Movies Which movie is better: Collateral or Training Day

[revoltub]

Cant tell if @Bullitt68 is really serious or just trolling at this point.

 

[JoeBobbaLou2]

Collateral easily. Training Day was grossly overrated.

 

[JoeBobbaLou2]

As much as I love Denzel, this was not his best performance.

 

[Thrawn33]

I've watched Collateral once, I seen Training Day several times.

TD by being more rewatchable.

 

[Severen]

Cant tell if @Bullitt68 is really serious or just trolling at this point.

Seems to be seriously just fanboying for a movie. It's super super rare to find bullet proof perfect scripts, and Collateral sure ain't it.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Cant tell if @Bullitt68 is really serious or just trolling at this point.

do you guys have a history when it comes to arguing movies?

 

[revoltub]

do you guys have a history when it comes to arguing movies?

Us, no.

 

[Bullitt68]

i love kubrick, he's probably my favorite director, but i don't get some of his stuff

Kubrick is the best example of a filmmaker whose work rewards repeat viewings. He's not someone whose work you binge and who you "get" immediately and completely. He's someone whose work requires - and deserves - the same time and care that he put into making it. For my money, he's the GOAT, and literally every film of his from Paths of Glory through Eyes Wide Shut isn't just great, they're all masterpieces. I recommend them all and I recommend multiple viewings.

barry lyndon was fucking beautifully shot, like that opening scene of the duel. it literally looks like an magnificent oil painting, but i'm too dumb to get what the hell was going on in that movie, and i was bored.

What do you feel you didn't "get"? You can "get" a movie and still find it boring. You might just not be into period piece costume dramas. And it does move slowly through its three hours. I'd still encourage you to revisit it over time, but it might be it's just not your cup of tea.

i know you're arguing with other posters and stuff but you gotta realize us civilians don't get it all the time

I literally get paid to help people get it when they don't.

sometimes, not necessarily you, but the smarty pants filmmakers and writers sometimes make pretentious stuff like that emma stone movie with the brain transplant or whatever.

No sweat: I also hated that movie.

what are you top 10-20 recommend movies?

I don't do that. I always have people tell me movies that they love and then I recommend movies similar to those. Everyone "should" see Citizen Kane and Rashomon, but everyone also "should" read Jane Eyre and The Brothers Karamazov but I haven't and won't because I don't care about literature. I start with what movies people like, then I give them more movies to hopefully also like, and then it's rinse and repeat until they're way out in the deep end exploring other national cinemas and various time periods.

You really need to do a crash field test to concede that a lap top surviving a violent car crash involving flipping multiple times, and landing open conveniently in the exact right spot for Max to see the screen while being arrested is widely improbable and contrived?

How come you're not complaining that they didn't have any broken limbs and/or that they weren't knocked unconscious? Why are you arbitrarily insisting that the laptop should've been crushed to dust but totally cool with no serious injuries being sustained by either one of them? That issue of apparent hypocrisy notwithstanding - and I appreciate the irony of you the troll asking me if I'm arguing in good faith - try this: The laptop was in Cruise's briefcase and so it didn't sustain direct/repeat damage but merely slid out of the briefcase, maybe jostled out once they started moving around in the upside down cab.

Let me guess: You're going to keep being a contrarian troll.

Are you sure you are arguing in good faith?. News flash, its a ridiculously undeniably contrived moment.

Proof by assertion is no proof at all.

Cool. Explain how he could have deduced she was the final target without seeing the lap top.

Last time, I said you probably didn't read or understand this when I first posted it. Now it's clear you also didn't read or understand this when I posted it the second time. Maybe the third time will be the charm. Try (re)(re)reading this:

It's part of the genius of the film that it ends where it began. For starters, it's just a great magic trick: We see where Foxx picks Cruise up at the beginning, we even see Cruise and Pinkett Smith pass each other on the escalators, yet it still hits like a punch in the gut when we realize where Cruise is heading at the end. That's just damn fine filmmaking.

Clue #1: Foxx picked Cruise up where he dropped Pinkett Smith off. Clue #2: Cruise tells Foxx that his contract has a "'witness for the prosecution' look" to him and Pinkett Smith told Foxx that she was a prosecutor.

Let me guess: You're going to keep being a contrarian troll.

Oh ok. So because a character references cosmic coincidences earlier on, that someone makes the coincidence of 2 people he picked up in a city of millions being linked, not a ridiculous coincidence anymore?

