Collateral (2004)

reviewed by
Mark R. Leeper


                             COLLATERAL
                (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
     CAPSULE: Jamie Foxx plays a cab driver who gets an

unusual passenger, a professional assassin who has

     a list of people to kill that night.  The driver
     learns from the assassin how to live his life.
     The passenger learns why it is better for an
     assassin to drive himself, even in Los Angeles.
     Tom Cruise, the assassin, adds another good

performance to his portfolio. But under scrutiny

the premise is actually absurd and script really

     falls to pieces.  Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10

Tom Cruise long ago mastered the role of handsome lead and hero.

He moved on to a variety of more complex roles like a

dysfunctional maladjusted political activist, an amoral vampire, a

disaffected warrior, a man who learns to love his autistic

brother. Along the way his acting talent has steadily developed.

He is still limited. I doubt he could convey strong emotions the

way a Lee J. Cobb could. But he passed long ago the stage where

he was mostly decorative.

In COLLATERAL Cruise is a calculating and systematic hired

assassin. This time around he is not even the main character

though he certainly is the center of attention. We see the night

that the film takes place through the eyes of Max (played by Jamie

Foxx), the cab driver that assassin Vincent (Cruise) has hired to

take him around to his next five victims. From the Max's point of

view the story is a tense thriller. The cabby has to try to save

the lives of the victims and very possibly his own life. This

puts him in the position of sometimes working against Vincent and

sometimes working for him.

The surprise inside the story is that if we see the film through

the eyes of the assassin Vincent it turns from a thriller into a

shaggy dog story. Vincent, who outwardly looks so cool and

professional, is really something of a bumbler. The evening goes

nothing like he could have planned it. His primary error is to

put the success of his assignment and his very life into the hands

of an innocent bystander over whom he has so little control. We

are told why he does this and it still seems a bone-headed

maneuver that is not worth the risk and would likely not work the

way he hopes. He gets what he deserves. (I will discuss his

motive in more detail in a spoiler section following the review.)

Over the course of the evening Vincent loses the data he needs for

his work, he is made to look like a fool to his employers, and he

ends up in the hospital visiting his driver's mother Ida (Irma

P. Hall of the recent THE LADYKILLERS). At one point he has his

gun pointed directly at his victim and for no particular reason he

just pauses. And we quickly see why no assassin would ever do

that. In the end Vincent's worst nightmare about Los Angeles

comes true for him. It is unclear whether director Michael Mann

and writer Stuart Beattie recognized how unprofessional the

professional Vincent is. Certainly they hope the audience does

not notice.

In the course of the night there is a good deal of discussion of

philosophies of life. Max has big plans for his future but lies

to himself about going after those goals. Vincent wants to help

Max to control his life, but Vincent has his own fears. Max has

his own ideas of how to handle fears, which he imparts to an

earlier passenger, but is also limited by his own fears. Along

these lines there is someone else we see relating to Vince and Max

about the happiest night of his life.

Cruise here has prematurely grayed hair, dark glasses, a few days'

growth of beard, and a knockout suit. Somehow the look is one I

associate with Richard Gere. From a distance he even resembles

Gere. By now Mann is an old hand at filming crime stories set in

Los Angeles. Still at times his visual style seems to fight the

camera's storytelling. A sequence filmed in a disco is almost

incoherent.

COLLATERAL is one of those films that seem like one kind of film

while you watch it and becomes a very different film with thought

afterward. Still it rivets the viewer because it does not give

the viewer time to think about the premise. I rate it a +1 on the

-4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Spoiler ... Spoiler ... Spoiler ...

The implication is that Vincent has been successful in framing a

similar driver on a similar assignment and the police had assumed

that they were random killings by a cab driver who suddenly turned

psychotic. But presumably in that assignment the victims were

related as they are here. It seems unlikely that the police would

think an amateur and psychotic would just happen to choose a

related set of victims. Even if they believe that once they would

never believe it twice and in fact they do not. A real

professional would have driven himself or gotten a local driver he

could trust. But then there would have been no story to tell.

                                        Mark R. Leeper
                                        mleeper@optonline.net
                                        Copyright 2004 Mark R. Leeper
==========
X-RAMR-ID: 38423
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 1305292
X-RT-TitleID: 1134449
X-RT-AuthorID: 1309
X-RT-RatingText: 6/10

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews