Collateral

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Spoilers within

 

Finish:

 

To arrive at or attain the end of: finish a race.

To bring to an end; terminate: finished cleaning the room.

To consume all of; use up: finish a pie.

To bring to a desired or required state: finish a painting. See Synonyms at complete.

To give (wood, for example) a desired or particular surface texture.

To destroy; kill: finished the injured horse with a bullet.

To bring about the ruin of: The stock market crash finished many speculators

 

The comment (which I thought would be obvious by my use of "shiny" and "raw" and how I put it in relation to "no special effects", but don't let that stop you from making the same comment you've made TWICE BEFORE IN THIS THREAD) was in relation to its visuals, not it's content. But since you seem intent on driving the point home that you did not like the last 20 minutes, I'll bite.

 

You don't get it.

 

Here's what I wrote on another board...

 

The plot is basic and standard hollywood fare. The story is brilliant and unique. There is a lot of depth to Collateral that isn't getting it's due and isn't shown in the trailers. Acting-wise, Cruise and Foxx are great. Technically, the Visuals and Music are fantastic. But the subtext and how Mann weaves things together is what really made the film great for me.

 

You are seeing the plot and are missing the story.

 

Thematically, the subway scene fits perfectly. You don't have to like it, but to say it's cliched when there is rich depth in it just shows your lack of understanding the core of the film.

 

Themes that I picked up on.

 

Eyes. Sight. Visual. We look but we don't see. We're too wrapped up in our own shit to see what's going on around us. The world could be ending - people could be dying around us - but we're too selfish to see it. We're too enveloped in our every day routine to step outside that routine and see what's really going on. There is a reason why the first few minutes is focused on Max "doing his thing"; there is a reason why the cops were clueless but Mark Ruffalo wasn't; there is a reason why the film ends on a subway train rather than in a taxi cab. Vincent justifying his job and asking Max if he cared about Rawanda, as well as his story of someone dying in a subway, is what this film is all about. It doesn't matter until it happens to you. It isn't there until you see it.

 

Vincent cutting out the power, Max on the rooftop looking into the building, the subway scene - all are reflective of this theme. Vincent dying on the subway is definitely part of this theme and it gives weight to everything I'm saying. Vincent knows about sight and Max is starting to see. The fact that he wears eyeglasses and Vincent wears sunglasses is probably no coincidence. That there is a glass wall between Max and Vincent and we saw the wonderful shot of Cruise looking out from behind him is probably no coincidence. That when Foxx and Pinkett were running away and Vincent had to "look" to "see" where they were going and ultimately ended up finding them is probably no coincidence. That Max and Vincent found themselves shooting at each other through the glass and the dark is probably no coincidence. That Vincents eyes told the story of his death was probably no coincidence and that the film ended with a period of darkness is probably no coincidence. But I suppose this is all still very "cliched"; because this depth is normally found in films today.

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

Spoilers within

 

Finish:

 

To arrive at or attain the end of: finish a race.

To bring to an end; terminate: finished cleaning the room.

To consume all of; use up: finish a pie.

To bring to a desired or required state: finish a painting. See Synonyms at complete.

To give (wood, for example) a desired or particular surface texture.

To destroy; kill: finished the injured horse with a bullet.

To bring about the ruin of: The stock market crash finished many speculators

 

The comment (which I thought would be obvious by my use of "shiny" and "raw" and how I put it in relation to "no special effects", but don't let that stop you from making the same comment you've made TWICE BEFORE IN THIS THREAD) was in relation to its visuals, not it's content. But since you seem intent on driving the point home that you did not like the last 20 minutes, I'll bite.

 

You don't get it.

 

Here's what I wrote on another board...

 

The plot is basic and standard hollywood fare. The story is brilliant and unique. There is a lot of depth to Collateral that isn't getting it's due and isn't shown in the trailers. Acting-wise, Cruise and Foxx are great. Technically, the Visuals and Music are fantastic. But the subtext and how Mann weaves things together is what really made the film great for me.

 

You are seeing the plot and are missing the story.

 

Thematically, the subway scene fits perfectly. You don't have to like it, but to say it's cliched when there is rich depth in it just shows your lack of understanding the core of the film.

 

Themes that I picked up on.