Yes. It's called a theme. When something happens in a film that's talked about a lot in the film, and happens the way that it's talked about, it's neither ridiculous nor a coincidence -- it's design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun). There's a reason for everything that happens in Collateral. That's why it's a great script. In Training Day the only reason Hawke survives being with the Mexicans is because the movie wasn't over yet. That's why it's not a great script.

Let me guess: You're going to keep being a contrarian troll.

It was ridiculous in training day for Jack to meet the gangsters cousin but not in Collateral because nobody mentioned cosmic coincidences in training day? lol.

It's called purpose.

It was integrated, it was just a wild coincidence

This isn't how these words work.

We have not even gotten into the contrived part where both annie and vincent and perfectly positioned in the tower for max to see them through the windows and direct her over the phone, or was that just down to cosmic coincidence as well?

First, this is beyond nitpicking. If you're going to be this whiny about Collateral, then explain why you don't have a problem with how convenient it is that the Mexicans go through Hawke's pockets first instead of just killing him. They're literally about to shoot him but then the one guy physically stops Smiley specifically to rob Hawke first. They might as well have just had him tell the audience "Hey, everyone, here comes the twist that's going to allow the protagonist to survive!" You have no problem with that, but Collateral offends your sense of realism?

Ignoring your double standard - and, again, I appreciate the irony of you acting like I'm the one with a double standard, classic projection from the troll playbook - I'll still give you the courtesy of answering your bad faith and stupid question. Do you remember when Foxx takes the guy's cell phone and runs up the levels of the parking garage? Do you remember him looking up at the building in front of him while dialing? We're not anywhere near the realm of random or coincidence, cosmic or otherwise. Foxx went there specifically, both for cell signal strength and for line of sight. And that's motivated by the already established fact that Foxx knows the city like a savant, and since he had Pinket Smith's office address, he knew a good spot to get both a signal and a visual. Perfectly plausible, perfectly motivated, perfectly in keeping with character. In a word: Perfect.

Let me guess: You're going to keep being a contrarian troll.

PS. Stop getting triggered out of your mind because someone disagrees with your opinion on movies.

I'm like Cruise in Collateral, pal. I do this for a living. Idiots on forums don't trigger me, but calling out idiots when they're being idiots is an amusing hobby in which I occasionally indulge. Now, how about you prove me wrong and prove to me that you can stop being a contrarian troll?

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Kubrick is the best example of a filmmaker whose work rewards repeat viewings. He's not someone whose work you binge and who you "get" immediately and completely. He's someone whose work requires - and deserves - the same time and care that he put into making it. For my money, he's the GOAT, and literally every film of his from Paths of Glory through Eyes Wide Shut isn't just great, they're all masterpieces. I recommend them all and I recommend multiple viewings.



What do you feel you didn't "get"? You can "get" a movie and still find it boring. You might just not be into period piece costume dramas. And it does move slowly through its three hours. I'd still encourage you to revisit it over time, but it might be it's just not your cup of tea.



I literally get paid to help people get it when they don't.



No sweat: I also hated that movie.



I don't do that. I always have people tell me movies that they love and then I recommend movies similar to those. Everyone "should" see Citizen Kane and Rashomon, but everyone also "should" read Jane Eyre and The Brothers Karamazov but I haven't and won't because I don't care about literature. I start with what movies people like, then I give them more movies to hopefully also like, and then it's rinse and repeat until they're way out in the deep end exploring other national cinemas and various time periods.



How come you're not complaining that they didn't have any broken limbs and/or that they weren't knocked unconscious? Why are you arbitrarily insisting that the laptop should've been crushed to dust but totally cool with no serious injuries being sustained by either one of them? That issue of apparent hypocrisy notwithstanding - and I appreciate the irony of you the troll asking me if I'm arguing in good faith - try this: The laptop was in Cruise's briefcase and so it didn't sustain direct/repeat damage but merely slid out of the briefcase, maybe jostled out once they started moving around in the upside down cab.

Let me guess: You're going to keep being a contrarian troll.



Proof by assertion is no proof at all.



Last time, I said you probably didn't read or understand this when I first posted it. Now it's clear you also didn't read or understand this when I posted it the second time. Maybe the third time will be the charm. Try (re)(re)reading this:



Clue #1: Foxx picked Cruise up where he dropped Pinkett Smith off. Clue #2: Cruise tells Foxx that his contract has a "'witness for the prosecution' look" to him and Pinkett Smith told Foxx that she was a prosecutor.

