Rock ‘n’ Roll Hangover

A boozy night produces these rockin’ thoughts for your consideration…

Fleetwood Mac’s Then Play On(1969)

In the wee hung-over hours of the morning I think of rock and roll. I listen to my shiny silver discs and my scratchy black discs and my muffled spools of magnetic tape and I can’t go back to sleep. Sleep would make some of this nausea and disorientation go away, but when I woke up this morning I just happened to hit the play button on the stereo I keep by my bed and Fleetwood Mac’s Then Play On erupted from my speakers, effectively rendering sleep impossible.

Ok, maybe “erupted’ isn’t quite the term, because that album’s music seems to cough and sputter from the speakers, at least in the beginning, when the controlled spaz of the four-chord guitar intro gives way to what I like to call “bongos and shit” and the pulsating, repetitive bass guitar finally ties everything together. There certainly are some eruptions found on that album (so no slight is meant to Peter Green and the rest of the Mac), like the slightly pissed off  "Show-Biz Blues", which asks the pertinent question “Tell me anybody, do you really give a damn for me?” and which also manages to cause an eruption with only electric slide guitar, tambourine, and handclaps. But we all know that to cause such an eruption only a very electric guitar is needed. Just ask Eddie Van Halen. Of course this is followed by the second half of “Layla”-esque instrumental “My Dream”, which I like much better than the second half of “Layla”. And the first half. “My Dream” has a very haunting chord progression, not anything earth-shattering or complex, but one that always makes me think that it’s going somewhere else, somewhere mysterious and minor, but it never seems to go there. “Layla” never goes anywhere mysterious. It just seems to sit there instead of crackle over the airwaves, making me heavy with beer and cigarette smoke even if I’m nowhere near a pool table or a “Golden Tee” game. That song marks the death of Eric Clapton to me and claims his soul in the unholy transformation that he made from English-blues-obsessed psychedelic-rock-lick-meister with a white man fro and a guitar that sounded like an acid-drenched kazoo to an alcoholic perfectly-bearded-washed-out burned-out pusher of boring trite bullshit 70’s soft rock cocaine songs, fucking beer commercials, and a truly lame acoustic ditty about his dead son that just happened to make him a ‘big creative genius superstar’ to just about every nauseating yuppie in the early 90’s. Of course I bought the cassette single of “Tears In Heaven” when it was out, but I was like 13 or something. Give me a break! Ok, if you really want to get a glimpse of the shit-covered skeletons in my musical closet, my other purchase that same day was the cassette single of “Hazard” by Richard Marx. Let’s just say that I never bought another cassette single again. Ever.

Peter Green’s Fleetwood Mac

Cassette singles weren’t around when Then Play On came out. That was late 1969. The main single (on a little piece of black vinyl) from this album was “Oh Well”, which was split into two parts for the 45 because the album version is about nine minutes long. Nine minutes, you say? For those of you that don’t know, Fleetwood Mac wasn’t always the cocaine-fuelled public soap opera fronted by a bitchy witch with a missing septum and a fierce finger-picking one-man-band with hair that’s looking more and more like Art Garfunkel’s as time goes on, snorting and fucking its way across the world’s stages and gracing the airwaves and thirty-somethings’ turntables with slick, catchy album rock. No, no, no. In the early days, the Mac were a motherfuckin’ blues band, part of the wave of Brits whose minds were completely blown by Muddy Waters, Lightnin’ Hopkins, and the like and who decided to fuse that sound with dirty-ass rock and roll. Eric Clapton and the Yardbirds were part of that, the Stones were part of that, as well as the Pretty Things, the Small Faces, the Kinks, and countless other bands who I’m not familiar enough with (and frankly not all that interested in) were part of that. By the time Fleetwood Mac started recording albums, a good portion of those other bands who began as blues-rock outfits had already moved on to other sounds. The Stones were toying with psychedelia and on their way to re-emerging as the heroin-daze slop-rock kings we all know and love, Clapton had left the Yardbirds and the Bluesbreakers and was creating psychedelic blues with Cream, and the Kinks were singing about the British countryside. So the Mac were still singin’ the blues, which was more popular among young people in Britain than in the country of its birth, and didn’t start moving away from that until Then Play On.

