Posts Tagged ‘Jamie Foxx’

Collateral  (2004)  —  movie review
Last night I took an evening off of Christmas movies to watch and action movie.  My choice was the 2004 thriller “Collateral“, starring Tom Cruise as Vincent (a contract hitman) and Jamie Foxx as Max (a taxi driver).  Basically, Vincent is in Los Angeles with a night to kill (as in five targets to murder).  Max is the lucky taxi driver who gets a cash bonus to drive Vincent around as he does his dirty deeds.  Max awkwardly discovers Vincent is up to no good, but Max is convinced (by Vincent) to assist.  Action and hilarity ensue…
Okay, maybe NOT hilarity, but this is a pretty entertaining movie.  To start off, Tom Cruise is a bad guy.  Yeah, I know Tom has done a few bad guy or against-typecast roles in the past, but (for me anyway) I have to think about when was the last time I saw Tom as a “bad” guy.  If I have to think, that means I’m open for surprise.  I was both, open and surprised.  Tom was Tom (“run Tom, run”), but Tom was also pretty good.  Strike that,  VERY good.  Jamie Foxx is also mildly “against-type” cast in the role of ne’er-do-well taxi driver who dreams of owning a luxury limousine service.  It’s only in the last few minutes of the movie where Foxx reverts to super-hero and saves the day.
I particularly like Vincent repeatedly telling Max: “We’re in this together” and “We’ll both get through this”.  Max wants to believe he still has a chance to live through the night.  We, of course, have been told by the police of a similar case in Oakland, where a rampaging taxi driver killed several people and then committed suicide.  So, we pretty much know how it will “really” end up for Max at the end of the ride.
So, final recommendation:  Strong to highly recommended!  I really enjoyed this movie.  (Maybe I’ve been over-dosing on too many Christmas movies and I need to clean out my system?)  The type reversals for the two main actors was a big part of the enjoyment, but still, it (the enjoyment / entertainment) was there.  This is not a movie for kids.  The body count alone is enough to restrict access (rated “R” for violence and language), but for mature viewers, I didn’t find it to be gratuitous, over the top or offensive.  It was part of the story.  Are these “defining” roles for either of the main actors?  No.  But they are both against-type (mostly) and they both carry it off.
The question is:  “A man dies while riding on the MTA.  How long until somebody notices?
On This Day In:
2017 Falling Forward One Step At A Time
2016 And Without Expectation
2015 Just Do It
I Am A Runner
2014 Some Things I Learned (Mostly) In The Army:
2013 Who You Are
2012 Mine Stands
2011 Aversions

Read Full Post »

Today’s review is of the 2013 movie: “White House Down” starring Channing Tatum (as the Hero) and Jamie Foxx (as the President).  The premise is fairly straight forward: the hero is touring the White House with his daughter, when it is attacked by terrorists trying to kidnap the President of the United States.  There are some minor twists in the movie, but they are by and large predictable.  The movie is a standard “good-guy buddy” movie with all the same action / explosions of any of the “Die Hard” or “Lethal Weapon” franchises.  There is also a pinch of flag waving in the front yard (for the super-patriots), political / fascist intrigue (for the conspiracy theorists), and just a few one-liners and comic moments / scenes (which always make this genre more enjoyable).
All in all, this movie is nothing more than it sets out to be – an action / intrigue movie with the emphasis on the action (read: fights, shooting and explosions).  If this is your thing (and it is clearly MY thing), then you will enjoy this movie.  If it’s not your thing, you won’t find much here.  Final recommendation: solid (but not High) recommendation.  Entertaining, but not ground breaking.
On This Day In:
2013 Exposed Spirits
2012 Ow-ow
2011 Focused Relatives

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: