Posted 06 May 2007 - 10:11 AM
Storywise, Collateral was overall a very interesting film. I admit I missed the beginning. I only sat down not long before the body falls on the front windshield of the cab. Good character study. Tom Cruise gave a great performance as the merciless professional killer. I have never seen him acting quite like this before. His portrayal of the character was so natural. I think in other roles, his acting is a bit more 'forced' as he tries hard to give so much energy in his performances - sometimes a bit too much. His character's relationship with the cab driver was very interesting indeed and curious. Despite his disregard for life throughout the film, blowing people away left, right and center, he maintains a civil respect for Jamie Foxx's character - even when Max rebels against him on two occasions.
Certainly a gloomy looking film, and very green at times.
Posted 06 May 2007 - 11:33 AM
Posted 06 May 2007 - 01:12 PM
I don't think that Michael Man tries to get a "filmlook" when he shoots on video (he clearly pushes the medium to its limits: i.e. pushing the gain pretty high and even when he shot with the Viper it was in HDstream mode instead of FilmStream). I'm pretty sure that if he wanted a "filmlook" he'd shoot on film. And it's continued to frustrate me that some filmmakers and fans (in general) feel that if a film shot on video looks "video-ish," that automatically makes it bad. Embrace the medium.
Yeah, it definately wasn't his intent for the film to look like film. Did you see Miami Vice? It went even farther in the direction of noisy video, too far sometimes in my opinion.
Posted 12 May 2007 - 01:37 AM
Posted 12 May 2007 - 02:47 PM
I havent seen Miami Vice but Ive heard there are very mixed opinions on it's raw HD look - I know that some viewers liked that 'look' and felt that it suited the prodution while others hated it. I did like watching the original tv show in the early 80s....
I liked the look except when, within a scene, the noise level would noticeably change from shot to reverse. I don't know if it's noticeable on DVD or not. I know Collateral looks a lot different on DVD than in the theater.
Posted 12 May 2007 - 04:16 PM
I saw it on dvd, I would love it to see it on the theaters
Posted 13 May 2007 - 04:40 AM
Then any new filmmaker that shoots on 35mm would be called unprofessional etc.. EVENTHOU it has a better resolution and better latitude and what not, it is what we are used too, maybe film would look too soft for us If we were in those circumstances.. ( I dont know if that made any sense )
But i think film has no rules, too grainy in this shot too grainy in that shot? Its art.. there are guide lines on how you wont screw up so badly, but we shouldn't be restricted on making new creative shots etc..
I think Collateral was an amazing movies, well shot for its feel and story line..
Maybe someone could elaborate on what im trying to say?
Posted 13 May 2007 - 06:07 PM
Regarding the noise in Miami Vice - most of it is smoothed over by the compression on DVD, but watching this film on HDDVD with a large screen HDTV is a beautiful thing. It seems like every piece of noise comes across. That's imortant because for me, the noise was a huge part of the image's character and atonal beauty.