Miami Vice Movie

[Hans Engstrom]

Mr. Michael Mann, Misson completed. Collateral & Miami Vice looks phenomenal....period.

 

Remember guys, we don't make films for filmmakers.

 

I did not like the look of Collateral, I belive the format worked for most scenes inside the cab but failed to do so in some of the exteriors. Don´t get me wrong I liked the movie but I just can´t say that it looks phenomenal. Even one of my friends (who makes a living of flipping burgers) asked me what happened to the picture when the movie switched from film to video.

 

I´m however looking forward to see Miami Vice and I really like some of Manns movies (The Insider, Heat and Manhunter). I expect Mann and Beebe to deliver something interesting, and as they now have more experience in the format I´m expecting it to be a step forward from Collateral.

 

Shannon did you catch a DLP screening or was it a filmprint? Please share your (a more detailed) opinion about the visuals of Miami Vice.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

This is a great thread!

 

Mullen:"...No, it's not technically perfect, it doesn't look like film, and it doesn't even conform to conventional notions of beauty, which is all the more reason why it is exciting to see in a studio production,..."

 

Agreed. The more capture material we have the better. Each has its own inherent quality. How it is used makes all the difference! I love the look of everything from super-8 to 35mm and the higher end video formats. Technology in film is no different than technology in any other domain. You use it the wrong way and it will turn sour on you.

 

Regarding compression artifacts, well that is something I cannot abide by....of course some our most beloved artists have used the "limitations" of their given medium to highten our senses in the most bizarre ways, which is a great thing!

 

This thread has spurred my interest in Miami Vice. I will go see it now.... always admired Mann. I like Mohicans, Insider, Heat, but had no interest in the story of Vice whatsoever. Hated the show!!! Collateral let me down in a big way...

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

IN REGARDS TO THE PUBLIC AND CINEMA

 

We look at cinema as art. We also know art CAN be entertainment. We must remember appreciation of art is acquired!

 

Simply put, every human being is born tapping their feet to 4/4 time. It is universal. Turning on to Bach however, well, you must learn to appreciate it. Most americans would rather eat a hotdog than filet mignon.

 

I'm not making this a working class issue! I am simply stating most americans do not have that appreciation for cinema art as most of us do. Again, this has nothing to do with class or social structure. Much like I cannot appreciate the athleticism of an NBA basket ball player because I have no educated foundation on which to form a critique!!!

 

Most americans you ask think american idol produces the worlds great singers!!! Most americans you ask will say star wars episode III contained the best acting they've ever seen. Again, some are more exposed than others and more exposure means a better education.

 

You're walking on quicksand if the ideal is a popular entertainment poll. Terra Firma lies on the other side education....

Edited July 12, 2006 by BARCA

[David Mullen ASC]

Before you dump on American tastes TOO much, take a look at some of the stuff on international TV channels... we're not the only country with bad talent show contests... Some of our TV stuff is actually a rip-off of some European TV show.

 

Plus many of these movies are released now internationally and it seems that audiences in many other countries have a similar appetite for mindless crap judging by their box office figures.

 

So while I'm not defending American anti-intellectualism and our low-brow culture, it's not like the rest of the world's tastes are radically more refined than ours.

 

I agree that no one should equate popularity with artistic merit, but on the other hand, you don't want to equate unpopularity and inaccessibility with artistic merit either. Part of the problem with "high art" is that it become so rarified and insular that it alienated the majority of the culture.

[David Sweetman]

Most americans...

 

You realize this is why we had a revolution.

 

I'm a huge fan of Michael Mann, I loved Collateral and Heat, and I like things that are messy and not pristine. I didn't know it was Mann directing before I read this thread, now I really want to see this movie.

Edited July 12, 2006 by David Sweetman

[Robert Hughes]

Part of the problem with "high art" is that it become so rarified and insular that it alienated the majority of the culture.

One need look no further than the fate of "art music" in the 20th Century Western world. Just about anybody can relate to Beethoven's "Ode to Joy", but who among us can whistle or even remember anything from Webern, Cage or Stockhausen? How often will the classical music stations play one of these latter day composers? The musicians choked themselves on their own cleverness; now all that's left for Joe clarinettist is either endless repetition of the works of long-dead longhairs or elevator muzak. With mass recording and broadcast media, the pool of performing talent available overwhelms the public's need for it, so most musicians either starve or give up and take on another career.

Edited July 13, 2006 by Robert Hughes

[Bill DiPietra]

I was one of the few people posting his praise for the photography of "Collateral" in this forum when it first came out. I thought the HD images blended rather well with the 35mm footage and the look fit the story perfectly.

 

I too enjoy "messy" images. I've grown very tired of the reduced grain in 35mm film stocks. Nice to see someone pushing a visual envelope and Michael Mann has done that throughout his career. Michael Mann always has very definitive reason for everything you see on-screen. I'm sure what he has done with "Miami Vice," however it looks, was intentional.

 

I grew up with the series, though...so it'll be weird not seeing Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas in the leads. But I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them showed up in a cameo...

[Keith Mottram]

IN REGARDS TO THE PUBLIC AND CINEMA

 

We look at cinema as art. We also know art CAN be entertainment. We must remember appreciation of art is acquired!

 

Simply put, every human being is born tapping their feet to 4/4 time. It is universal. Turning on to Bach however, well, you must learn to appreciate it. Most americans would rather eat a hotdog than filet mignon.

 

I'm not making this a working class issue! I am simply stating most americans do not have that appreciation for cinema art as most of us do. Again, this has nothing to do with class or social structure. Much like I cannot appreciate the athleticism of an NBA basket ball player because I have no educated foundation on which to form a critique!!!

 

Most americans you ask think american idol produces the worlds great singers!!! Most americans you ask will say star wars episode III contained the best acting they've ever seen. Again, some are more exposed than others and more exposure means a better education.

 

You're walking on quicksand if the ideal is a popular entertainment poll. Terra Firma lies on the other side education....

 

I'm a brit and i'd like to say that is a load of patroninising arse. The idea that "You're walking on quicksand if the ideal is a popular entertainment poll" in the same passage as made up statistics ("Most Americans you ask") is pathetic. Perhaps if you used your own name, you'd be less inclined to make such idiotic generalisations. I also fail to see how you can apreciate this "cinema art" that you speak of if you are this naive and narrow minded.

 

keith

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

I'm a brit and i'd like to say that is a load of patroninising arse. The idea that "You're walking on quicksand if the ideal is a popular entertainment poll" in the same passage as made up statistics ("Most Americans you ask") is pathetic. Perhaps if you used your own name, you'd be less inclined to make such idiotic generalisations. I also fail to see how you can apreciate this "cinema art" that you speak of if you are this naive and narrow minded.

 

keith

 

Real name is at the bottom of my posts, Jon-Hebert Barto, I like B&W....Blah,blah,blah. Wow, never expected such a response. :blink:

 

Indeed I did make generalisations. I never asked "most" Americans anything. At most I've only talked to , what, a million people in my life time? Probably less, but including such conversations as, " I'd like $20 on pump #5, please", and "Thanks, I'll biggie size for an additional .45 cents." I'm not saying there is a singularity here, however. "Popular Culture"=Most people, in my opinion.

 

I'm startled by some responses here, ... I feel the "majority" of people in America , me being American, are not as educated in the cinema as in all other media, be it TV, print, internet, and all its related/inherent art forms, such as advertising,etc. "Media savvy" rarely includes cinema, IMHO.

 

Simply put, most peeps do think of movies as an entertainment event. No judgement here. It is about exposure.....

 

This is in all regards to the idea of Box office = quality. Box office is an absolutely justifiable means to measure audience entertainment. Box office is not a measure of quality beyond entertainment....Sorry if you disagree. I do think you walk on quicksand if you believe boxoffice is of any significance beyond this.

