A-Z #49: Collateral

You can pick up hundreds of DVD's for a round-pound each - it doesn't matter. Its never about quantity, its about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and understanding why I own the films ... or you can tell me why I should sell 'em

#49 - Collateral 

Why did I buy it?

Michael Mann has always been deemed important. The fact that he brought together Pacino and De Niro, and directed the first scene they shared in Heat, is quite the achievement. But, if I am honest, at the time I had not seen Heat. Or Last of the Mohicans. Or Manhunter. In fact, the biggest pull for me to this film was Tom Cruise as a bad guy. I think that all the promotional material did showcase the style and image of the film - which is primarily down to Michael Mann and his cinematographers Dion Beebe and Paul Cameron. I watched the film at the cinema and I even ordered it for the day of release back in the hey-day of my University life.

Why do I still own it?

Because it is truly a great film. Small-scale story: Two guys in a taxi - one's a killer, one's not. Not only that, but Mark Ruffalo plays the 'hero'-cop who knows what-is-going-on and, in the same way, you watch him intently. Having said how much I love the film, it also plays an important role in my relationship with Sarah - as it was the first film we watched together. I won't get too goo-ey with this, but it replaced what should have been a viewing of Goodfellas at the last moment (because it arrived in the post that very day).

Is Cruise-as-killer a load of bull? Is Foxx-as-everyman ring untrue? I think not, but you may disagree... yay of nay?

A-Z #45: City of Angels

You can pick up hundreds of DVD's for a round-pound each - it doesn't matter. Its never about quantity, its about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and understanding why I own the films ... or you can tell me why I should sell 'em

#45 - City of Angels 

Why did I buy it?

We come across another film I have managed to 'gain' when combining my own collection with Sarah's. City of Angels is a remake of Wim Wenders classic film Wings of Desire. Though I have only seen the former, I am keen to hunt down the latter at some point.

Why do I still own it?

We have to define what a good romance is. I think City of Angels qualifies because like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind it is set within a context that does not exist - angels do not exist. But, by the same token, the unrequited love of one person over another is expressed in this film in a sincere and respectable way. Unlike Andrew Lincoln falling for Kiera Knightley in Love, Actually the love here is not a case of simply 'getting over it' (which, as soon as Knightley got it on with Lincoln's best friend, he should have moved on rather than simply holding a candle until post-wedding - !!! - he perves on her from a distance, eventually confronting her himself, corssing the line, by professing his love through false carol-singers. Nb, I do actually like Love, Actually), City of Angels is also a desire to be close to someone and to feel the person with you, close to you. I need to watch the original, I know that, but until I do - City of Angels stands tall amongst the romances in the collection.

Should I get the original Wings of Desire? Should I sell this copy of the much-more-literal City of Angels?