Collateral - review

Title: Collateral
Director: Michael Mann
Cast: Tom Cruise, Jamie Foxx & Will Smith's wife
Released: 2004

"This time he’s the bad guy! That’s why you just gotta see it!"

As a film-studies student at university, and more importantly, as someone who has always payed attention to film conventions, I can tell you that there are no bad guys in films like this; ‘films like this’ meaning the big films that are hyped to the point of absolute box-office invincibility. Tom Cruise stars in a lot of films like this, in fact I can’t remember him ever being in a film that didn’t do extremely well. Couple that with the fact that he seems to make very good decisions about the roles he plays, and one would be forgiven for thinking that the man can do no wrong. However, the main problem a lot of people (‘a lot of people’ meaning I, and a guy I spoke to a few days ago) have with Tom Cruise these days, is that he too often takes over a film. He is ‘Tom Cruise’, not the character he is supposed to be playing, and I can think of only two examples when he has not ‘done this’ to a film (not including 'legend' which is just too odd and loveable to be categorised in any list!). The first is ‘Born on the Fourth of July’, where the far-sighted direction from Oliver Stone, the sheer magnitude and length of the story coupled with the emotional peaks and outbursts that Cruise does so well, ensured that Ron Kovic’s name would be remembered. Then we have Magnolia, which rejuvenated his career at a time when people were starting to take him for granted. He had his outbursts, he displayed an overt over-confidence, displayed real vulnerability again, but most importantly, he was part of a brilliant storyline that didn’t revolve entirely around his actions, he was equal. Frank T.J. Mackey is also, another name that many people who saw the film will not quickly forget.

Now, Collateral may well be billed on the trailers as starring ‘Cruise and Foxx’, but the reality is, this is still a ‘Tom Cruise film’, it’s dominated by him, 90% of its best moments come from him, and quite frankly, the story isn’t that great so he has no other choice than to be ‘the man’. What Tom Cruise does is fine, better than fine, he’s a brilliant actor, however none of it is new, not in my opinion. What’s so thoroughly disappointing to me is that this film has so much potential in terms of the amount of variation Cruise (or Michael Mann) could have pushed for in the character of ‘Vincent the assassin’. You’ll need more than grey hair dye and ‘the rough look’ (in other words; designer stubble) to convince me that this isn’t the same slick old Tom Cruise that we’ve all come to know these last few years. Okay, so he’s playing an assassin, but does that automatically mean he’s going to be so sharply dressed with a perfect haircut and ridiculously fashionable designer sunglasses? Well maybe it does for the sake of good-looking billboards and box-office cash; however the film could have been so much more interesting if they made his character imperfect. Sure, okay, I concede- he’s a hired killer, and so you’re going to tell me “that makes him imperfect enough”? Come on!?! Honestly, in the post-modern, immoral world of cinema where money conquers all; since when has being a hired killer been such a ‘shocking’ or deplorable attribute? He’s obviously still the guy we want to watch, the main attraction, so why not take advantage? Make him have a nervous twitch, make him less charming, make one thing about him be a little odd or out of place, just one.

I say this because it would fit in with the stylistic elements of the film, Mann employs the handheld camera to great effect (meaning you don’t even notice it half the time) and he has purposefully left a lot of the grain showing in the film itself giving the picture quality that unconventional, gritty vibe, which at times, goes so well with the story. Where does it all fall down then? Because, so far, as hard as it may seem to believe, I’ve been nit-picking.

Jamie Foxx for one, doesn’t do a good job. I don’t know what others might say about his performance, perhaps he’ll get a lot of credit simply because he’s a comedian-turned-actor in a serious role. The main problem is that he never really decides- as an actor- and the story never helps him decide, whether or not he trusts Cruise or not. He also doesn't show nearly enough variety or subtletly, spending so much time playing and perfecting the ‘scared, unwilling cab-driver’ persona that when, finally, he is given a chance to be macho, it just doesn’t seem convincing- it comes from nowhere and no intelligent person would believe it. Also, the level of his shock at Tom Cruises ongoing killing-spree doesn’t ever seem to really change, he’s disgusted and shaken for a few moments after every assassination that Cruise carries out, but after that, cut to the next scene in the cab for some ‘meaningful conversation’ and they’re both pretty much back to normal. Cruise is the assassin, he’s supposed to be back to normal, but Foxx isn’t (he’s the scared taxi-driver, remember?) That’s not even to mention the ridiculous fact that Foxx shows not much resistance at all in introducing Cruise to his sick mother in the hospital, which occurs just after Cruise, in one of the films few surprising moments, kills a trumpet player, catching Foxx totally off-guard. But then, after his perfectly timed ‘shock period’ he takes Tom over to the hospital and his mother gets along with the two of them like a house on fire. It’s also one of the numerous moments in the film where it seems like humour is being attempted and it’s totally unnecessary and out of place (not to mention quite unfunny).

No. No. And it does get worse. I still consider the criticisms prior to this to be nit-picking at some of the subtle, more invisible elements of the film that could have been better, however what finishes it off is the last 15-20 minutes. That’s when it throws away all that it could have been and somehow magically transforms from Collateral, into the last 15-20 minutes of the original Terminator film. Arnie is played by Tom Cruise, the chase scenes are just as endless, the motorbikes are replaced by taxis and police cars, and instead of taking place on a motorway and finally a metal factory- as it did in Terminator- this one climaxes in a office building and then a subway train. Many gory shootings take place, many miraculous recoveries and all other kinds of spices are used in order to keep naive movie-goers on the edges of their seats.

I liked this film. Don't laugh, I mean it! When I left the cinema, I felt good, I said to my friend, "that was good!" But sitting down and thinking about what you did with those 90 minutes of your life tends to show you something different if you really take a critical look. I could have said the same thing about a lot of the other films I've reviewed on this site, however sometimes my tolerance level is high, sometimes it's low. My analysis proves to me that Collateral is just another case of mostly style and not that much substance. The main redeeming feature for me (apart from the accurate and unexpected homage to Miles Davis in the jazz scene) was the underlying theme that Foxx’s character should go after his goals in life, take a solid step towards his dreams instead of procrastinating and waiting for perfection to appear before taking action. It’s subtly and nicely played out to a conclusion of sorts, and its one of the few things that affected me as a resonant, human issue in what is essentially an action film posing as...something else. The grainy film quality, occasionally interesting music and stylized cinematography are only skin-deep, I'm sorry people, but this film is only good for a relatively unchallenging night of action with the same old boring Hollywood ending.

Y.Misdaq aka Yoshi, 12 Aug 2004