 

As for these generalisations being "idiotic", of course I disagree. Believe it or not I can tie my own shoes! :lol: The "narrow minded"-"naive" issue I'm more inclined to listen to.... :)

 

Cheers Keith.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

You realize this is why we had a revolution.

 

I'm a huge fan of Michael Mann, I loved Collateral and Heat, and I like things that are messy and not pristine. I didn't know it was Mann directing before I read this thread, now I really want to see this movie.

 

 

Hehe...I'm also excited to see this film. I like Mann very much. The Insider is one of my favorite films. Hate the show but, like you, this thread has inspired me to spend $12 bucks of my hard earned money. The idea of "messy" and "clean" are funny things. When I think of the story idea of Vice and the minds eye view of the show from my younger days, I think "clean and crisp". What we see in trailers is sometimes not the same as in theatres...er, sometimes. :D I just can't wait to see what the digital age brings us in the next ten or so years...

[Dan Goulder]

I'm startled by some responses here, ... I feel the "majority" of people in America , me being American, are not as educated in the cinema as in all other media, be it TV, print, internet, and all its related/inherent art forms, such as advertising,etc. "Media savvy" rarely includes cinema, IMHO.

 

Simply put, most peeps do think of movies as an entertainment event. No judgement here. It is about exposure.....

I believe you're making the basic point that the average American might be less particular about the specifics of the acquisition format as it relates to his or her particular moviegoing experience than would the members of this forum. That's true to a point. However, virtually ALL moviegoers respond on some level of consciousness to the quality and characteristics of the image. Even the least "sophisticated" amongst us, while not necessarily being able to describe what it is they like about a visual image in terms of color, lighting, and contrast, are still by nature more attracted to certain images than others. They might not know why or how something looks "good", but just that it does, and they're still able to distinguish (and care about) the difference between a shoddy-looking presentation, and one with higher production values.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

True. I'm trying to say that about all the aspects that go into filmmaking.

 

People like what they like. No judgement. I know some music-people that swear if "good" music was put on the radio and people had a chance to listen Brittany Spears would not be #1 on the charts.(whenever that was...) Of course the "good" music is the kind they listen to.

 

My point is that there is a learning/acceptance curve when you come from a populist background in entertainment. Thats all. Growing. I don't find that patronising. But I could be a great, big a**hole, too. :)

 

It's up to you to tell me!!! Thanks.

Edited July 21, 2006 by BARCA

[Dan Goulder]

My point is that there is a learning/acceptance curve when you come from a populist background in entertainment. Thats all. Growing. I don't find that patronising. But I could be a great, big a**hole, too. :)

 

It's up to you to tell me!!! Thanks.

BARCA be okay.

[Chris Keth]

I disagree with you completely Max. I think that Colleteral was one of the best films I saw in 2004. The photography was terrific. It suited the story perfectly.

 

I think that you are too much of a classicist. I think that high def video is different than film. Thus, it doesn't fit every narrative feature. There is this one DP who told me that a cinematographer can ruin a movie, ironically, by making it look too good. He cited "Snow Falling on Cedars" (1999).

 

 

I'm in the same boat regarding Collateral. I love the way it looks. It feels right for a gritty LA night movie. My feeling is that there's no reason you always have to strive for that perfect image. There's a certain beauty in less-than-perfection. At least he's trying it. You don't have to like it but he's tried it and obviously does.

[Raffinator]

I'm in the same boat regarding Collateral. I love the way it looks. It feels right for a gritty LA night movie. My feeling is that there's no reason you always have to strive for that perfect image. There's a certain beauty in less-than-perfection. At least he's trying it. You don't have to like it but he's tried it and obviously does.

 

Absolutely. An image is a means of conveying information: storylines, relationships, moods, emotions. These things can be beautiful or horrible, depending on the story that's being told.

 

I've seen great films shot on low quality video with horrible lighting and piss poor resolution. I've also seen terrible films that were beautiful to look at.

