So, yet another review ( I will really have to get back to Blood Bowl soon!) and yet another "Coen brothers" movie.
Fargo is quite similar in terms of themes to No Country For Old Men, yet also reminds me of a Shakespearian play in terms of the tragedies that seem to befall practically every character in the story.
Just like NCFOM it focuses on a merciless, senseless evil in a traditionally laid-back, moral rural setting and the impact such an invasion of darkness has on the casual observer.
Similarly, Fargo also has elements of dark comedy. I'd say it goes further than NCFOM in that regard (which is more thrillery all around) and goes into the territory of all out black comedy in places.
One point, in which a character screams incredulously "I got f**kin' SHOT! I got f**kin' shot IN THE FACE!" made me burst out laughing. It's peculiar that I can't pin down exactly why that scene is so funny, but the delivery and the context of the line (as well as the response of the other party) just showcases the edge on things perfectly. The events that unfold are so outrageously grim at points and so extreme that the instinct they grab hold of is the instinct to laugh.
The cast of this film are universally fantastic in their roles. Peter Stormare and Steve Buscemi deserve a special mention as characters Gaear Grimsrud and Carl respectively. The two are a great double act.
Carl is cowardly, anger-prone, nervous, loserish criminal and yet is more human than his partner. He can't seem to stop talking. We sense there is a shred of
humanity in him despite his unpleasant nature, particularly after the first death on screen.
Gaear Grimsrud has no such human spark. He hardly ever speaks throughout the film (much to Carl's annoyance) unless it's to make a threat or deliver a statement matter-of-factly.
He's a heavily built, intimidating man, yet also gives the impression that he is somewhat mentally slow - a brute in every sense of the word. Below this exterior there lies mystery.
His name doesn't sound American. Unlike Carl, he hardly ever begins yelling or getting angry - he simply kills people who anger him instead. He's like Anton Chigurh if he was obsessed with pancakes, less intelligent and a lot less professional.
He doesn't approach that almost metaphysical level of evil, but he has an animalistic, brutal simplicity that makes him a great villain.
Buscemi's character morphs throughout the picture. He starts off slimy, unpleasant and yet more eloquent than his partner, then slowly shifts towards losing that spark himself. In a way he seems to mingle with Gaear's personality - he loses any morals he may have had, while Gaear ends the film the more coldly rational of the two.
The plot itself is interesting. It's impossible to go into detail without spoiling it, but it concerns a car salesman named Jerry (William H. Macy) trying to prop up his financial situation by having his own wife kidnapped. Needless to say his hiring of Carl and Gaear to carry the task out is very ill-advised, and the whole plan quickly goes awry. It's hard to say who is more pathetic - Jerry or the criminals.
There are many parallels in the story between seemingly unrelated characters that show up in many different sub-plots, another nice trait of the film.
Following a trail of corpses and carnage is Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand), a pregnant cop in Brainerd, Minnesota (the setting for much of the story) who tries to fathom the situation unfolding before her. She, as Tommy Lee Jones in NCFOM, has a great line near the end of the film that provides some redemption for all that we see before.
So Fargo is a strange beast. It's a crime film, a comedy film and a strangely poignant tale all rolled into one. There is a brilliant irony to the story too that you will only get once you see it.
I'll leave you with one of Marge's quotes: "[It was all] for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well...I just don't understand it."
5/5.
[*][*][*][*][*]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJUvPZI3Cr4
Showing posts with label Thriller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thriller. Show all posts
Saturday, 19 February 2011
Monday, 7 February 2011
Movie Review: No Country For Old Men
No Country For Old Men is pretty close to being a "perfect" Thriller.
The movie, set in 1980, focuses on the convergence of the lives of 3 men in Texas. The story focuses on the escalating violence and immorality associated with propagation of the heroin trade at the time and contrasts it with "the old times".
One man is Llewyn Moss (Josh Brolin), an everyman character from humble origins who one day happens upon a drugs deal gone wrong in the middle of the desert. He encounters a dying dealer who begs for water - Moss doesn't have any, and instead checks to see if anyone else survived the incident.
Eventually he finds the last dealer dead under a distant tree. Next to him is a case containing $2 million.
Moss takes the money home, where he has an attack of conscience and goes back to the scene to give water to the dying man. This act of kindness ultimately gets him embroiled in a terrifying chase.
The second man is experienced Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), a man who has been Sheriff since he was 25. Early in the film, he narrates his confusion on how the world seems to be changing, quoting an example of a very callous murderer he recently brought to justice.
He mentions with fondness how the "old timers" never had to carry guns on their belts - something that has changed enormously in recent years in his mind.
He has several excellent monologues in this vein which really sum up parts of the film nicely.
The third man is the enigmatic Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem). Chirgurh is the character that really steals the show.
He is the hitman contracted by one of the drug factions to find the money taken from the deal (inside the case, unknown to Moss at first, a tracking device is hidden). Chigurh has an implaceable accent and is clearly not from Texas.
He is a completely merciless psychotic who is very, very good at his job. While he is undoubtedly unhinged, the most disturbing thing about the character is how efficiently and intelligently he carries out his murders.
After accepting the contract, he promptly decides to simply take the money for himself instead of returning it to his clients - and then he executes them calmly with a handgun before leaving the scene.
Chigurh also has his own twisted philosophy on life. He is obsessed with fate, and throughout the film we see several scenes in which he apparently decides whether or not to take the life of a character with a coin toss.
Take this pitch-perfect scene in which Chigurh is apparently antagonised by the small talk of a petrol station clerk:
Throughout the film, he becomes an almost supernatural force, silently killing anyone who he feels like.
His unusual choice of weaponry reflects his demented personality - at one point he fires at Moss indiscriminately (killing an innocent in the process) with a silenced machine gun. Many of his other killings are carried out with a silenced shotgun, a gun which mirrors his quiet-spoken but brutal personality perfectly.
Most creepy of all, however, is the "oxygen tank" an ill-fated policeman notes that he carries with him. It is a captive bolt gun which fires a pressurised cylinder used to kill cattle. Chigurh uses it to break the door locks of his victims with a sudden, soft hiss...and is not against using it against people either.
I've deliberately avoided plot details as discussing them too much ruins the film. Hopefully I have illuminated the characters (Chigurh especially) who are really fantastic.
The film is quite violent and I'm surprised it achieved a 15 certificate rating. Swearing is actually pretty low throughout the film.
Final Word:
If you want a Thriller with a real punch that raises a lot of questions by the end, No Country For Old Men is for you.
The plot will unfold in ways that you honestly can't predict.
5/5.
[*][*][*][*][*]
The movie, set in 1980, focuses on the convergence of the lives of 3 men in Texas. The story focuses on the escalating violence and immorality associated with propagation of the heroin trade at the time and contrasts it with "the old times".
One man is Llewyn Moss (Josh Brolin), an everyman character from humble origins who one day happens upon a drugs deal gone wrong in the middle of the desert. He encounters a dying dealer who begs for water - Moss doesn't have any, and instead checks to see if anyone else survived the incident.
Eventually he finds the last dealer dead under a distant tree. Next to him is a case containing $2 million.
Moss takes the money home, where he has an attack of conscience and goes back to the scene to give water to the dying man. This act of kindness ultimately gets him embroiled in a terrifying chase.
The second man is experienced Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), a man who has been Sheriff since he was 25. Early in the film, he narrates his confusion on how the world seems to be changing, quoting an example of a very callous murderer he recently brought to justice.
He mentions with fondness how the "old timers" never had to carry guns on their belts - something that has changed enormously in recent years in his mind.
He has several excellent monologues in this vein which really sum up parts of the film nicely.
The third man is the enigmatic Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem). Chirgurh is the character that really steals the show.
He is the hitman contracted by one of the drug factions to find the money taken from the deal (inside the case, unknown to Moss at first, a tracking device is hidden). Chigurh has an implaceable accent and is clearly not from Texas.
He is a completely merciless psychotic who is very, very good at his job. While he is undoubtedly unhinged, the most disturbing thing about the character is how efficiently and intelligently he carries out his murders.
