Miami Vice Movie

[Michael Most]

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

 

I'll start out by saying that I liked the movie. I can't really explain why, I just did. It clearly has weaknesses, and I noticed them, but for some reason it didn't bother me very much.

 

As for the look of it, I liked that too. I saw it projected on film, and perhaps that minimized some of the video noise issues that are being mentioned here. I certainly saw the video noise in some shots, but didn't really notice it in others. I did like the way the video origination allowed you to see into things you likely wouldn't be able to on film - things like clouds in a night sky, or boats racing on an unlit night ocean. That's interesting both visually and in terms of the mood setting and storytelling, and I think they used those capabilities, as well as the deeper depth of field, to the picture's advantage. With stories like this one (and with Collateral, for that matter), that get told primarily in night exteriors, I understand Michael's choice in terms of visual storytelling tools. If he ever does another picture that does not involve a crime story in a gritty cityscape at night - and I certainly hope he does - he might make other choices. We'll see.

[Chris Burke]

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.

 

 

I pretty much agree with what everyone else has stated so far about the movie. I liked it too and I will attempt to say why.

If you add up the "looks" they used ( I prefer the grainy ones), the editing, the framing, production design and so on, the sum of it all transcends typical story narrative. It is hypnotic in a way, a flashy, sexy picture show that shows the gritty side of the Miami drug world in an appealing way. If you break it down, the separte parts don't hold up on their own; story, acting.... together though, Mann's use of style over substance works so well, it goes as far as to create substance, which is rare these days. He beat the odds and told a worth while, albeit shallow, story.

[Jamie Metzger]

I saw this movie and I was really let down by Dion Bebee ASC, ACS. Honestly, it's like your favorite painter choosing to paint with his feet for his next work of art, a real step backwards for Dion.

 

I don't know if it was michael mann's influence to shoot the movie and have it look like poop, but it surely did.

 

My friends who know next to nothing about cinematography and the language that DP aims to create for a film, told me something was real wrong with this movie. The HD sucked. The Language of the shooting sucked. The coverage sucked, and the story was terrible.

 

Big letdown.

[Dan Goulder]

The HD sucked. The Language of the shooting sucked. The coverage sucked, and the story was terrible.

Other than that, what'd you think of it?

[Anatole Sloan]

Can everybody stop going on and on about HD and how it sucks! As a musician, I can translate it to this;

 

-Many composers used to compose music on the piano (still do)

 

-Some guy came along during the Romantic period, and composed an entire symphony using a guitar, as he was bad at the piano

 

-Therefore, the symphony consists of different and unusual chords. It was different. It was not a bad option, it was different. It seperated him from everybody else. Some people like the style, some don't.

 

*For certain inexplicable reasons, I have forgotten the composer's name and his famous symphonies.

[Jason Debus]

Looked really soft to me overall, but there were scenes that looked better than others. The flying scenes for example looked really sharp.

 

Is it just me or does Colin Farrell look perpetually out of focus in this movie? It's like he's got some light bending force field around him or something. Shots with both him and Jamie Foxx in the frame seemed he was soft whereas Foxx was sharp as a tack.

 

When the movie started it seemed like it was going to be like the trailer, a music & visual feast. But then the cops & robbers mode set in and it got kind of boring. I agree with those that say it isn't as good as Collateral or Heat.

[David Mullen ASC]

Can everybody stop going on and on about HD and how it sucks!

 

Most of us here are a little more sophisticated than that in evaluating images...

[F Bulgarelli]

I thought the movie was terrible.

Some of the dialogue, and the acting in general were very dissapointing.

I heard that the production of this film was rather chaotic; they were dealing with last year's hurricane season, camera problems, etc. there is a good article on entertainment magazine, check it out.

Anyway, i was thinking that maybe that was part of the reason for the final outcome, some of the scenes felt rushed, almost like they didn't have time to do more coverage or takes.

i felt as if there was something that prevent me from caring for the characters involved in the story,

it could have been the way it was written, the acting, the photography, i'm not sure.

When compared to The Insider, it's like day and night.

[Patrick McGowan]

I saw this movie and I was really let down by Dion Bebee ASC, ACS. Honestly, it's like your favorite painter choosing to paint with his feet for his next work of art, a real step backwards for Dion.

The HD sucked.

 

Step backwards? Didn't he shoot HD for Collateral?

Memoirs of a Geshia sucked and Chicago sucked. I mean he is a great cinematographer, but fu** those movies.