[Logan Schneider]

I thought that Collateral was a very good film. (I especially liked seeing Tom Cruise not play Tom Cruise) As for the look, while I was not a fan of the artifacting and pixelation in the film, I loved that it looked more like LA really looks like at night than anything else I have seen. It picked up the the glow of the light pollution and followed the streetlights much further into the shadows. Also, the lack of color approximated the human eye, which sees almost in black and white in low light.

 

Perhaps Collateral would have been better on film, both aesthetically and storywise, but I think that it would have been a very ifferent film. I think that the final product was what he wanted it to be, and that's why it's a Michael Mann film and not someone else.

 

As for Miami Vice, I will have to see. As with any Michael Mann film, I look forward to seeing it. I consider him one of the best directors working today, and I always expect a good product.

 

Logan Schneider

DP

Bozeman, MT

Edited July 25, 2006 by Lostlog0

[Wayne Orr]

Due to some of his choices (especially with music) his film tend not to age too well, and I have the feeling that 'Collateral' and 'Miami Vice' will fall into that group as well.

 

Hmmm. Did you see "Manhunter"? The final scene is the entire trak of "In a Gadda da Vida" honey, and the first time I saw it (on a big screen) it was one of the most intense, climactic scenes I have ever viewed, thanks in large part to the music selection.

 

But then I remember the song from long ago. Where is that black light?

[Tom Bays]

Collateral and Miami Vice= too much green. So annoying.

[Bill DiPietra]

Saw it today and it was what I expected. I was not disappointed. Very interesting video footage and photography overall. Good story too.

 

I thought Colin Farrell was very good and I am NOT a fan of his.

[David Sweetman]

So I'm sitting in the theatre right, burbank mall, lights go down, picture comes up, first scene, second scene, things start to come together, and all of a sudden POP - then a bloodcurdling squeal for a good three or four minutes. AAAAH! The front speaker blew right as it was getting good! I saw just enough of it to want to see the whole thing really badly.

 

I liked the image a lot, a few of those ext night shots made me smile and go "yeah!"

 

...well, I'll see the rest come Sunday...

[Krystian Ramlogan]

I saw Miami Vice last night. I went to see the movie for a couple reasons:

 

1. My cousin and a friend are extras in the night club scene

2. I wanted to see if the movie would be a good translation of the tv series

3. I was interested to see if the movie would suffer because in my mind, Mann used Video Equipment to do the TV series, and therefore there should be no lag due to HD being used because he is familiar with all of the limitations inherent in the medium. As a matter of fact, I thought HD was the perfect medium for THIS movie. Basically I felt it would be like Mann returning Home but with years more experience and ability than he had before. So I went with a very open mind.

4. I've long follwed Mann's career and his movies are among my favorites to screen with my friends for movie night.

5. I was a faithful viewer of Miami Vice the TV series.

 

For the record, I enjoyed Collateral.

 

This movie however is the worst movie I have seen in a long time. Let me give my reasons for saying this.

 

1. The story? There is no story. Just a loose and jumbled mess.

2. The acting. The acting is bad; the actors think they are giving good performances, but really they are not. The entire theatre I was in was bored, people were falling asleep. The only time anyone came alive was when the baddies get shot early on and at the end (2 short scenes basically). The whole crockett love affair thing was hilarious, and the theatre audience was basically laughing anytime they made out.

3. The cinematography is unimpressive, flat, and not even close to being as dynamic as Collateral. Think "Cops - TV Series" on a bad day. Disappointing to say the least.

4. Editing. The transitions in this movie are terrible. Movement from one scene to the next is really lacking. My friends, who are all college students and not even remotely concerned with anytting other than a good movie started to talk about this very point During the Movie. They were like, "wait, what just happened? Did I miss something? That was a random shot, etc. etc."

5. I see this movie as being a poster child for why HD may get less play than more. Star Wars Ep II and III, Collateral, Superman, Click, 21 Grams. These movies all show that you can be creative and the medium does not matter as much, once the story and acting are there. This movie? Everything fell apart. And that's sad.