After accepting the contract, he promptly decides to simply take the money for himself instead of returning it to his clients - and then he executes them calmly with a handgun before leaving the scene.
Chigurh also has his own twisted philosophy on life. He is obsessed with fate, and throughout the film we see several scenes in which he apparently decides whether or not to take the life of a character with a coin toss.
Take this pitch-perfect scene in which Chigurh is apparently antagonised by the small talk of a petrol station clerk:
Throughout the film, he becomes an almost supernatural force, silently killing anyone who he feels like.
His unusual choice of weaponry reflects his demented personality - at one point he fires at Moss indiscriminately (killing an innocent in the process) with a silenced machine gun. Many of his other killings are carried out with a silenced shotgun, a gun which mirrors his quiet-spoken but brutal personality perfectly.
Most creepy of all, however, is the "oxygen tank" an ill-fated policeman notes that he carries with him. It is a captive bolt gun which fires a pressurised cylinder used to kill cattle. Chigurh uses it to break the door locks of his victims with a sudden, soft hiss...and is not against using it against people either.
I've deliberately avoided plot details as discussing them too much ruins the film. Hopefully I have illuminated the characters (Chigurh especially) who are really fantastic.
The film is quite violent and I'm surprised it achieved a 15 certificate rating. Swearing is actually pretty low throughout the film.
Final Word:
If you want a Thriller with a real punch that raises a lot of questions by the end, No Country For Old Men is for you.
The plot will unfold in ways that you honestly can't predict.
5/5.
[*][*][*][*][*]
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Movie Review: Harry Brown
*May contain spoilers*
Harry Brown is a weird film. That's about the best way to describe it.
It starts out like a hard-hitting realistic drama, and then morphs about halfway through into a vengeance-fuelled killing spree that seems lifted from the pages of a comic book.
Similarly, the film flits between chillingly accurate portrayals of British 'hoods', and an apparent alternate universe Britain where total anarchy reigns.
Whether the film is in one mood or not, at any given point it is very, very dark indeed. It has an almost unique quality to be bleak from beginning to end.
Harry Brown is a reaction to increasing street crime and yob culture in Britain, but it does not offer any solutions. Perhaps that is what the film intends - there are no easy solutions. Even the main protaganist seems to become slowly consumed by the hellish things that happen in his home area throughout the film.
First of all, the film gets off to an intimidating start. Opening scenes of the film are very powerful, and had me hooked to the screen immediately. Filmed on a mobile phone, they depict a gang of hooded youths initiating a new member to their gang. They shove drugs in his mouth and force him to smoke them for an extended time, and then with the spine-chilling words "This is how we roll", someone hands him a loaded pistol.
The next scene shows the same group roaring around on mopeds from a passenger perspective. They harass pedestrians and eventually begin firing their weapons, ending with the 'accidental' murder of a woman walking her young son in the park.
As they flee the scene, they crash violently into a truck at a junction. Fade to black.
Wow. The filmography during these first scenes is gritty, frenzied and pretty disturbing in itself, which is quite an accomplishment as usually I moan about such camerawork making me nauseous.
From there on we meet Harry Brown (who is in bed listening to news of the killing on the radio. Pretty neat linking trick there). Played by Michael Caine (an actor who varies very much in his work, but he's definitely solid here), Brown is an ageing ex-Marine previously posted in Northern Ireland during the height of the Troubles.
Caine conveys the loneliness of Brown's life wonderfully. Brown goes through a morning routine of sitting at his kitchen table, silently drinking tea, eating his breakfast, and then visiting his comatose elderly wife at the hospital.
In the evenings, he plays chess with a friend named Leonard (David Bradley, who you will immediately recognise as Filch from the Harry Potter films), the only person who seems to be there for him.
In between these activites, the estate he lives on is constantly plagued by violent, replusive young criminals who care nothing about the police or the law. Leonard in particular is constantly victimised.
It doesn't take long for things to quickly spiral downwards, and at around halfway into the film a broken Brown tools himself up and warms up the old military training.