Not Rick Wakeman, but close

I’ve read a review on that album that makes it seem like the band took a plunge head-on into prog rock territory. After reading that, my sick 70’s-tainted cape-wearing mind salivated at the thought of a combination of blues rock and prog, so I immediately went out and bought the CD. Well, ELP it ain’t, and thank Jeebus for that. I don’t know what the fuck some of these reviewers think prog rock is, but I’m sorry, one criterion of being a prog rock band is that one of your members had to have worn a cape at least once on stage. Although Peter Green by most accounts went completely bonkers after exiting Fleetwood Mac, I seriously doubt that he ever wore a cape this side of an asylum door. Now I may be causing some controversy with this cape statement among the 1% of people out there who actually even know what the hell I’m talking about, but fuck it, I know I’m right. I also must remember that most people out there have an extreme disdain for progressive rock and therefore don’t even come close to understanding it. They don’t want to, and that’s fine. It’s just that anything that was produced between 1968 and 1975 (especially by a British band) that contains a song over 6 minutes long with more than four chords in it gets labeled “progressive rock”. We all know that’s not true at all; it’s the flute solo that makes rock “progressive.”

So let me backtrack a little bit for those of you who haven’t yet stopped reading and still have no idea what I was talking about in that last paragraph. Guitarist Peter Green was pretty much the leader of Fleetwood Mac in the early days. They got their name from Mick Fleetwood, the skinny crazy-looking drummer with bug eyes and superhuman abilities in the realm of coke consumption, and John McVie, yet another “quiet man” bass player whom I know absolutely nothing about. Those were the only two guys to stick with the band throuout all the lineup changes that took place during the 70’s, especially after they hired the aforementioned Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham, produced one of the biggest selling albums of all time (Rumours, for those of you who have lived your entire life in a coma, or worse yet, in Arkansas), and virtually kept the economy of Columbia afloat for over a decade (I hear that Stevie Nicks’ face is still pictured on Columbian currency). Anyway, Green, Fleetwood, and McVie played together in John Mayall’s Bluesbreakers (Green, in fact, replaced Eric Clapton when he left to join Cream – it’s all so incestuous, isn’t it?), quit that, hooked up with guitarist Jeremy Spencer, and formed Fleetwood Mac. After releasing their debut album in 1968, they added guitarist Danny Kirwan and put out a few more records, including Then Play On, which would turn out to be Green’s last one with the band. You see, it seems he went the way of Syd Barrett, supposedly frying his brain with LSD and probably free love. He quit the band, recorded a couple of solo albums, and disappeared. Spencer later went crazy from drugs as well, quitting the band to join a cult. Christine Perfect joined, married John McVie, and the soap opera had its premiere episode. They went through various lineup and stylistic changes that I won’t discuss here because a) it’s irrelevant to this discussion and b) I don’t know a damn thing about the albums from that period. Then, in 1975, with the band in disarray and their future uncertain, the remaining members heard a little album put out by a duo called Buckingham-Nicks, auditioned them for the band, and they were soon on their way to having great pop success as well as black holes for nostrils.

Commercial success = Dignity

Some purists who like the early Mac don’t care for the later pop stuff, but you really have to look at them as completely different bands. It’s almost a cliché nowadays to say that Rumours is one of the best pop albums ever, but if you’ve ever really listened to it, you know that it’s true. I must admit, it’s been a bit of a guilty pleasure album for me all these years, but as time goes on I care less and less what people might think of me when I say that Rumours is fucking great. There are so many songs on that album that are a part of our public consciousness: “Dreams”, “Don’t Stop”, “Go Your Own Way”, “The Chain” – that’s like almost half the album. As annoying as Stevie Nicks might be and as grating as her voice can get to some people, I totally fell in love with her the first time I really sat down and listened to her vocal performance on “Dreams”. Sure, she’s slurring the words and was probably dancing around in flowing witch-like robes when she was in the studio recording the song, but man, just the soaring, airy quality of her voice gets me, especially when she goes up high on the line “It’s only right that you should play the way you feel it.” Wow. The other thing that I really love about that song is the extremely loud cymbal crash that comes in on beat two of the chorus, right on the “-der” of   “Thunder only happens when it’s raining” (which isn’t really true, by the way). The crash kind of comes from out of nowhere and it’s really fucking loud! Ok, obscure 60’s garage rock it’s not, but I never claimed to be hip.

Just listen to Lindsey Buckingham’s acoustic guitar picking on the next song, “Never Going Back Again.” I’m going to go listen to it right now. I’ll be right back…. Just listened to it and I must say, that’s some damn fine pickin’. I know there are bluegrass guys out there who could make Buckingham’s playing sound like the Troggs or something, but there’s an intricacy in it that isn’t found in your normal Top 40 album rock stuff. It certainly isn’t found in any music that’s played on the radio today, or at least what I’ve heard since I banished myself from the radio all those years ago. You know, Lindsey Buckingham wrote some strange shit on those Fleetwood Mac albums. “Never Going Back Again” is kind of strange and quirky in its structure, and have you heard “The Ledge” from Tusk? What a paranoid, plastic, frantic, creepy, goofy, cheesy, and scary sounding song. Even a song like “Big Love” from their synth-dominated period has a strange quality to it; maybe it’s just his guitar playing. And speaking of Tusk, there’s some other wacky stuff going on there. “What Makes You Think You’re The One” has that incessant snare drum that sounds like a gun shot, “Not That Funny” has the cheesy Casio sound that comes in and jams itself violently in your ears, and of course “Tusk” has that freakin’ marching band on it… you know, come to think of it, most of the songs on Tusk sound like the band members are attacking their instruments as if those drums, guitars, and keyboards are responsible for leading them into a hellacious lifestyle filled with pervy sex and, you got it, mountains of ‘Grade A’ cocaine. Some of you might be saying, “Ok, man, we get the fact that this band did a lot of coke. Get off it. It’s getting old.” But I’m here to tell you, as long as the part of my brain that remembers Fleetwood Mac remains untouched by chemical abuse or physical damage, I will always have an endless supply of cocaine jokes armed and ready.

Stevie Nicks as Mystic Altar Boy

What in the hell was I talking about? Ah, it doesn’t really matter. What started out as some grand proclamation of what rock and roll really means to me has become me trying to dissect an album I know very little about (Tusk) and a band that is kind of far down on my imaginary list of all-time favorite bands (the Mac, for those of you who nodded off). Well, at least I haven’t gone on and on about the genius of the Monkees. I’ll leave that for another rambling session. The hangover has subsided, and I’ve listened to Then Play On about four times today, so perhaps I should give it a rest. Oh, wait! Did I tell you about the Danny Kirwan songs on that album? Hmmmmm. Forget it.

Rock ‘n’ Roll Hangover Read More »

The Town Without Pity

Sin City weaves through the tale of hulking sociopath and dead-prostitute-avenger Marv (Mickey Rourke), dedicated cop Hartigan (Bruce Willis), and all around cool customer and mean motor scooter Dwight (Clive Owens) as they set out to right wrongs, punish the deserving, and spill a goodly amount of blood (their foes and their own), while laboring through the urban wasteland of fictional Basin City. Along the way we’re introduced to a seedy world of strippers, prostitutes, corrupt cops, silent assassins, pedophiles, and downright evil public figures, all so well armed it must bring a tear to Charlton Heston’s craggy eye.

This’ll find an audience with fans of stylized grit and gristle, but serious film-noir fans might find it’s inherent cartoonishness a bit much to take. But if you’re feeling the need for fast cars, faster women, big guns and lot’s of blood, stop in at Sin City and you’ll get your fill.

Sin City
3 & 1/2 Stars

I was able to catch the advance screening of Frank Miller’s Sin City last night.  As a long-time comic geek, this movie had me all kinds of oogala boogala over the prospect seeing Basin City’s most infamous residents live out their their hyperviolent lives on the big screen.  The film geek in me was a hell of a lot more skeptical, however. 

Well, I was duly impressed and a little let down, to tell the truth.

Violent Marv gets his Hulk on.

Director Robert Rodriquez (Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Spy Kids 1 -1000, From Dusk till Dawn) was so intent on faithfully adapting uber-comic writer Frank Miller’s graphic novel series that he made Miller the co-director of the film . While most comic fans would swoon over the prospect of a series creator having equal creative control, I’m not so enamored of the talent that I can blindly think that what works in one medium works in another. But before I trod all over that aspect, let’s get the meat and gristle out of the way.

Sin City weaves through the tale of hulking sociopath and dead-prostitute-avenger Marv (Mickey Rourke), dedicated cop Hartigan (Bruce Willis), and all around cool customer and mean motor scooter Dwight (Clive Owens) as they set out to right wrongs, punish the deserving, and spill a goodly amount of blood (their foes and their own), while laboring through the urban wasteland of fictional Basin City. Along the way we’re introduced to a seedy world of strippers, prostitutes, corrupt cops, silent assassins, pedophiles, and downright evil public figures, all so well armed it must bring a tear to Charlton Heston’s craggy eye.

Marv is on a bloody quest to avenge the death of Goldie, a prostitute who mistakenly assumed he could protect her. In the comic, he was known as Violent Marv, and he certainly lives up to the name in this adaptation. Dwight starts a gang-war to protect the girls of Old Town from the repercussions of a misguided killing, and Hartigan is trying to protect a young girl from a vengeful serial killer he couldn’t manage to stop 8 years before. Bookending the film are two short vignettes about a charming but efficient contract killer (Josh Hartnett).

Steeped equally in the hard-boiled canon of Mike Hammer and the blood soaked frenzy of the Asian revenge genre, Sin City is one incredibly gory and violent film. Seriously, this movie makes Kill Bill look like The Rainbow Brite Movie. Beheadings, beatings, endless shootings, and some leg-crossing inducing moments permeate through Sin City, drenching it in an ocean of hyper stylized gore. To that end, it’s almost a love song for bloody retribution on a level Sam Peckinpah would have cringed at. Combined with more supple female skin that I’ve seen on screen since the T&A glory days of the mid-80’s, the only thing saving this movie from NC-17 rating is hyper-cartoonish black and white look of the film, which almost perfectly matches Frank Miller’s original works. Visually the film is an absolute winner. Reversed silhouettes, sparse use of color, and beautifully realized effects made this a joy to watch from a purely artistic point of view. Fans of the series will quickly realize that nearly every shot is a direct lift of the comic and perfectly conveys Miller’s gritty style.

Which is actually where my problem with the film lies. Every single line of dialogue is from the comic. It was so faithful to the source that I could have left for 30 minutes and known exactly what was going on. Indeed, one fan behind me was reciting the lines moments before the characters would. As a fan of the series, I impressed by the truly exceptional casting of the roles, as each character was a perfect representation of their creator’s intention, but I can’t help wondering what the point of the whole endeavor was. Much like Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho, if Rodriguez didn’t have anything to add to the material why bother making it? I realize that statement constitutes fan-boy heresy of the highest order, but I long ago came to grips with the fact that director is an interpreter, not a re-enacter. For all the changes wrought by Sam Raimi, Bryan Singer, along with every other comic-book film director, I’m glad those artists showed us something different about the characters I’m so familiar with. Every fanboy wants a perfect rendition of his favorite story, but what’s the point of that, and how does it serve to widen the appreciation for the characters? The answer: It doesn’t. This film is a slobbering love fest for it’s source material, and it makes no bones about it. Whether the big name cast and visual hooks will be enough to engage the unfamiliar remains to be seen.

As a stand-alone film, Sin City is not much more than a cartoonish realization of most every guy’s most animal instinct. Talking is never an option, and why wound a guy when you can utterly erase him? And why just kill ‘em when you can literally pound them into the pavement? On that level the film does it’s job exceptionally well. Having to pick and choose the stories from such a larger source, Rodriquez and Miller don’t spend any time explaining their characters’ action beyond a superficial level, nor do they provide any clue on how these characters became the way they are. In Sin City everyone is just one bad day away from a complete homicidal rampage. But I suppose I’m asking too much of a film which would rather spend more effort on cool poses and hard-ass looks in between gunfights.

Some little highlights before I conclude this, lest anyone think that at the very least I didn’t enjoy the film on it’s most visceral level: As I said before, the casting is jaw-droppingly perfect for fans of the series. Non fans can be content to enjoy an immensely entertaining performance by Mickey Rourke, and really…how often can you say that? As I said previously, Rosario Dawson managed to be vulnerable, tough, scary and sexy as hell without fading into her characters inherent shallowness. Nick Stahl was excellent as a bona-fide monster, in that his pre-hideous screen time is equally as menacing and evil as his post. Bencio Del Toro obviously enjoyed the hell out of his role as bad apple Jack Rafferty, and that came across in his wild-eyed and creepy performance. But truly the most kudos have to go to former Hobbit Elijah Wood, who is doing an excellent job in picking roles capable of erasing Frodo Baggins from the mind of the collective consciousness.

I suppose I need to pick a side on this movie. I did enjoy it, but not for the reasons I expected to, just as I was turned off by those things that, as a long time comic fan, I should have been very happy with. This’ll find an audience with fans of stylized grit and gristle, but serious film-noir fans might find it’s inherent cartoonishness a bit much to take. But if you’re feeling the need for fast cars, faster women, big guns and lot’s of blood, stop in at Sin City and you’ll get your fill.

The Town Without Pity Read More »

Hostage

What starts out as a taut suspense film utterly derails itself in the last act with oen of the most ridiculously over-the-top action sequences imaginable.  This should-have-been-interesting film loses itself within the confines of it’s increasingly contrived plot, and not even a solid (and entertaining) performance by Willis can save it.  But it does get bonus points for prompting me to say ‘Wow, I wish Kevin Pollack was in more of this’.

Hostage
2 & 1/2 Stars

I feel bad for Bruce Willis.  He’s an actor that I typically like, but he just keeps picking these projects that I either outright hate (like The Whole Nine Yards and Tears of the Sun), or are just beneath his ability.  Sadly there aren’t enough Die Hards and Unbreakables in his resume, and Hostage probably won’t help that average.

Willis trades his guns for brains in this one, playing Jeff Talley, a former LAPD hostage negotiator who retreated to a small town sheriff’s department after a hostage situation went horribly wrong.  Of course the Hollywood law of averages states that he’ll be forced to play the negotiator once again, and sure enough when two bush-league delinquent teens (Jonothan Tucker and Marshall Allman) & their full-blown psycho buddy (Ben Foster) take a family hostage after botching a carjacking, Talley is returned to the kind of situation that broke his spirit.  Unfortunately for Talley, the teens have taken over the home of Walter Smith (Kevin Pollack), a man with ties to a mysterious organization who will do anything to ensure that their information is retrieved, up to and including Talley’s family.  Talley is forced to barter the lives of innocents against the lives of his own family, while trying to keep the police from invading the home. 

There’s no way around the fact that the premise of Hostage is full-blown ridiculous.  Seriously, that’s really out there in the land of WTF?  Thankfully, a decent script and a high tension atmosphere keep Hostage from descending into silliness until the last act is played out.  French director Florent Emilio Siri (who’s previous projects have included directing the Tom Clancy video game Splinter Cell, which is readily apparent by just the opening credit sequence alone) understands how to maintain a tense situation without going over the top.  Talley’s choices (and the moral cost they impose on him) give you a reason to care about the fate of everyone involved.  Willis does pained like none other, and his trademark stoicism acts as a flimsy facade for the internal anguish Talley is suffering.  I was really impressed with his performance.  I only wish the film lived up to it. 

The last 30 minutes of this film almost completely derail Hostage, as a previously shaky delinquent turns into a one-man killing machine that’s a mix between Luc Besson’s Professional and The Crow.  Yes, it’s really that outlandish.  I’d thought the inability to finish a film strongly was a particularly American ailment, but Hostage proves that shoddy storytelling knows no borders.

My other nitpick with Hostage would be its use of music.  Far from using an understated score like you’d expect in a suspense film, you’re bombarded with the kind of orchestral freak outs normally reserved for comic book films.  I kept looking in the corner of the frames for Batman to pop up.  If you’re willing to drop your sensibility at the ticket booth, Hostage delivers some solid moments of suspense, but try not to be too disappointed when the previously smooth ride hits some very large potholes at the finish.

Hostage Read More »

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Wes Anderson’s fourth film finds him using new genres to explore old ground.  Easily the most subtle and complex of Anderson’s films, The Life Aquatic tells the story of declining oceagraphic documentarian Steve Zissou (Bill Murray) and his quest to put the meaning back into his life, be it through anther adventure or the awkward bond with his newly acquainted grown son (Owen Wilson).  It’s a difficult film to take in on the first viewing, but ultimately it’s Anderson’s most emotionally satisfying film to date.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
4 & 1/2 Stars

Four films in, Wes Anderson is fully on his way to becoming the most accomplished young directors working in Hollywood today. Each one of his films has been a rich, fully realized tapestry detailing the convoluted lives of the has-beens, the never was, and the almost greats, and with The Life Aquatic Anderson delivers his most perfect failure yet in Bill Murray’s Steve Zissou.

Steve Zissou is a marine-life documentary maker who, along with his crew, his equipment, and his personal life, has definitely seen better days. Due to the death of his close friend and his failing celebrity, Zissou is an embittered crank who continues to work because it’;s all he knows how to do. When a man claiming to be the product of one of his many extra-marital affairs arrives (Owen Wilson) to find out more about him, Zissou is shown what he might have missed in his life. When nature reporter Jane Winslett-Richardson (Cate Blanchett) shows up to interview Zissou, he’;s energized by a sense of purpose and drive he’;s not felt in years as he strives to complete his latest documentary detailing his attempts to destroy the animal that killed his friend. Along the way Zissou deals with a rapidly disintegrating marriage, his burgeoning feelings of fatherhood, pirates, larceny, and out-and-out mutiny.

The Life Aquatic marks a departure for Anderson as not only is he now having to deal with action sequences, he’;s also included the stop-motion animation work of Harry Selick (James & The Giant Peach, Nightmare Before Christmas). Furthermore, this marks the first time Anderson has written a film without Owen Wilson, who merely stars in this one. Each one of those changes is felt in one way or another, be it from the strangely staged (and hopelessly goofy) action scenes, the otherworldliness of Selick’;s creations, or the much more melancholy and resigned feel of the film’;s characters.

Thankfully Anderson’;s cast is more than up for the challenge and no actor rises to the occasion like Bill Murray. Zissou could almost be the middle-aged version of Rushmore’;s Max Fischer, whose enthusiasm and endless energy has been destroyed by disappointment after disappointment. Not so much charming as just a blowhard who is used to getting his way, Murray’;s Zissou is just a wellspring of barely contained regret and bitterness. He’;s surrounded by a cast of Lost Boy-esque misfits like Klaus (Willem Dafoe), who worships him like an eager puppy and the aforementioned prodigal son, Ned whose own sadness is offset by his desire to have a father, and his blossoming relationship with soon-to-be pregnant mother Blanchett.

