Collateral (2004)

500 character mini-reviews cramping your style? Share your thoughts in full in this forum!
ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Collateral (2004)

Post by ShogunRua »

With most pictures I despise, I nevertheless understand how and why others liked it. Yes, Donnie Darko was nonsensical, boring, and pretentious, riddled with silly plot holes and an odious protagonist, but it successfully tapped into the teenage angst of countless idiots while presenting some genuinely weird and beautiful shots, along with a couple of neat 80s music videos.

But every so often, an awful movie comes along that I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how anyone liked. Or, if they liked it, why not a few dozen widely reviled pictures?

Collateral is one such movie. It's about a LA taxi driver that, against his will, drives around a professional killer to multiple hits during the course of a single night.

The idiocy begins in the first few frames. It's revealed that cab driver Max is black, which I had a good laugh at. See, I lived in LA County for 4 years and took multiple taxi rides during that time. The overwhelming majority of cab drivers were Armenian. Occasionally, one would get a Russian, Indian, or Hispanic driver. Once, I even had a Mongolian driver that told me about eating horse and wolf meat. And most shockingly of all, one cabbie was an American white guy.

But a black taxi driver? Never. They simply don't exist in LA. Had the film taken place in Las Vegas or New York, the race of its protagonist would be believable. But not in LA.

The first 10 to 15 minutes are primarily used to establish that Max is a swell guy, as he knows how long it takes to get to a location down to the minute (a skill no cabbie has ever possessed), and willingly takes faster routes despite losing out slightly on the fare. (This does actually happen, but it's basic business sense to get to a new fare quicker, not generosity) He meets a single young black female DA, a species that I am sure is every bit as fictional.

Speaking of Max, he is played poorly by Jamie Foxx. I'm continually baffled by how Foxx gets cast in non-comedic roles. He almost single-handedly ruined "Django Unchained", and was barely better 8 years earlier in this movie. Foxx plays "generic, slightly wimpy nice guy", except for when when the script inexplicably needs him to be tough and capable. He does the latter type with zero transition from the former, as if there is an on and off switch on the back of his neck.

The plot finally begins when hitman Tom Cruise hires Foxx to drive him around. Why would a hitman ever use a taxi? It's one more person that can tie him to the scene of a crime, even if said driver doesn't directly witness the killings. And if he does, that's one additional adversary that he has to kill, and who can escape, crash the car, or run him over. It's the kind of stupidity I would expect in a Leslie Nielsen action spoof, not in a Michael Mann picture that takes itself as seriously as cancer.

What follows is a comedy of idiocy and plot holes. Cruise tells Foxx to park right next to the location of a hit. For some reason, he has to kill 5 people in a single night, which has to be some kind of hitman record. Cruise decides that riding around in a taxi with a smashed windshield isn't conspicuous at all, and easier than killing Foxx, driving the car to a remote location, and abandoning it. Foxx has an opportunity to escape by signaling to the two cops inspecting the car and then dropping to the floor (after all, the glass in a taxi is bullet-proof). Which he doesn't do.

Foxx then gets mugged by a group of white guys, the main ethnic scourge of Los Angeles. Cruise goes into a jazz lounge with dozens of people, tells the waitress he needs to speak with the owner, then kills said owner while various witnesses slink around in the background. He doesn't bother with either the waitress or anyone else. It's also safe to assume that like every lounge/bar/club in LA, this one had security footage. Cruise doesn't care about that, either.

Then the hitman goes to meet Foxx's mother, ostensibly not to arouse suspicion, a point so insanely stupid I burst out laughing. In the process, he reveals himself to dozens of other witnesses and a fresh series of security cameras.

Matters become even more absurd when Foxx destroys Cruise's laptop, and the latter forces the cabbie to talk to his employer while posing as the hitman to get a replacement USB drive. Apparently, the same hitman who has just been witnessed killing a man by countless witnesses is so secretive that not even his employer has any clue what he looks like!

