Collateral. 2.0 Money Trains

Collateral is better than Public Enemies because it is a colour-by-numbers thriller where character development is an optional extra. Also, it has a stronger narative. But like Public Enemies, it looks like it was shot on video in a few scenes too many.

It's still full of loopholes, though, and that makes it worth a laugh.

1. I've never seen a guy fall on a car from height in real life, but I've seen it in movies often enough, and I have a degree in engineering, so I'm pretty sure a 90kg man dropping four stories onto the 1 or 2mm steel of a car roof would cause some damage. Maybe buckle the columns, bend the roof, smash, rather than crack, the windshield. But apparently not. Apparently, you'll just dent the roof.

2. I'm also pretty sure than flipping a car over at 100kph will damage the occupants if they're not wearing seatbelts. Some cuts at least, if not broken limbs and nexts, internal injuries, etc etc. Ok, ok, suspend disbelief, or whatever you're meant to do. But when 90% of the film is set in a car, you'd think you could get these things a little more right.

3. And how come bad guys, who can group their shots within a square centimetre from across a crowded room and while moving cannot seem to hit the hero from 3 feet? That's getting a bit tired, I have to say. I'm not saying the hero should be gunned down in the second act, but how about thinking of a different situation he or she can get out of?

4. This film is LONG. (As is every Michael Mann film, actually.) It comes in at almost 2h, and could have been wrapped up nicely in more like 50 minutes. (Public Enemies could have ended about seven times before it was finally over.) How about a bit of efficiency?

All up, see Collateral if you're bored. It's not memorable though. 2.0MT

Public Enemies. 1.0 Money Trains

What the hell is it with Michael Mann? He makes a great film like Ali, and a load of utter crap like Public Enemies. Is he the American Guy Ritchie?

Now, I haven't seen all his films, but I did see Ali (excellent); Heat (booooooooooooooring); Collateral (see review); I missed Miami Vice but I heard that's a good thing; and now Public Enemies.

It's as if the film makers thought that putting a load of good actors into a film was enough to carry it without having to worry about a plot; character development; or cinematography. Let's look at those:

First, the actors and their characters. EVERYONE is in this, from Johnny Depp to Giovanni Ribisi to Leelee Sobieski to David Wenham, most of them playing bit parts. But not one of them has any character. Johhny Depp's John Dillinger is wooden and lifeless; his woman is a waste of space; Christian Bale's G-man is ... oh god, he was just crap. Everyone in this film was totally crap. There was not a single bit of character development or even enough acting to make you feel for anyone. Even when Dillinger's moll get's the good news about him, you feel nothing. Oh god, what a waste of time.

Plot: well, a bunch of guys go around robbing banks and getting shot. The cold-blooded killer side of Dillinger is kept out of the film to make him a bit of a hero, but, as per the character development comments above, you don't care either way. Look, there was plot. No cause and effect. No narrative running through the tale. At some point along the way, Pretty Boy Floyd asnd Baby Face Nelson are introduced, but you don't know why - they certainly don't add anything to the story. God, what a pile of crap.

Cinematography: you know it's bad when you notice it. It wasn't bad like Dolemite is bad: there were no boom mikes encroaching on shot, but the light was bad, as if it was shot in colour with a plan to convert to black and white. Either that, or it was filmed on video. Half the time it looked like it was shot in a 7-11, the light was so wrong. And if that wasn't enough of a problem, the film stock differed markedly between scenes, from super grainy to regular. In one scene (ONE scene), there are a few seconds when some original footage is spliced in (or it looks that way - they may have just used different stock again, mid way through the scene). Why the hell would you do that? If you do it throughout the film, no worries, but for a 2 second clip mid scene? Come on!!

Yep, this film is appalling. But it's better than Money Train. 1.0