i am actually looking forward to "collateral"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (230 of them)

not together we didn't. why are you up?

― ||amateur!st|| (amateurist), Sunday, 8 August 2004 08:27 (nineteen years ago) link

Because I inexplicably ended up at a loft space where a drum-n-bass DJ was spinning, and I danced, and so I just got home.

― jaymc, Sunday, 8 August 2004 08:30 (nineteen years ago) link

WAIT -- WHY ARE YOU UP?

― jaymc, Sunday, 8 August 2004 08:33 (nineteen years ago) link

i'm not. this is the cat typing.

― ||amateur!st|| (amateurist), Sunday, 8 August 2004 08:34 (nineteen years ago) link

Hmmm.

― jaymc, Sunday, 8 August 2004 08:36 (nineteen years ago) link

A better answer to your question might be, my girlfriend is out of town this weekend.

― jaymc, Sunday, 8 August 2004 08:37 (nineteen years ago) link

it just occured to me that a problem with j. rosenbaum is that he has absolutely no sense of humor.

― ||amateur!st|| (amateurist), Sunday, 8 August 2004 15:52 (nineteen years ago) link

yeah, the elegant hitman thing is definitely overdone...if this movie had started off with that and then undercut it, that could have been neat. e.g. i thought tom cruise's constantly wired-psycho body manner was one way of doing this, not exactly squirrelly but still off-putting, also jamie foxx's rushed revelations at the end. amateurist's descriptions of the photography make me want to see it again

― dave k, Sunday, 8 August 2004 16:54 (nineteen years ago) link

I found it immensely enjoyable despite the obvious flaws (and Jason Statham. Yuck.) Still, what's the deal these days with decent H'wood movies and their total inability to deliver on the third acts?

Also, could have done without that Cliff Notes last line, spelling out the previous reference.

The shot of the marble floor as TC goes down the escalator is a beaut.

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Monday, 9 August 2004 00:32 (nineteen years ago) link

and Jason Statham. Yuck.

all 5 seconds of him?

what was that all about? he's the male gina gershon: he makes any scene instantly unbelieveable.

― ||amateur!st|| (amateurist), Monday, 9 August 2004 01:23 (nineteen years ago) link

I thought the movie was pretty awesome. Although I've spent most of my life avoiding movies and TV shows about hitmen, and so maybe I'm less tired of the cliches! Or probably what makes up for it being a "crime" film in my mind is all the gorgeous cinematography and the kind of existentialism that Edelstein riffs on. And strong performances from both Cruise and Foxx. (It's another one of Cruise's recent roles that uses negative aspects of his image well: there's something almost robotic about Vincent's cocksure attitude.) (I will say, though, that as much as I like Mark Ruffalo, I think he was miscast as a narcotics officer; he's too much of a brooder for a role like that.)

― jaymc, Monday, 9 August 2004 04:54 (nineteen years ago) link

Ruffalo was obviously just there because he's hot this month. As with Tom Cruise, I thought... a dozen people could have played that role as well or better. As with most Tom Cruise casting decisions, I wonder about the Hollywood politics behind it. It's not like he's one of these actors who's picky about his roles and against-the-grain and such. Give the Tom Cruise role to Ruffalo, and make the Jada Pinkett role more ambilvalent (ie, she's also one of the witnesses), and you'd have agreat fucking movie.

― Harold Media (kenan), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:00 (nineteen years ago) link

Give the Tom Cruise role to Ruffalo

You're kidding me: he'd have been even worse in that role.

― jaymc, Monday, 9 August 2004 05:04 (nineteen years ago) link

I'm not kidding you... um... per say. Ruffalo may not have been the best in that role. That wasn't the point I was making. Put anyone... Bruce Willis, Jack Nicholson, Jeremy Irons... oh, pull a name out of a hat... and they would have been able to pull that role off just as convincingly, and with the bonus of not being being Tom Cruise.

― Harold Media (kenan), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:08 (nineteen years ago) link

Yeah, I guess I'm just not sure. To extrapolate what I said about the robotic/cocksure: Vincent has gotten used to being so successful at what he does, he's a little freewheeling when things are going well (witness the initial exchanges with Max in the cab) but he'll also stop at nothing to ensure that he remains successful. I think Cruise's own personal creepiness -- that huge, easy grin beyond which lurks something sinister (Scientology, at least) -- is a major asset to that kind of character.