While this already beggars beliefs, his employer doesn't even know whether he's black or white, which seems too silly for even "The Naked Gun"!

During the meeting, the mob boss is at no point surprised that his hitman has revealed himself for the first time in his long career, or that he's a scared wimp. But of course, at the crucial moment, Foxx curses and threatens physical violence, which totally persuades the mob boss that he is legitimate.

The fourth hit occurs in a club with literally HUNDREDS of people and dozens of police officers. Cruise just doesn't give a fuck.

Despite successfully killing all four witnesses in a case against the mob boss, Cruise has one last hit left, who is (of course!) the unicorn-like DA we met at the beginning of the movie. If you didn't figure this out 30 minutes into the picture, I feel sorry for you.

Of course, it makes zero sense; why kill a DA when all her witnesses are gone and she has no case? It makes even less sense when one realizes that a DA can easily be replaced by countless prosecuting attorneys waiting in the wings, some of whom might even be better.

Before this can happen, Jamie Foxx crashes the car going at a solid 70+ mph. At one point right before this, he is driving straight down a completely empty road. A perfect opportunity for Cruise to shoot him in the head and then quickly grab the steering wheel, avoiding a crash. One which he doesn't take. Of course.

Despite a catastrophic accident that leaves the car flipped over and totaled, both hitman and Foxx run out of the car none the worse for wear. No comas. No broken bones. No concussions. Not even any limping! In fact, Foxx is so refreshed that as a common cabbie, he easily overpowers a police officer pointing a gun at him!

I won't go into the retardation that is the conclusion, except to mention how funny I found it that blood dries within 10 minutes for every character in the film, even if it's coming from a grievous gunshot wound to the side of the face. X-Men's Wolverine should be jealous of these guys; their platelets are at least 10,000 times faster than those of any ordinary human being.

Look, it's bad enough when a thoroughly idiotic action film treats itself dead seriously, instead of being humorous about it. But it's even worse when, like Collateral, it's so damn boring.

There is way more pseudo-philosophical exposition between Foxx and Cruise than there is action, and what few action scenes there are suck.

What's the best thing about "Collateral"? Tom Cruise. An actor who I despise so much I nicknamed him "Rat Boy". And that's not to say he did a convincing job playing a hitman. He didn't. Instead, he played his usual charismatic, mailed-in, stock character. Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise. When that's the best thing a film has going for it, it's truly atrocious.

What baffles me with is how many people liked this. And if they liked it, why aren't otherwise unremarkable hitman movies like "The Eiger Sanction" and original version of "The Mechanic" considered masterpieces? A true mystery.

If you haven't seen "Collateral" yet, avoid this shit like a plague.

21/100

mattorama12
Posts: 887
3086 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:05 am

Re: Collateral (2004)

Post by mattorama12 »

ShogunRua wrote: The idiocy begins in the first few frames. It's revealed that cab driver Max is black, which I had a good laugh at. See, I lived in LA County for 4 years and took multiple taxi rides during that time. The overwhelming majority of cab drivers were Armenian. Occasionally, one would get a Russian, Indian, or Hispanic driver. Once, I even had a Mongolian driver that told me about eating horse and wolf meat. And most shockingly of all, one cabbie was an American white guy.

But a black taxi driver? Never. They simply don't exist in LA. Had the film taken place in Las Vegas or New York, the race of its protagonist would be believable. But not in LA.


You're 100% right on this count.

ShogunRua wrote: He meets a single young black female DA, a species that I am sure is every bit as fictional.


Wrong on this count (I'm a lawyer).

ShogunRua wrote:It's one more person that can tie him to the scene of a crime, even if said driver doesn't directly witness the killings. And if he does, that's one additional adversary that he has to kill, and who can escape, crash the car, or run him over. It's the kind of stupidity I would expect in a Leslie Nielsen action spoof, not in a Michael Mann picture that takes itself as seriously as cancer.


It seems your main problem with the movie is the horribly contrived plot. It's certainly stupid. But lots of movies have big plot holes. In my book, that will automatically knock it off the "masterpiece" mantle, but you can still make a good movie with plot holes, even one with a faulty basic premise.