For all of Anderson’;s trademark quirk and eccentricity, it’;s Murray that makes this film so emotionally satisfying. Zissou is desperate for any kind of redemption be it personal or professional, and his longing to be liked and loved is almost heartbreaking. There’;s an emotional payoff to this film’;s meandering journey of oddity, and while it’;s certainly not free of faults, The Life Aquatic might just be Anderson’;s most perfectly realized character piece to date.

For all of Anderson’;s trademark quirk and eccentricity, it’;s Murray that makes this film so emotionally satisfying. Zissou is desperate for any kind of redemption be it personal or professional, and his longing to be liked and loved is almost heartbreaking. There’;s an emotional payoff to this film’;s meandering journey of oddity, and while it’;s certainly not free of faults, The Life Aquatic might just be Anderson’;s most perfectly realized character piece to date.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou Read More »

Collateral

Michael Mann returns to the genre that holds his best work: the crime thriller.  This time around Jamie Foxx plays a cabdriver who’s commandeered by sociopathic hitman Tom Cruise to assist him in his nefarious endeavors.  It’s a facsinating character study of two clashing personalities, but ultimately loses it’s footing in the third act.  Thankfully the clumsy ending isn’t enough to detract from two great performances from Cruise and Foxx. 

Collateral
3 Stars

Michael Mann has had one of those careers that are almost staggeringly entertaining.  Since 1983, nearly every one of his directorial efforts has been a favorite of mine.  Although it’s taken nearly 10 years for him to return to the crime genre that he redefined with 1995’s Heat, I was a little uneasy about Collateral.  Tom Cruise somehow manages to fascinate and repel me at that same time, and Jamie Foxx is a bit of an unknown film quality to me.  Thankfully, Mann’s skilled hand at directing turned great performances from both actors, with only a minor disappointment.

Collateral tells the story of Max (Foxx), an L.A. cabdriver who has turned his work into a science while trying to break into something greater.  At an airport run he picks up Vincent (Cruise) who hires him to make five stops and get him back to the airport.  Unbeknownst to Max, Vincent is in town to eliminate the witnesses of an upcoming drug trafficking trial, but soon Max is an unwilling accomplice as both driver and decoy. 

And really, that’s about it.  Collateral doesn’t work so much as a thriller as it does a character study of two opposites.  Cool, unshakeable Vincent with his uneasy grasp of morality, and Max, a moral man forced to make immoral choices to save his own life.  Both actors turn in absolutely perfect performances, and for once Cruise’s devil-may-care cockiness comes across as more chilling than grating.  Foxx really impressed me here, especially in a scene where he has to pose as Vincent, going from a nervous wreck to a spot-on delivery of Cruise’s style and demeanor. 

However the character that steals the most scenes is L.A. itself.  Mann has made his city just as integral to the story as the characters or their actions.  Filmed in a mix of high definition digital and traditional film, Mann dirties up the print to present a night time film that feels achingly real.  There’s an almost complete lack of artificial lighting, which allows you to feel like you’re peeking in on two lives that could be happening around you. 

Sadly, the last 20 minutes of the film degenerate into a standard action boiler plate which makes for one jarring thematic transition, but every minute up to that point is just perfect.  Mann’s next project is rumored to be a big screen adaptation of his seminal TV crime series, Miami Vice, which is a mind boggling choice for a director of his caliber, but if he can capture the vibrancy and vitality he’s produced in Collateral, I may have to give it a go.

Great pacing and camerawork only heighten the tensions of this already airtight thriller, so I give it a pass based on the first 3/4ths of the movie.  If only they’d thought the ending through more….

Collateral Read More »