Let me guess: You're going to keep being a contrarian troll.



Yes. It's called a theme. When something happens in a film that's talked about a lot in the film, and happens the way that it's talked about, it's neither ridiculous nor a coincidence -- it's design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun). There's a reason for everything that happens in Collateral. That's why it's a great script. In Training Day the only reason Hawke survives being with the Mexicans is because the movie wasn't over yet. That's why it's not a great script.

Let me guess: You're going to keep being a contrarian troll.



It's called purpose.



This isn't how these words work.



First, this is beyond nitpicking. If you're going to be this whiny about Collateral, then explain why you don't have a problem with how convenient it is that the Mexicans go through Hawke's pockets first instead of just killing him. They're literally about to shoot him but then the one guy physically stops Smiley specifically to rob Hawke first. They might as well have just had him tell the audience "Hey, everyone, here comes the twist that's going to allow the protagonist to survive!" You have no problem with that, but Collateral offends your sense of realism?

Ignoring your double standard - and, again, I appreciate the irony of you acting like I'm the one with a double standard, classic projection from the troll playbook - I'll still give you the courtesy of answering your bad faith and stupid question. Do you remember when Foxx takes the guy's cell phone and runs up the levels of the parking garage? Do you remember him looking up at the building in front of him while dialing? We're not anywhere near the realm of random or coincidence, cosmic or otherwise. Foxx went there specifically, both for cell signal strength and for line of sight. And that's motivated by the already established fact that Foxx knows the city like a savant, and since he had Pinket Smith's office address, he knew a good spot to get both a signal and a visual. Perfectly plausible, perfectly motivated, perfectly in keeping with character. In a word: Perfect.

Let me guess: You're going to keep being a contrarian troll.



I'm like Cruise in Collateral, pal. I do this for a living. Idiots on forums don't trigger me, but calling out idiots when they're being idiots is an amusing hobby in which I occasionally indulge. Now, how about you prove me wrong and prove to me that you can stop being a contrarian troll?

yeah maybe i don't like period pieces that much. i still think it looked amazing in many scenes, maybe i'll revisit it in the future.

i did rewatch eyes wide shut yesterday and it was still amazing.

i was going to make a thread tearing the alice the character apart and asking who's in the right or wrong but that wouldn't be very productive and that's not even the point of the movie anyway so i ditched it. the movie was perfect and all the characters (flawed or not) were amazing.

question. what aspect ratio is the intended version of kubrick's movies? i remember watching the the kubrick collection version of EWS from 2007 and if i remember right, it was in full matte or 4:3 or whatever some of the scenes flowed better. is 4:3 the intended version? i watched the criterion version last night (1.85 or whatever) and it still seemed fine, but i remember the 4:3 being better. i could be wrong.

question 2. why can't they make movies like this anymore and do you know any movies similar to EWS? it doesn't have to be the same theme, but how it's done. it took a simple topic and made it so powerful. no fancy special effects, cheap writing, or gimmicks.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

or even something similar to chinatown. gonna rewatch that tonight, actually

 

[Bullitt68]

i did rewatch eyes wide shut yesterday and it was still amazing.

i was going to make a thread tearing the alice the character apart and asking who's in the right or wrong but that wouldn't be very productive and that's not even the point of the movie anyway so i ditched it. the movie was perfect and all the characters (flawed or not) were amazing.

Haha, yeah, Alice has some serious female shit going on. I actually have a chapter in a book that I'm writing on Eyes Wide Shut. It was a lot of fun digging into that one, particularly on the relationship side of things with trust, fidelity, fantasy, jealousy, etc. It seems what sets things off is Alice's irritation that she's jealous of Bill but Bill's not jealous of her...so she makes him jealous.

If you want a really deep dive, check out this thread from a while back (I have no recollection of what I contributed, but a lot of people had a lot of cool stuff to say): https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/sherdog-movie-club-week-120-eyes-wide-shut.3815667/

question. what aspect ratio is the intended version of kubrick's movies? i remember watching the the kubrick collection version of EWS from 2007 and if i remember right, it was in full matte or 4:3 or whatever some of the scenes flowed better. is 4:3 the intended version? i watched the criterion version last night (1.85 or whatever) and it still seemed fine, but i remember the 4:3 being better. i could be wrong.

