Collaterol

Patrick Cooper · May 6, 2007

I just saw Collaterol on TV tonight for the first time. An unusual film in different ways. I know there's been quite a bit of hype about this film, in particular the medium that it was shot on. I was curious to see how well the film makers could pull off a 'film look' - if that was their intent. I must say that it did look quite video-like - some shots more so than others. The interior shots inside the cab and some outside street shots looked particularly 'videoish.' The appearance of motion (of the characters and long shots of cars driving around) also gave away the origin of the capture medium, despite the fact that they were probably filming in 24p I guess. There was an ariel shot over the city which looked liked it could have come from that reality tv show Cops! I think the use of hand held shots in this film was a mistake - if the overall intent was to make a video originated movie look like film (and I assume that is the intent of the majority of film makers who shoot a HD feature) then hand held shots are only going to add to the video look. I know I keep going on and on about the videoish look of the film but I found it a bit distracting for a Hollywood feature and thought that it gave the production a cheapened look.

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.

Richard Vialet · May 6, 2007

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.

Chris Keth · May 6, 2007

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.

jan von krogh · May 7, 2007

"crank" is another interesting example for creating new cinematic looks who use lots of digital styles. also "apocalypto" has some quite wild shots.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0479884/

Patrick Cooper · May 12, 2007

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....

Chris Keth · May 12, 2007

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.

Martin Yernazian · May 12, 2007

WOW! I love this movie I thought it was really creative for what it was or what I was expecting

I saw it on dvd, I would love it to see it on the theaters

Best

Saba Mazloum · May 13, 2007

I think we should think this way, IF video was first invented than 35mm film..

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?

David Sweetman · May 13, 2007

Well, if they were trying to look like film, they would have shot on flim. They didn't choose digital for financial limitations, they had Tom Cruise for cryin' out loud. And in all fairness...you saw it on broadcast tv...

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.