 

I'm sure there will be opinions which differ from mine, but I rarely feel like I've wasted money on a movie, as there is ALWAYS something to learn form what others have done and put on the screen. But, I felt cheated at the end of this particular film.

 

Someone mentioned that Mann's last few movies didn't seem like him. I'm forced to agree. I'm not sure if I will ever look foward to another of his movies again, and that is really sad because now it's like he has to convince me that his movie is worth seeing.

 

Just my 2c. I'm still a fan, but this movie has no redeeming value for me.

 

K.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not sure how you could say this movie was flatter than "Collateral" -- it was pretty hi-con at times compared to "Collateral".

 

I liked the look of this movie but it's probably the most video-ish HD features I've seen in a long time - almost aggressively digital-looking by design. And in the course of the movie, you will see the entire possible range of looks that HD can deliver, sometimes in the same scene. Hi-con, low-con, sharp, soft, saturated, desaturated, noiseless, noisy, etc.

 

It's bizarre how sometimes HD can look so super-sharp in inserts and close-ups and then look soft in wide shots. I mean, in some of the bed scenes, I found myself noticing the thread count on the pillowcases... or every crease in Jamie Foxx's hand and every pore on his face. Other times it almost looked like they slipped in a DV camera for "F" Camera...

 

Fleshtones are all over the place but the source lighting is also all over the place -- neon, streetlamps, blue-ish daylight, orangey daylight, etc. So you just sort of accepted the "off" colors as a style.

 

But it had a look and a mood that I found exciting and original, just not film-like. Hyper-Video.

[Krystian Ramlogan]

I say flatter because there was not very clear separation between the lead actors and the background in many cases; you can especially see this in the scenes with a lot of gain; the rooftop? This is probably a result of the set design and costuming, but again the HD/Cinematography did not enhance the story - my opinion here - I thought it detracted.

 

As for the "stylistic" approach? I'd say it's more accident than design especially since the entire movie was very choppy and there was no real momentum.

 

Seeing lots of changes throughout the movie could have worked if there was a clear motivation or pay-off but there was not...any of that.

 

I support a very important statement you said however, that this type of HD movie came out of the Hollywood system; I just think this movie was a waste of my money. Any of the tv series episodes has this beat hands down, and not even experimenting with HD was worth that.

[Brandon Adams]

Just got back from the theater.

 

I thought the film was mediocre. The story is your standard drug flick, the acting isn't great, though I thought Farrell was decent.

 

However, the look of the film was unique. In comparing it to Bad Boys II, something with a similar setting and comparative plot... Miami Vice stood out as distinct, making the story and setting stand out as distinct resulting in less comparison by the viewer (me) to other similar, slick films. In a sense I guess I feel like it gave the film some breathing room to stand on its own for critique.

 

The choices made with the HD camera have the ability to present the story in a different way that tends towards realism. Though I thought the video look brought me out of the story at several points, at other times it was great. And I love the digital noise.

 

I have to say that I think the final shootout is worth going to the movie for. The HD look, combined with excellent sound design and Mann's choice of coverage, make for a unique drug deal gone bad shoot out that stands out from the rest (if only a little).

[David Sweetman]

I saw the film today, and was able to see the whole thing this time without the speaker blowing. I didn't find the story hard to follow at all, the edit wasn't jumbled or whatever...and I was pretty tired at the time on account of I've been editing nonstop for the past week.

 

I liked the film a lot. It's a familiar premise, sure, but I liked it. Not that I disagree with every negative thing being said about the movie and its story, but I like it despite those flaws, and I can't explain why. I will add that I'd like to see Mann work with a bit more variety, story-wise.

 

I thought the HD image added to the story in a huge way. I really, really liked the visual style created by Beebe (sp?) and Mann. Even my buddies who were with me commented that it "looked more real" than most movies, and I agree, it gave the movie exactly what it needed.