After 2001, Kubrick's last letterbox film, he started making his films knowing that they'd be seen in slightly different aspect ratios between theatrical and home video releases. Tough to say what Kubrick "intended" across the board as he specifically made his movies the way he did so that they'd work both theatrically and on any other TV or device, but the full screen 4:3 is probably your best bet. Pretty sure I remember him saying somewhere that when it came to TV he liked his movies to fill the screen.

question 2. why can't they make movies like this anymore and do you know any movies similar to EWS? it doesn't have to be the same theme, but how it's done. it took a simple topic and made it so powerful. no fancy special effects, cheap writing, or gimmicks.

There's "raising the bar" and then there's being the GOAT. This question is like asking why there haven't been more Michael Jordans in basketball or Wayne Gretzkys in hockey. Kubrick is his own universe of greatness unto himself. It's not fair to judge the rest of cinema according to his GOAT standard. Also, not to burst your bubble, but the dreamy shit and the sex cult...pretty damn gimicky, so much so that sex parties like that are just called "Eyes Wide Shut Parties" now!

Since your question basically boils down to asking for great movies, it's not any more helpful than asking for 10-20 random great movies. There are a lot of great movies out there. Adrian Lyne's Unfaithful is possibly the most powerful film about adultery. Indecent Proposal is also painfully simple on the level of plot but so complicated and brutal ethically. Those are both in the same wheelhouse. And if Eyes Wide Shut doesn't count as having "gimmicks" then maybe I can get away with suggesting some David Lynch stuff like Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive if you haven't seen those (also, beyond Eyes Wide Shut, Lynch's extraordinary Eraserhead was a big influence on The Shining).

or even something similar to chinatown. gonna rewatch that tonight, actually

Now we're in the realm of noir. The OG noir films are amazing - The Maltese Falcon and The Third Man are the top dogs - but when it comes to neo-noir films, the Coen brothers' Blood Simple is phenomenal, the Wachowskis' Bound is a cult classic, Christopher Nolan's Memento is brilliant, and for fun Jack Nicholson actually starred in and directed himself in a sequel to Chinatown called The Two Jakes and it's not half bad.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Haha, yeah, Alice has some serious female shit going on. I actually have a chapter in a book that I'm writing on Eyes Wide Shut. It was a lot of fun digging into that one, particularly on the relationship side of things with trust, fidelity, fantasy, jealousy, etc. It seems what sets things off is Alice's irritation that she's jealous of Bill but Bill's not jealous of her...so she makes him jealous.

If you want a really deep dive, check out this thread from a while back (I have no recollection of what I contributed, but a lot of people had a lot of cool stuff to say): https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/sherdog-movie-club-week-120-eyes-wide-shut.3815667/



After 2001, Kubrick's last letterbox film, he started making his films knowing that they'd be seen in slightly different aspect ratios between theatrical and home video releases. Tough to say what Kubrick "intended" across the board as he specifically made his movies the way he did so that they'd work both theatrically and on any other TV or device, but the full screen 4:3 is probably your best bet. Pretty sure I remember him saying somewhere that when it came to TV he liked his movies to fill the screen.



There's "raising the bar" and then there's being the GOAT. This question is like asking why there haven't been more Michael Jordans in basketball or Wayne Gretzkys in hockey. Kubrick is his own universe of greatness unto himself. It's not fair to judge the rest of cinema according to his GOAT standard. Also, not to burst your bubble, but the dreamy shit and the sex cult...pretty damn gimicky, so much so that sex parties like that are just called "Eyes Wide Shut Parties" now!

Since your question basically boils down to asking for great movies, it's not any more helpful than asking for 10-20 random great movies. There are a lot of great movies out there. Adrian Lyne's Unfaithful is possibly the most powerful film about adultery. Indecent Proposal is also painfully simple on the level of plot but so complicated and brutal ethically. Those are both in the same wheelhouse. And if Eyes Wide Shut doesn't count as having "gimmicks" then maybe I can get away with suggesting some David Lynch stuff like Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive if you haven't seen those (also, beyond Eyes Wide Shut, Lynch's extraordinary Eraserhead was a big influence on The Shining).



Now we're in the realm of noir. The OG noir films are amazing - The Maltese Falcon and The Third Man are the top dogs - but when it comes to neo-noir films, the Coen brothers' Blood Simple is phenomenal, the Wachowskis' Bound is a cult classic, Christopher Nolan's Memento is brilliant, and for fun Jack Nicholson actually starred in and directed himself in a sequel to Chinatown called The Two Jakes and it's not half bad.

hell yeah, i'm definitely gonna check that thread out.

i was arguing with chatgpt earlier about the alice/bill dynamic lmao. it argued, or at least brought up the argument that alice was empowered about what she said and i had to push back. again, i think all the characters were amazing and it was brilliantly written so i wouldn't want anything changed, but i kind of hated her character.

bill might have been a little dismissive and she probably rightfully felt like he was taking her for granted, but that didn't give her a blank check to nuke his existence like that. ie. giving up everything, her family, and her life to be with that navy guy for one night. she basically told bill "i could fuck hotter men than you but i didn't so you're lucky to have me!". pretty shitty thing to do, even if he was clueless.

imagine if EWS was remade during peak woke and bill told his wife, who was now fat, "i could fuck a lot slimmer women than you so you're lucky to have me". he'd be nuked. they'd call it toxic masculinity and abuse, not empowerment.

if they remade it, she'd go off on a tinder bender and end up getting banged out at an orgy and society would probably make him out to be the POS and her the victim who later reclaimed her agency. lmao.

 

[Severen]

How come you're not complaining that they didn't have any broken limbs and/or that they weren't knocked unconscious? Why are you arbitrarily insisting that the laptop should've been crushed to dust but totally cool with no serious injuries being sustained by either one of them? That issue of apparent hypocrisy notwithstanding - and I appreciate the irony of you the troll asking me if I'm arguing in good faith - try this: The laptop was in Cruise's briefcase and so it didn't sustain direct/repeat damage but merely slid out of the briefcase, maybe jostled out once they started moving around in the upside down cab.

How come? Because I'm talking about something far more contrived than characters surviving a car flipping which is a standard movie convention and not even that unrealistic. I am saying the laptop survival + being open + being visible + being noticed at the exact needed moment is extremely contrived, something which is undeniable, yet you are laughably denying it and have the audacity to call me a troll. Lets see if the rest of your post gets any better.

Clue #1: Foxx picked Cruise up where he dropped Pinkett Smith off. Clue #2: Cruise tells Foxx that his contract has a "'witness for the prosecution' look" to him and Pinkett Smith told Foxx that she was a prosecutor.

What you said is a non sequitur, there is no connection to those two things at all other than the word prosecutor. The laptop reveal is clearly staged as the discovery moment. If Max could logically deduce Annie was the final target from earlier clues, the film would show that deduction. It doesn’t. The connection only becomes explicit when he sees her file on the screen. You claiming Max never needed that clue is literally trying to retroactively rewrite the movie.

Yes. It's called a theme. When something happens in a film that's talked about a lot in the film, and happens the way that it's talked about, it's neither ridiculous nor a coincidence -- it's design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun). There's a reason for everything that happens in Collateral. That's why it's a great script. In Training Day the only reason Hawke survives being with the Mexicans is because the movie wasn't over yet. That's why it's not a great script.

Max picking up two completely unrelated people in a city of millions who just happen to be directly connected is an extreme coincidence., just as Jake saving the gangster’s cousin in training day is also an extreme coincidence. They function identically, both are early planted coincidental encounters that later become decisive plot devices Slapping the concept chekhov in there and saying one was by design and the other bad writing is a laughable double standard. I can't believe you are actually arguing this point. They are both the same!

First, this is beyond nitpicking. If you're going to be this whiny about Collateral, then explain why you don't have a problem with how convenient it is that the Mexicans go through Hawke's pockets first instead of just killing him. They're literally about to shoot him but then the one guy physically stops Smiley specifically to rob Hawke first. They might as well have just had him tell the audience "Hey, everyone, here comes the twist that's going to allow the protagonist to survive!" You have no problem with that, but Collateral offends your sense of realism?

You don't know all the problems I have in training day, you are just trying to desperately deflect. To answer your question, the reasoning to rob him first before blood and brains went everywhere was sound.

Do you remember when Foxx takes the guy's cell phone and runs up the levels of the parking garage? Do you remember him looking up at the building in front of him while dialing? We're not anywhere near the realm of random or coincidence, cosmic or otherwise. Foxx went there specifically, both for cell signal strength and for line of sight. And that's motivated by the already established fact that Foxx knows the city like a savant, and since he had Pinket Smith's office address, he knew a good spot to get both a signal and a visual. Perfectly plausible, perfectly motivated, perfectly in keeping with character. In a word: Perfect.

I see. So he was able to locate her exact office, in a huge building just from having her address and standing on the street looking up? You don't grasp how ridiculous that is? How would he know what side it was on, her exact office was facing the street? and she just happened to be standing at the window in the lit office, while Vincent's office was also just as conveniently located in the same line of sight? That is perfectly plausible in your reality? lmao.

I'm like Cruise in Collateral, pal. I do this for a living. Idiots on forums don't trigger me, but calling out idiots when they're being idiots is an amusing hobby in which I occasionally indulge. Now, how about you prove me wrong and prove to me that you can stop being a contrarian troll?

I proved you wrong pages ago. You get paid to do this? Cool. I educate idiots for free. Keep projecting.

 

[Kevster]

It’s probably Training Day but I prefer Collateral.

 

[Bullitt68]

hell yeah, i'm definitely gonna check that thread out.

It goes deep into the conspiracy theory stuff, which isn't my jam, but it's fun all the same.

i was arguing with chatgpt earlier about the alice/bill dynamic lmao. it argued, or at least brought up the argument that alice was empowered about what she said and i had to push back. again, i think all the characters were amazing and it was brilliantly written so i wouldn't want anything changed, but i kind of hated her character.

bill might have been a little dismissive and she probably rightfully felt like he was taking her for granted, but that didn't give her a blank check to nuke his existence like that. ie. giving up everything, her family, and her life to be with that navy guy for one night. she basically told bill "i could fuck hotter men than you but i didn't so you're lucky to have me!". pretty shitty thing to do, even if he was clueless.

Kubrick also made an interesting change from the original short story. In the original, the Bill and Alice characters (not their names but their Eyes Wide Shut names are easier) exchange temptation stories that night, whereas in Kubrick's version Alice shocks Bill with her story and he has to come to terms with the facts (1) that his wife isn't who he thought she was and (2) his marriage/family isn't what he thought it was. It's a phenomenal treatise on certainty, knowledge, skepticism, and doubt. Bill was so certain of everything and everyone in his life, to the point where he took things for granted, but he's "awake now" and sees things his eyes were "wide shut" to before. It's not just a clever take on the marriage story, but the externalization of Bill's internal dilemma by way of that surreal, nightmarish second act is absolutely extraordinary on Kubrick's part.

How come?

Bad dodge.

What you said is a non sequitur

You're not smart enough to use smart terms.

Max picking up two completely unrelated people in a city of millions who just happen to be directly connected is an extreme coincidence., just as Jake saving the gangster’s cousin in training day is also an extreme coincidence. They function identically, both are early planted coincidental encounters that later become decisive plot devices Slapping the concept chekhov in there and saying one was by design and the other bad writing is a laughable double standard. I can't believe you are actually arguing this point. They are both the same!


You don't know all the problems I have in training day, you are just trying to desperately deflect. To answer your question, the reasoning to rob him first before blood and brains went everywhere was sound.



I see. So he was able to locate her exact office, in a huge building just from having her address and standing on the street looking up? You don't grasp how ridiculous that is? How would he know what side it was on, her exact office was facing the street? and she just happened to be standing at the window in the lit office, while Vincent's office was also just as conveniently located in the same line of sight? That is perfectly plausible in your reality? lmao.



I proved you wrong pages ago. You get paid to do this? Cool. I educate idiots for free. Keep projecting.

Dealing with you is like dealing with Wimp Lo.



You failed to understand the film, which was clear immediately, and you've failed (if you ever even tried in good faith) to understand a single thing I've posted. Ever since the first time I noticed your idiotic trolling, you've been following me around trying to get more troll fixes under the guise of proving how smart you are. In the future, when you respond to more of my posts to get more of your troll fixes and I ignore you, remember this is why I don't take you seriously and don't engage you.

 

[revoltub]

I'm gonna have to go with Training day

 

[Escabar]

Gotta go with Collateral, has more rewatchable value for me. Cruise as a hit man is up there with Del Toro in Sicario.

 

[lostdog000]

collateral by far

 

[Frank_Drebin]

collateral by far

mcbain > collateral

 

[SmilinDesperado]

My first thought is hands down Training Day, but I do remember really liking Collateral when it came out.
This reminds me that I should rewatch it again. It's a shame that Cruise didn't do more villain roles after that.