Sean Harris puts in a notable performance as a drug-addled pimp-slash-gun dealer. His husky, hoarse voice and absolute lack of morals make him one of the most menacing and watchable characters to appear (however briefly) in the film.
The "twist" at the end of the film was not to my liking (it felt a little like it was added on for the sake of it) and the film steadily gets more ludicrous as it progresses.
My biggest issue, strangely enough, is with Harry's very first killing. The police don't realise he's the vigilante until right at the end, but I saw a glaring error immediately. Harry gets ambushed by a knife-wielding mugger, and when the guy goes to stab him, he instinctively turns the knife back on him without thinking, stabbing him in the heart.
The guy dies and Harry shuffles off home, destroying his clothes and wiping up the blood in a shock.
However, surely his prints would be all over the knife? Game over. Except not in movies :\
Final Word:
The villains (aside from Harris anyway) are sadly one dimensional. They spout the foulest language imaginable and do some very repulsive things.
The scenes in which the villains work best is in those in which Harry simply observes them from a distance harrassing and terrorising others- behaviour which is carried off with horrifying authenticity.
Intense verbal abuse of a female police officer was perhaps the most disturbing thing in the film, coupled with sexual abuse of a gang member by a drug dealer. Both were pretty shocking, though the second scene felt more exploitative, as if it had been included purely to shock.
The movie is also pretty violent, and there are several rather nasty uses of gore throughout. Overall I'd say the swearing is definitely the worst thing though. Expect to hear the "mother of all swears" multiple times.
My 'favourite' scene was probably when Harry confides in a dying criminal one of his most upsetting memories of the Troubles, that he never told to anyone else before, not even Leonard or his wife. A member of his unit was shot in a similar way to the criminal, and Harry recalls that they couldn't call in a medic to help him, and instead watched him die.
After Harry has finished speaking, there's a very short but poignant moment before Harry finishes him off where the weakened scumbag seems almost to finally realise what a wretched human being he's been...but far, far too late.
Similarly, that little window gives a perfect insight into just how much Harry has become like those he crusades against with his use of extreme violence - and there definitely lies the most interesting part of the film.
3/5
[*][*][*][ ][ ]
Harry Brown is a weird film. That's about the best way to describe it.
It starts out like a hard-hitting realistic drama, and then morphs about halfway through into a vengeance-fuelled killing spree that seems lifted from the pages of a comic book.
Similarly, the film flits between chillingly accurate portrayals of British 'hoods', and an apparent alternate universe Britain where total anarchy reigns.
Whether the film is in one mood or not, at any given point it is very, very dark indeed. It has an almost unique quality to be bleak from beginning to end.
Harry Brown is a reaction to increasing street crime and yob culture in Britain, but it does not offer any solutions. Perhaps that is what the film intends - there are no easy solutions. Even the main protaganist seems to become slowly consumed by the hellish things that happen in his home area throughout the film.
First of all, the film gets off to an intimidating start. Opening scenes of the film are very powerful, and had me hooked to the screen immediately. Filmed on a mobile phone, they depict a gang of hooded youths initiating a new member to their gang. They shove drugs in his mouth and force him to smoke them for an extended time, and then with the spine-chilling words "This is how we roll", someone hands him a loaded pistol.
The next scene shows the same group roaring around on mopeds from a passenger perspective. They harass pedestrians and eventually begin firing their weapons, ending with the 'accidental' murder of a woman walking her young son in the park.
As they flee the scene, they crash violently into a truck at a junction. Fade to black.
Wow. The filmography during these first scenes is gritty, frenzied and pretty disturbing in itself, which is quite an accomplishment as usually I moan about such camerawork making me nauseous.
From there on we meet Harry Brown (who is in bed listening to news of the killing on the radio. Pretty neat linking trick there). Played by Michael Caine (an actor who varies very much in his work, but he's definitely solid here), Brown is an ageing ex-Marine previously posted in Northern Ireland during the height of the Troubles.
Caine conveys the loneliness of Brown's life wonderfully. Brown goes through a morning routine of sitting at his kitchen table, silently drinking tea, eating his breakfast, and then visiting his comatose elderly wife at the hospital.