What I really liked about Collateral (and I didn't love it as much as many on this site--it's in my T6) is that it is beautifully shot. Especially for somebody who loves LA, the beautiful framing of the nighttime cityscape in nearly every scene was enough to make it watchable alone. On top of that, the action scenes are well-shot. You get a sense of space (which way, way too many action movies these days are sorely lacking). You get to see Tom Cruise acting a general badass. I'm no fan of him personally, but I think he's a bone fide movie star and he does a great job here. Does he play himself? Absolutely. But, you won't see me complain about that.

Anyway, I agree that the plot was horrible, but I don't think the movie was terrible. It was a decent action movie and it was filmed really beautifully. In fact, I just remembered that the last time I watched part of this movie, it was on tv while my roommate and I were drinking and getting ready to go out. We were listening to music, but had this on just to look at, which was beautiful.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Collateral (2004)

Post by ShogunRua »

mattorama12 wrote:
ShogunRua wrote: He meets a single young black female DA, a species that I am sure is every bit as fictional.


Wrong on this count (I'm a lawyer).


Well, I stand corrected!

mattorama wrote:It seems your main problem with the movie is the horribly contrived plot. It's certainly stupid. But lots of movies have big plot holes.


It's not my main problem. I spent the vast majority of my review pointing out how dumb the movie was, but only because the film took itself so seriously. Had it instead been humorous about its premise, I wouldn't have treated it seriously, either. Films can get away with being stupid so long as they're pure entertainment, and don't take themselves seriously. (Look at comedies) But when a thoroughly moronic film presents itself in a dark and gritty style, it becomes laughable, pretentious crap.

Moreover, as I mentioned near the end, even if one ignores the idiocy, there is more exposition and pseudo-philosophical rambling than genuine action in "Collateral". And what few action scenes we do get are quite poor.

mattorama12 wrote:What I really liked about Collateral (and I didn't love it as much as many on this site--it's in my T6) is that it is beautifully shot. Especially for somebody who loves LA, the beautiful framing of the nighttime cityscape in nearly every scene was enough to make it watchable alone.


I agree. The city is indeed well-shot. However, some nice views of LA don't do much for me when the rest of a film is garbage.

mattorama12 wrote:On top of that, the action scenes are well-shot. You get a sense of space (which way, way too many action movies these days are sorely lacking).


I can't even tell how well-shot most action scenes are, since the choreography is generally boring and uninspired. The one scene I have a definite opinion on is the fight in the club; it was shot very poorly.

mattorama12 wrote:You get to see Tom Cruise acting a general badass. I'm no fan of him personally, but I think he's a bone fide movie star and he does a great job here. Does he play himself? Absolutely. But, you won't see me complain about that.


I've probably been spoiled when it comes to action film villains, but a completely unrealistic hitman whose sole saving grace is being charismatic doesn't do much for me. Perhaps if he was funny, but the film eschewed that route. After all, they had such a serious plot.

snallygaster
Posts: 560
1646 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:15 pm

Re: Collateral (2004)

Post by snallygaster »

I don't remember a whole lot about the movie other than thinking it wasn't bad (well, it's in my T3, so not too good either), but may I take this opportunity to rant about one scene I do remember vividly, which pissed me off to no end and sticks in my craw to this day?

