I posted this after I saw "Collateral" in a theater awhile back:
Danger, danger, danger. Spoilers ahead.
Other than being perhaps a tiny bit too long, I found this movie very engaging.
If there’d been a narrator like Sgt. Joe Friday, it could have started just like an old TV “Dragnet.”
“This is the city.....Los Angeles, California. It’s always crowded here and busy by day, but, after darkness falls and folks reach their destinations and slip into a groove, the whole city relaxes. I work here, I’m a.......”
Taxi driver Max (Jamie Foxx) was totally within his comfort zone until hit man Vincent (Tom Cruise) flies into town for a quick night of bloody business and, needing ground transportation, hails his cab.
I’ve never been a big Tom Cruise fan, but he was very good.
I don’t believe, all things considered, I’ve ever seen him better or in a better role or in a better movie
Jamie Foxx (who’s from Terrell, Texas) was also very good.
I sure hope he had a good script to work with when he portrayed Ray Charles.
If he did, that should be a pretty cool movie.
I thought “Collateral” was, at selected times, as good as “Pulp Fiction” and it never, IMHO, dipped below the level of, say, “Die Hard.”
It’s an action movie with a little more character development and story than the average film in that genre offers, so maybe that’s why it seemed a little lengthy.
If so, the time taken was worth it.
I enjoyed it, especially for the five buck, senior citizen admission charge that I paid.
And I thought, now making a summary of sorts, how the City of Los Angeles and this movie each came off rather beautifully and well, because Foxx’s capable cab driving and Michael Mann’s efficient film direction both pointedly avoided any traffic jams and/or screenplay gridlocks, thus allowing the forceful character nailed by Tom to cinematically cruise the City of the Angels.
I do nitpickingly speculate that a climax involving the taxi might have been more satisfying than the undeniably serviceable ending we were given, which (by involving another type of public transportation) changed the intimate perspective of this flic.
Just my thought, it’s no biggie.
I’ll venture that moviegoers, in general, and fans of Cruise, Foxx and/or Mann, in particular, will happily pay full fare and enjoy this ride.
I thought that "Collateral" accounted for or explained all the turning points in it's story pretty well.
Anybody remember "Hombre" with Paul Newman and Richard Boone?
I thought "Collateral" had similar plot dynamics and character complexities to that fine 1967 Western movie.
And when "Hombre" came out, I recall thinking about comparisons between it and "Stagecoach," a 1939 John Wayne flic that has been remade at least once.
New plot devices and completely unique characters rarely appear in movies, just as real life seems to reprise itself over and again, if you pay attention for long enough.
The names, places and exact situations change around, but not always so much that you don't find some sameness in either the human experience or the films about it.
And I'll submit, that it's those differences, be they major or minor, occurring in the setup, playout and outcome that make life so interesting and, for me, some movies better than others.
IMHO, "Collateral" easily brought enough newness and excellence to the viewing screen to be worthy of high recommendation.
I wondered why this movie was named "Collateral" enough to look up that word in a dictionary.
The number one definition is "accompanying as secondary or subordinate" which is how Jamie Foxx's cabbie began his relationship with Cruise's hitman.
Or it could further be a reference about how Cruise and Foxx built up collateral interests and dependencies between one another as their relationship progressed.
Anyway, it's an interesting title.
The best movie I've seen recently is "Criminal," a rental with John C. Reilly, Diego Luna and Maggie Gyllenhaal.
I thought it was very good.
It's the remake of "Nine Queens," an interesting movie from Argentina.
Anyone seen "Criminal?"
Gig 'em, FAST FRED '65.
Before the world wide web, village idiots usually stayed in their own village.
[This message has been edited by FAST FRED (edited 5/2/2005 1:01p).]
