TOM CRUISE!!! His hair was gray! They only strange part was when Cruise went to the NIGHT CLUB and pretty much took out anybody he wanted. I was surprised at that. The acting on Jamie Foxx’s part was almost as good as if Will Smith would have been cast. Jamie Foxx is a poor man’s Will Smith, but he’s still good. Hard to transition for this poor guy (from a comic to a ACTION STAR).
Anyway, the goods were delivered and the suspense NEVER LET UP. The ending was good but ended a little to strangely and no climax either.
Believe it or not, I rooted for Cruise the ENTIRE TIME.”
Watched in theater