In the evenings, he plays chess with a friend named Leonard (David Bradley, who you will immediately recognise as Filch from the Harry Potter films), the only person who seems to be there for him.
In between these activites, the estate he lives on is constantly plagued by violent, replusive young criminals who care nothing about the police or the law. Leonard in particular is constantly victimised.
It doesn't take long for things to quickly spiral downwards, and at around halfway into the film a broken Brown tools himself up and warms up the old military training.
Sean Harris puts in a notable performance as a drug-addled pimp-slash-gun dealer. His husky, hoarse voice and absolute lack of morals make him one of the most menacing and watchable characters to appear (however briefly) in the film.
The "twist" at the end of the film was not to my liking (it felt a little like it was added on for the sake of it) and the film steadily gets more ludicrous as it progresses.
My biggest issue, strangely enough, is with Harry's very first killing. The police don't realise he's the vigilante until right at the end, but I saw a glaring error immediately. Harry gets ambushed by a knife-wielding mugger, and when the guy goes to stab him, he instinctively turns the knife back on him without thinking, stabbing him in the heart.
The guy dies and Harry shuffles off home, destroying his clothes and wiping up the blood in a shock.
However, surely his prints would be all over the knife? Game over. Except not in movies :\
Final Word:
The villains (aside from Harris anyway) are sadly one dimensional. They spout the foulest language imaginable and do some very repulsive things.
The scenes in which the villains work best is in those in which Harry simply observes them from a distance harrassing and terrorising others- behaviour which is carried off with horrifying authenticity.
Intense verbal abuse of a female police officer was perhaps the most disturbing thing in the film, coupled with sexual abuse of a gang member by a drug dealer. Both were pretty shocking, though the second scene felt more exploitative, as if it had been included purely to shock.
The movie is also pretty violent, and there are several rather nasty uses of gore throughout. Overall I'd say the swearing is definitely the worst thing though. Expect to hear the "mother of all swears" multiple times.
My 'favourite' scene was probably when Harry confides in a dying criminal one of his most upsetting memories of the Troubles, that he never told to anyone else before, not even Leonard or his wife. A member of his unit was shot in a similar way to the criminal, and Harry recalls that they couldn't call in a medic to help him, and instead watched him die.
After Harry has finished speaking, there's a very short but poignant moment before Harry finishes him off where the weakened scumbag seems almost to finally realise what a wretched human being he's been...but far, far too late.
Similarly, that little window gives a perfect insight into just how much Harry has become like those he crusades against with his use of extreme violence - and there definitely lies the most interesting part of the film.
3/5
[*][*][*][ ][ ]
Saturday, 23 October 2010
Movie Review: Orphan
*This review contains spoilers*
"There's something wrong with Esther." is the tagline for this film, and it certainly isn't lying.
Unfortunately though, Orphan is one of the most frustrating films I've watched in recent times. It's a textbook example of how needless cheap scares and shoehorned cliches can derail a decent thriller.
Peter Sarsgaad and Vera Farmiga play a kind and well-off couple who have a nice house and lovable kids. Their life is shaken when they lose their third child before birth. They decide, after much deliberation, to adopt a child. That child is Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman).
Esther is something of a child prodigy. She's polite, mature, intelligent and is very good at art. She also has some rather bizarre personality traits, and her history is dogged by a series of tragic accidents.
I found the first half or so of Orphan very watchable. It was surprisingly smart for a "horror" film, and reminded me more of a thriller. The characters were likable and believable. As the story progresses, we learn things about them not easily guessed (Farmiga's character used to have an alcohol problem, for example).
Interesting characters who develop? A dubious antagonist? Unreliable viewpoints? Good film so far.
Sadly though, the film is filled with these little nuggets that seem forced in from the scripts of other, lesser films.
It's kind of like someone in Hollywood watched the film, then said "Nah, this won't appeal to the market enough. Throw some cheap-ass scares in and change the ending."
So, the character building and interesting build-up is then interspersed with some of the most ludicrous "make-u-jump" scenes I've seen in a film. Think of it, and it's in the film. Kids laughing suddenly (at deafening volume), things banging, sudden unusually aggressive hugs, that sort of crap.
It just feels so unneccesary and cheapens the whole movie. It's like eating lobster and having a guy run up and bellow in your ear at random intervals.
Even worse, I didn't actually jump at any of the "sudden" bits (and I haven't done in any film for some time now). That makes it feel even more redundant.
Then I mentioned it felt like the ending was changed. Well, yeah. The film does well to avoid cliches until about 50-75% of the way through, and then they start sprouting like ugly mushrooms.
Cops taking a millenia to arrive when needed? Check. Main character dying through very dubious judgement? Check. Antagonist refusing to be killed off? Check
It really is sad to see what felt like such a promising film take a nosedive, and all because it tries to up the "horror" side of things while ditching what made it interesting in the first place.
Final Word:
Orphan oozes a kind of sneaky, devious charm until around halfway through. Then it tries to escalate things higher and higher until it has nowhere to go but cheesy horror film territory. Disappointing.
3/5.
[*] [*] [*] [ ] [ ]
"There's something wrong with Esther." is the tagline for this film, and it certainly isn't lying.
Unfortunately though, Orphan is one of the most frustrating films I've watched in recent times. It's a textbook example of how needless cheap scares and shoehorned cliches can derail a decent thriller.
Peter Sarsgaad and Vera Farmiga play a kind and well-off couple who have a nice house and lovable kids. Their life is shaken when they lose their third child before birth. They decide, after much deliberation, to adopt a child. That child is Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman).
Esther is something of a child prodigy. She's polite, mature, intelligent and is very good at art. She also has some rather bizarre personality traits, and her history is dogged by a series of tragic accidents.
I found the first half or so of Orphan very watchable. It was surprisingly smart for a "horror" film, and reminded me more of a thriller. The characters were likable and believable. As the story progresses, we learn things about them not easily guessed (Farmiga's character used to have an alcohol problem, for example).
Interesting characters who develop? A dubious antagonist? Unreliable viewpoints? Good film so far.
Sadly though, the film is filled with these little nuggets that seem forced in from the scripts of other, lesser films.
It's kind of like someone in Hollywood watched the film, then said "Nah, this won't appeal to the market enough. Throw some cheap-ass scares in and change the ending."
So, the character building and interesting build-up is then interspersed with some of the most ludicrous "make-u-jump" scenes I've seen in a film. Think of it, and it's in the film. Kids laughing suddenly (at deafening volume), things banging, sudden unusually aggressive hugs, that sort of crap.
It just feels so unneccesary and cheapens the whole movie. It's like eating lobster and having a guy run up and bellow in your ear at random intervals.
Even worse, I didn't actually jump at any of the "sudden" bits (and I haven't done in any film for some time now). That makes it feel even more redundant.
Then I mentioned it felt like the ending was changed. Well, yeah. The film does well to avoid cliches until about 50-75% of the way through, and then they start sprouting like ugly mushrooms.
Cops taking a millenia to arrive when needed? Check. Main character dying through very dubious judgement? Check. Antagonist refusing to be killed off? Check
It really is sad to see what felt like such a promising film take a nosedive, and all because it tries to up the "horror" side of things while ditching what made it interesting in the first place.
Final Word:
Orphan oozes a kind of sneaky, devious charm until around halfway through. Then it tries to escalate things higher and higher until it has nowhere to go but cheesy horror film territory. Disappointing.
3/5.
[*] [*] [*] [ ] [ ]
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Movie Review: Collateral
*This review contains some minor spoilers*
There are two ingredients I've noticed are almost always present in good Thriller films, and I think they're the fundamental difference between a Thriller and an Action film - theme and tension.
Action films are a genre that I personally find tedious and stale the great majority of the time. Musclebound stars making tiresome quips as they mow down Faceless Baddie #79451 get me frowning. Even more so when the plot can usually be summed up in three words. Man gets revenge. Man kills things. Manmade gratuitous explosions.
That's all old tat. So back to Thrillers and themes.
To use an example: No Country For Old Men, a thriller that holds a fond place in my heart, has themes which encompass greed, guilt, the breakdown of social morals and fate. These themes combine with a terrifying use of tension to create an edge-of-seat experience. Guns don't fire every five seconds, but when they do it almost always means a character we care about is in dire peril.
Collateral is a similar film, in that although it does have action-filled scenes, it also cranks up the tension, and focuses on characterisation far more than gunfire and explosions.
Set in L.A., the plot primarily features cab driver Max (Jamie Foxx), who has been planning for a long time to start his own Limousine business, but somehow has never got around to it. Early in the film he meets a high-profile lawyer named Annie (Jada Pinkett Smith) when she rides in the back of his cab.
It's clear the two like each other, but unlike many films, where vulgar lines start getting hurled around immediately, the scene comes across as pretty natural and realistic. The two simply chat and get on well. Max starts to become a character we can empathise with, due to both a good script and an admirable performance from Foxx.
Annie leaves him with her card and departs. The next fare Max has is a strange man named Vincent (Tom Cruise), who dresses in a sharp suit, but sports a messy stubbled look. He is friendly, but also cynical of human nature.
He tells a story of a man dying on the LA metro, and his corpse only being noticed six hours later despite passengers sitting next to him in all that time. This theme of social apathy and urban dehumanisation continues throughout the film, even influencing the plot at several key points.
It soon turns out that Vincent is a hired killer, and a good one at that. I'm not usually a huge fan of Tom Cruise, but here he plays Vincent perfectly. He is both disturbingly cold and yet endearingly animated at the same time, striking a mix between likable intelligence and frightening ruthlessness.
Vincent offers Max $600 to drive him to several different spots around the city. Max drops him off at an apartment first, and then is horrified when a body suddenly lands on top of the taxi from a window above.
Vincent is quite calm, and forces Max at gunpoint to clean the taxi and stow the corpse in the boot of the car.
From there on the film proceeds at a menacing but measured pace, with Max strongarmed into taking Vincent to the rest of his victims. Following the trail of bodies is LAPD officer Fanning (Mark Ruffalo), who believes members of the FBI are wrong to suspect Max as the murderer.
Between killings Vincent and Max talk to each other in the car, and gradually more is revealed about both. Unexpected and very tense scenes occur. One has the police pulling over the taxi for its broken windscreen.
Another has the duo meeting a jazz club owner (Barry Shabaka Henley) and having an intriguing (and very sad) conversation.
In a particularly good scene, Max is required to pose as Vincent to Vincent's criminal client Felix (Javier Bardem). He explains they've never met him in person before, and so Max can take his place if he can improvise well enough. If not, they'll probably kill him. Either way Vincent is able to sit safely outside in the car.
Javier Bardem is a very skilled actor. In No Country For Old Men, he put in an iconic performance as the unstoppable psychotic Anton Chigurh.
Here, in his portrayal of the laid back but intimidating Felix, he switches instantly from friendly chit-chat to weighting every word with solid malice.
There are two ingredients I've noticed are almost always present in good Thriller films, and I think they're the fundamental difference between a Thriller and an Action film - theme and tension.
Action films are a genre that I personally find tedious and stale the great majority of the time. Musclebound stars making tiresome quips as they mow down Faceless Baddie #79451 get me frowning. Even more so when the plot can usually be summed up in three words. Man gets revenge. Man kills things. Manmade gratuitous explosions.
That's all old tat. So back to Thrillers and themes.
To use an example: No Country For Old Men, a thriller that holds a fond place in my heart, has themes which encompass greed, guilt, the breakdown of social morals and fate. These themes combine with a terrifying use of tension to create an edge-of-seat experience. Guns don't fire every five seconds, but when they do it almost always means a character we care about is in dire peril.
Collateral is a similar film, in that although it does have action-filled scenes, it also cranks up the tension, and focuses on characterisation far more than gunfire and explosions.
Don't make him angry
Set in L.A., the plot primarily features cab driver Max (Jamie Foxx), who has been planning for a long time to start his own Limousine business, but somehow has never got around to it. Early in the film he meets a high-profile lawyer named Annie (Jada Pinkett Smith) when she rides in the back of his cab.