― jaymc, Monday, 9 August 2004 05:19 (nineteen years ago) link

I mean, of the actors you named -- and again, I know you're just drawing names out of a hat -- Willis and Nicholson I'd never be able to take seriously, and Irons would maybe be too strictly sinister, without Cruise's affability.

― jaymc, Monday, 9 August 2004 05:21 (nineteen years ago) link

Did it remind anyone else of After Hours?

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:22 (nineteen years ago) link

Oh, and Stuart Beattie's only other real achievement is a story credit on Pirates Of The Carribean, to answer my own question.

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:23 (nineteen years ago) link

I think Cruise's own personal creepiness -- that huge, easy grin beyond which lurks something sinister

Except he doesn't grin in the movie. Not at all, if you think back on it. He grimly commands, and reticently sympathizes, and arrogantly instructs. "Charm" isn't in any way a requirement for the role.

― Harold Media (kenan), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:24 (nineteen years ago) link

Did it remind anyone else of After Hours?

Ha! Except without "Horse."

― Harold Media (kenan), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:27 (nineteen years ago) link

(Oh, sorry. I just looked it up on IMDB, and the character's name is "Hosrt." How could I have known?)

― Harold Media (kenan), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:29 (nineteen years ago) link

"Hosrt" = "Horst"

― Harold Media (kenan), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:30 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't think it's necessary that he specifically grins in the movie. (Although there is a broad kind of charm exhibited in a scene like the jazz club.) What I'm getting at, maybe, is that Vincent is someone that we might imagine Cruise to really be, underneath the grin: a solipsistic robotic killer!

I haven't seen After Hours. One of the many, many gaps in my film education.

― jaymc, Monday, 9 August 2004 05:32 (nineteen years ago) link

But he doesn't grin! At all! Ever!

What phone number can I call you at right now?

― Harold Media (kenan), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:35 (nineteen years ago) link

Haha, the funny thing is I don't actually know the phone number here. I'm at Renee's house while she's out of town -- but I always call her cell phone, never her home phone. My cell is dead right now.

Which is just as well, because I have to get up in six hours anyway.

― jaymc, Monday, 9 August 2004 05:38 (nineteen years ago) link

Me too.:(

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:44 (nineteen years ago) link

Ah, just as well.

Although there is a broad kind of charm

You said it, man. Broad. There is a charm so broad in almost every Tom Cruise role that it always makes me think of actors with more charm and more talent. There certainly is a quality about Tom Cruise that is innately "broad" -- I'll grant you that. That doesn't make hin Jimmy fucking Stewart. Combine this "broadness" with his arrogance, his superior smirk, and the way he is extremely limited in his talent, and he's more like George W. Bush than like any actor with any acutal talent.

― Harold Media (kenan), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:45 (nineteen years ago) link

Actually, on the way to bed, I just realized that perhaps I wasn't being clear. When I said "underneath the grin," I was referring not the character in the movie but to our collective image of Tom Cruise the celebrity. Cruise's ability to make this character work relies somewhat, I think, on the audience's extra-textual knowledge or impression of him. And to take that further, I think it worked (for me, at least) because there's a certain enjoyment in imagining Tom Cruise to really be like that: a secret side of him54444444444444444444444444444444444448. (Fuck the cat jumping on the keyboard just now?"|}

― jaymc, Monday, 9 August 2004 05:50 (nineteen years ago) link

i can't imagine anyone besides cruise playing the part. then, i can't really imagine anyone playing the part, period, because it's a stupid part.

xpost

fuck washing a cat

― ||amateur!st|| (amateurist), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:53 (nineteen years ago) link

I liked Jamie Foxx okay.

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:55 (nineteen years ago) link

I wish I had a name like "Jamie Foxx".

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:56 (nineteen years ago) link

on reflection, this movie fucking bothers me, because mann has so much talent and this thing sort of went down like a champagne with nice bubbles and no taste.

― |||| (amateurist), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:57 (nineteen years ago) link

Cruise's ability to make this character work relies somewhat, I think, on the audience's extra-textual knowledge or impression of him.

Right, to a point. The character doesn't rely on *his* texture, though, it just relies on *texture.* It doesn't depend on mega-star power to make it work -- I'd get very depressed if I thought any role did. It's a personality role, sure. Many, many actors have personality. Think... oooh, I like this one... think Benecio Del Toro in that role. Wouldn't that just be thick and delicious?

Truth is, this character is all texture. And a more subtle actor would have provided a more subtle texture. Tom Cruise is incapable of being thick and delicious.

― Harold Media (kenan), Monday, 9 August 2004 05:58 (nineteen years ago) link

I saw Michael Mann introduce The Insider at the London Film Festival. He answered questions with extremely short, blunt answers and looked very pissed off. The last question anyone asked was something like "How do you answer accusations that this is yet another Michael Mann film which marginalizes female characters and portrays an almost exclusively male world?". He just said "I don't" and then stormed off stage.

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 06:04 (nineteen years ago) link

dude, i don't blame him, what kind of stupid ass question is that? actually it's the kind of question this woman i met at a bbq on friday would ask.

mann went to the london film school y'know.

― |||| (amateurist), Monday, 9 August 2004 06:08 (nineteen years ago) link

adam, explain why this movie sucks

― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 9 August 2004 06:08 (nineteen years ago) link

mann went to the london film school y'know.

Yes! I know.

kyle, there is no formula for suckiness. It just happens. I blame the script.

I have decided that Mann must have seen this film as some kind of back-to-basics logistical challenge - (relatively) small budget, location shooting, mainly at night, small cast, etc. I don't think he could have done any better with this material, actually.

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 06:13 (nineteen years ago) link

I want to play with his cameras.

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 06:14 (nineteen years ago) link

You know, I have never seen Manhunter! Should I?

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 06:15 (nineteen years ago) link

i guess so. It isn't nearly as great as everyone would have you believe.

― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 9 August 2004 06:17 (nineteen years ago) link

Is it as good as Harold & Kumar?

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 06:23 (nineteen years ago) link

I wonder, though, about the power that Mann has to rewrite scripts if he wants to. Could he have taken a lot of dumb shit out if he'd thought about it? The plot during the last 45 minues, for instance -- the studio wouldn't have fought him if he'd wanted to change that. And the final chase sequence where the thriller formula turns suddenly into a slasher movie formula. That was idiotic. Could Mann have corrected that if he cared to? I'm seriously asking.

― Harold Media (kenan), Monday, 9 August 2004 06:23 (nineteen years ago) link

I'm sure he could have, but again, maybe this was some sort of bizarre ascetic exercise for him.

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 06:26 (nineteen years ago) link

Oh...you know what I did like in this movie? The cowboy club that Jamie Foxx met the "Felix" character in. That was great, reminded me of Tears Of The Black Tiger.

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 06:44 (nineteen years ago) link

no it is not as good as harold and kumar. did you see it? that film is better than most movies I can think of at exactly this moment (although I didn't like Freakshow).

― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 9 August 2004 06:46 (nineteen years ago) link

think Benecio Del Toro in that role. Wouldn't that just be thick and delicious?

Resisting joke.

Anyway, once I have more time, I am going to comment on the Film People! Explain Yourselves! thread because I think my enjoyment of Collateral may have something to do with my relationship to Hollywood these days.

― jaymc, Monday, 9 August 2004 12:53 (nineteen years ago) link

You have a "relationship" with Hollywood? Hook a brother up!!!

*cellphone hand*

― adam. (nordicskilla), Monday, 9 August 2004 12:59 (nineteen years ago) link

One of my students reminded me she is in this film -- as an extra in the club scene, apparently so well obscured there is no point in looking for her.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 9 August 2004 13:52 (nineteen years ago) link

Yeah, that club scene is majorly claustrophobic.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 9 August 2004 13:57 (nineteen years ago) link

You know, I have never seen Manhunter! Should I?

Yes. Although Miami Vice is the show Manhunter *could have been*.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Monday, 9 August 2004 14:04 (nineteen years ago) link

Skipping 130 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.