 

Eyes. Sight. Visual. We look but we don't see. We're too wrapped up in our own shit to see what's going on around us. The world could be ending - people could be dying around us - but we're too selfish to see it.

 

Vincent cutting out the power, Max on the rooftop looking into the building, the subway scene - all are reflective of this theme. Vincent dying on the subway is definitely part of this theme and it gives weight to everything I'm saying. Vincent knows about sight and Max is starting to see. The fact that he wears eyeglasses and Vincent wears sunglasses is probably no coincidence. That there is a glass wall between Max and Vincent and we saw the wonderful shot of Cruise looking out from behind him is probably no coincidence. That when Foxx and Pinkett were running away and Vincent had to "look" to "see" where they were going and ultimately ended up finding them is probably no coincidence. That Max and Vincent found themselves shooting at each other through the glass and the dark is probably no coincidence. That Vincents eyes told the story of his death was probably no coincidence and that the film ended with a period of darkness is probably no coincidence. But I suppose this is all still very "cliched"; because this depth is normally found in films today.

I mistook your raw comment, if you're talking about the visuals then I completely agree.

 

The actual death I have no problem with but the chase leading up to it and the damsel in distress thing is what annoys me. I can see all the subtext you read into it(and I do agree on:

 

"Eyes. Sight. Visual. We look but we don't see. We're too wrapped up in our own shit to see what's going on around us. The world could be ending - people could be dying around us - but we're too selfish to see it."

 

as being a primary theme) but that does not change the fact that once Foxx crashes the cab the a movie which had played out as a character study to that point(with some shooting in it) turns into the Hitcher Redux. I enjoyed the slow burn as Maxx started to finally come out of his shell but no way do I buy, at that point of time, Maxx attacking a cop. His character has evolved but not to that point. Maybe it doesn't compare to some of your subtext but character leaps like that go far in damaging my view on a movie that had been damn near perfect to that point.

 

Some of your subtext I think you're digging too deeply into. I see your point on some of it but other things(the camera view of Vincent behind Maxx) are simply Mann doing what he does best. I don't think the subtext you are suggesting was implied there, nor when Vincent cuts the lights.

 

I was also disappointed to seeing such an typical ending to the Maxx/Vincent relationship. I was hoping to expand upon their eventual confrontation with Maxx's nervousness and fear of action coming more into play since that can't just disappear that fast even with the Felix meeting, then maybe play that into the ending.

 

I'll be interested to read your last part of your review where you talk about the plot and whatever else.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I can't stop the way you feel. I can't make you believe that Maxx could beat up a cop, even if I believe it and think it's "true" to the internal logic of the film. I can, however, tell you that it's not cliched and that the last 20 minutes of the film makes perfect sense and "worked". I will do that in my final write up for the film.

[DMann2003 0]

Just got back from it, August always seems to have one kick-ass film come out (Fugitive, Sixth Sense) and this is this years. I am a huge fan of Michael Mann, and this film once again reaffirmed my faith in his abilities (after the confused and muddled Ali). I agree with whoever said if you shoot in LA, either hire or copy Mann. I also recommend seeing an early Mann work, Theif, if you haven't yet (Insider was one of my fav films from '99 also, my personal pic out of the 5 nominated Best Pictures that year).

 

My favorite part was Jamie impersonating Vincent and telling Felix to take off 35% for his fee, that and the Taxi scene, starting after Vincent shoots Ruffalo's detective till Max crashes the cab

[godthedog 0]

just got back from a showing. good good stuff, and LOTS of imitating the spirit of hitchcock going on (some for the better, some for the worse). first half or so was spectacular, but when it started throwing spanners in the works (especially that long focus on the fbi/lapd subplot) the focus got kind of diffused. some rethinking of the structure, staying closer to the original idea without thinking "hey, the audience might be bored with this claustrophobic concept an hour & a half into it, let's change it up a little," would've helped. but tightness was never michael mann's strong point anyway, so i'm not terribly surprised. if i can't find anybody to hang out with tonight, i might head to borders and write up a proper review.

 

EDIT: and mann didn't film LA much differently than sofia coppola filmed 'lost in translation' or steven soderbergh filmed 'ocean's eleven'. it's just a matter of having lots of streetlights in your shot that are out of focus, and keeping your focal lengths really really narrow. it looks all abstract and pretty, and it's a fairly standard way of shooting a bright city at night.