Tom Cruise walks into the jazz club where there's a live band on stage, and Miles Davis's "Spanish Key" is playing. Normally I'd say the band was playing "Spanish Key", except that they're not -- the soundtrack we're hearing comes straight from the original Miles Davis album. I can't believe that they couldn't even bother recording a bit of original audio for this scene; LA is surely overflowing with any number of session musicians and working jazz bands who could lay down a performance of Spanish Key, or something in the same style, pretty much on command. Instead they used a clip from one of the best-selling jazz albums of all time. If it were a rock or pop song, it wouldn't be such a big deal, but no jazz fan and certainly no jazz musician is going to accept a note-for-note performance of anything; the whole point is that it's improvised music (a fact which the characters, ironically, allude to several times).
Not to mention, the instrumentation on the recording doesn't at all match the band on stage in the movie.
Okay, jazz is essentially a niche genre and the average moviegoer won't recognize the song or care one way or the other. But how about putting an iota of effort into not insulting those who do?
Cut to Tom Cruise and the trumpeter talking after the performance. The musician tells Cruise about the time he met & played with Miles himself, back in the 60s. He seems to know a lot about Miles, but then again he's probably been telling this story every Saturday night for the past 40 years, so maybe he's just well-practiced. Cruise reveals that he's here to kill the guy, but offers him an out: If he can answer a trivia question about Miles Davis, Cruise will let him live. The musician comments that he knows everything about Miles Davis, and he'll have no problem answering the question.
The writer here, of course, is setting up that classic trope where the guy who we'd expect to know gives the most obvious or commonly-believed (but incorrect) response but is bested by the amateur who gives an obscure or surprising (but correct) response.
The question: Where did Miles learn to play? The musician answers that he learned at Juilliard. Cruise shoots him and explains that Davis dropped out of Juilliard to join Charlie Parker's band. Wait, what? Cruise is correct, but find me anybody moderately informed about jazz who doesn't know that Miles' early career was spent in Parker's band, or who thinks that he learned to play mainly at Juilliard, and I'll eat my pork pie hat. Not to mention that Davis was already playing professionally before either event, but that's beside the point. The way the scene plays out makes no sense.
Again, for the majority of the audience it doesn't matter what the specific facts are in this scene; it works regardless because they don't know. But why write it in a way that requires people to not know, lest they be annoyed?

Anyway, it's a minor point but it's funny how little things like this can sometimes turn out to be the one lasting memory one has of a movie.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Collateral (2004)

Post by ShogunRua »

snallygaster wrote:I don't remember a whole lot about the movie other than thinking it wasn't bad (well, it's in my T3, so not too good either), but may I take this opportunity to rant about one scene I do remember vividly, which pissed me off to no end and sticks in my craw to this day?


Of course.

snallygaster wrote:Jazz


Excellent post. I had more fun reading it than I had watching any part of Collateral.

And I completely agree; the devil is in the details. I was unaffected by that scene because I am ignorant about jazz, but when something I am knowledgeable about gets butchered by a movie or TV series, it's annoying as hell and greatly lessen's one's enjoyment, no matter how minor the reference was. And in this case, the reference constituted a major scene in the movie.

On the flip side, when the show or movie accurately presents a reference, it's a very memorable, cool viewing experience.

I'm not really shocked they fucked up the jazz club scene, though. That would require some degree of effort and research, whereas the whole picture felt very mailed in and by the numbers.

mattorama12
Posts: 887
3086 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:05 am

Re: Collateral (2004)

Post by mattorama12 »

snallygaster wrote:The question: Where did Miles learn to play? The musician answers that he learned at Juilliard. Cruise shoots him and explains that Davis dropped out of Juilliard to join Charlie Parker's band. Wait, what? Cruise is correct, but find me anybody moderately informed about jazz who doesn't know that Miles' early career was spent in Parker's band, or who thinks that he learned to play mainly at Juilliard, and I'll eat my pork pie hat. Not to mention that Davis was already playing professionally before either event, but that's beside the point. The way the scene plays out makes no sense.
Again, for the majority of the audience it doesn't matter what the specific facts are in this scene; it works regardless because they don't know. But why write it in a way that requires people to not know, lest they be annoyed?


Funny, I had totally forgotten about that until you mentioned it. Now, I don't know a thing about Jazz or Miles Davis' career, but I distinctly remember thinking that was dumb anyway. It seems obvious that anybody who knew he went to Juilliard would also know that he dropped out. I didn't even know whether it was all true or not, just seemed dumb to me. It looks like we can all agree that the script was not the movie's strong point...

Post Reply