It's clear the two like each other, but unlike many films, where vulgar lines start getting hurled around immediately, the scene comes across as pretty natural and realistic. The two simply chat and get on well. Max starts to become a character we can empathise with, due to both a good script and an admirable performance from Foxx.
Annie leaves him with her card and departs. The next fare Max has is a strange man named Vincent (Tom Cruise), who dresses in a sharp suit, but sports a messy stubbled look. He is friendly, but also cynical of human nature.
He tells a story of a man dying on the LA metro, and his corpse only being noticed six hours later despite passengers sitting next to him in all that time. This theme of social apathy and urban dehumanisation continues throughout the film, even influencing the plot at several key points.
It soon turns out that Vincent is a hired killer, and a good one at that. I'm not usually a huge fan of Tom Cruise, but here he plays Vincent perfectly. He is both disturbingly cold and yet endearingly animated at the same time, striking a mix between likable intelligence and frightening ruthlessness.
Vincent offers Max $600 to drive him to several different spots around the city. Max drops him off at an apartment first, and then is horrified when a body suddenly lands on top of the taxi from a window above.
Vincent is quite calm, and forces Max at gunpoint to clean the taxi and stow the corpse in the boot of the car.
From there on the film proceeds at a menacing but measured pace, with Max strongarmed into taking Vincent to the rest of his victims. Following the trail of bodies is LAPD officer Fanning (Mark Ruffalo), who believes members of the FBI are wrong to suspect Max as the murderer.
Between killings Vincent and Max talk to each other in the car, and gradually more is revealed about both. Unexpected and very tense scenes occur. One has the police pulling over the taxi for its broken windscreen.
Another has the duo meeting a jazz club owner (Barry Shabaka Henley) and having an intriguing (and very sad) conversation.
In a particularly good scene, Max is required to pose as Vincent to Vincent's criminal client Felix (Javier Bardem). He explains they've never met him in person before, and so Max can take his place if he can improvise well enough. If not, they'll probably kill him. Either way Vincent is able to sit safely outside in the car.
Javier Bardem is a very skilled actor. In No Country For Old Men, he put in an iconic performance as the unstoppable psychotic Anton Chigurh.
Here, in his portrayal of the laid back but intimidating Felix, he switches instantly from friendly chit-chat to weighting every word with solid malice.
"If Santa Claus were to make a list...and [his assistant] were to lose it...how f***ing furious do you think Santa Claus would be?"
From there on the film ploughs ahead, with several surprising twists. The film manages to remain firmly in the realm of plausibility. There is a car crash not followed by an explosion, something which stunned me.
In fact, I don't think the film contains any explosions, and it's a very refreshing change indeed.
Vincent is one of the most interesting movie 'villains' I have seen in a recent film. His rationalisation of his job ("Millions of galaxies of hundreds of millions of stars, in a speck on one in a blink. That's us, lost in space.") raises some very interesting questions on morality. Does morality even exist in a purely atheist, scientific outlook on life, or is Vincent simply a sociopath? Why does it matter, ultimately?
The ending is a final release of the tension throughout the movie, and neatly sums up the themes in the film as things seem to go full-circle.
Final Word:
I went into Collateral expecting your typical crappy explosion fest, but left with a satisfied smile on my face. The film balances action with a fresh cast of characters and a plot that really does introduce some interesting questions. Performances all around are solid.
I'm going to give the film 5 stars, not because it is perfect (no film is), but because it is a very entertaining piece of cinema.
One thing I noticed throughout the film was the pleasing lack of swearing. F-bombs are dropped, but they are not generally used in casual conversation, and not to anywhere near the level I've seen in other films recently. It's amazing how much more impact they have when they're not coming out of someone's mouth every two seconds. Definitely a plus.
One thing I noticed throughout the film was the pleasing lack of swearing. F-bombs are dropped, but they are not generally used in casual conversation, and not to anywhere near the level I've seen in other films recently. It's amazing how much more impact they have when they're not coming out of someone's mouth every two seconds. Definitely a plus.
[*] [*] [*] [*] [*]
5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)