 

And "In The Cut" looks like it sucks.

[Jamie Metzger]

Step backwards? Didn't he shoot HD for Collateral?

Memoirs of a Geshia sucked and Chicago sucked. I mean he is a great cinematographer, but fu** those movies.

 

And "In The Cut" looks like it sucks.

 

 

There is a reason why he won Awards for that movie.

 

Other than that, what'd you think of it?

 

 

Need I say more? The whole film had a strange akward feeling to it.

 

In Dion's work in Geisha, I can tell that he had plenty of prep time to make the production design work with the way he wanted to shoot that film. In this film, it looked like they called him day of and asked him to shoot the film.

 

I really do admire his work. I think the circumstances he must have been in, working under Michael mann influenced how much creative control he might have had. That is speculation, mind you.

[Sakari Suuronen]

Just got the latest edition of AC and I was wondering how many prep and shooting days did they have? It seems to mee that shooting Miami Vice was kind of a nightmare because of the HD requirements and I was mostly thinking why would someone have all that extra stress about the technology? Of course it's different with really big movies (they can afford it) but at this point the benefits of HD aren't too impressive vs. film cameras. It will probably change dramatically in the near future.

[Michael Nash]

I'm really surprised at many of the negative comments, and even more at the reasons behind them. All the reasons stated here why people hated the movie are exactly why I loved it. I know I'm probably weird, but this is the movie I've been waiting for for a long time. I'll admit that I'm a big fan of the series and the fact that I'm from Florida colors my affection for the themes, locations, and atmosphere.

 

I really enjoyed the sort of "dark romanticism" point of view, and the way that Mann sidestepped all the familiar, predictable movie conventions in telling the story. The only times the movie faltered was when it tried to conform to more traditional or familiar exposition. It worked best when it just sort of air-dropped you into the world, where you felt like you were suddenly immersed in it instead of watching a by-the-numbers screenplay. What impressed me the most was how Mann has managed to make something slick and stylish yet gritty and real at the same time.

 

As for the CINEMATOGRAPHY: Yes, every possible video artifact was present, but it worked. I tend to agree with Mr. Most's comments about how it worked. If this movie had been shot on film it simply would not have felt the same, and since the FEEL of the movie is largely how it communicates, that's paramount. I didn't mind all the artifacts like noise, buzzed focus, and even soft shots. The only time it bothered me a little was when shots in the SAME scene didn't match, like cutting from noisy to clean on reverse angles. It only bothered me because it takes you out of the moment.

[Rolfe Klement]

I just saw the movie and like Mike I actually liked it for some unknown reason

 

My biggest problem, and this is a key factor, was that I was aware (becuase of an interview that Gong Li gave) that she doesn't understand English and had to be taught to speak phonetically

 

This meant that I knew everytime Colin F was speaking to her she had no idea what he was saying and was one of the reasons it was so hard to understand her

 

This, I imagine, would be a reason that a studio would want to control interviews etc with the stars

 

but apart from that I am a sucker for the 80's

 

One of my non cinematography friends, straight after the movie, said "there was something weird with the camera going on in some of the scenes" which meant he was pulled out of the movie cause of HD overcrank...

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Jonathan Bryant]

I went to the theater looking forward to seeing this movie but now I feel bad that I dragged my friends to see this huge letdown. I agree with other posters this movie had a poor storyline and the editing left me confused. The biggest issue I had with this movie was the sound. Maybe it was the theater but the dialogue tracks were very muddy and unintelligible. I think that the deep focus and available lighting worked for this movie butttt not at the cost of the huge digital grain. My friends who aren't techno files also noticed the poor storyline and poor cinematography. Collateral was a far better movie in terms of storyline and cinematography. I hope hollywood will shift from the rehasing movies trend and start making new innovative movies.

 

I think you should be able to walk out of a movie in the first 30 mins and get some if not all of your money back . Maybe then hollywood would try harder.

[Thom Stitt]

David Mullen: "Hyper-Video".

I'd say that's the most perfect description for the look of Vice I've read yet.

 

For all the video noise Collateral had, it seemed to maintain a pretty polished, glossy aesthetic. Miami Vice looked so much like video at times that it was quite shocking - I was expecting something similar to Collateral, and what I got was about as different a style as you could have gotten using the same camera systems.

 

Which absolutely gets my respect. And it was a serious thrill for me to see shots that I have just never seen before in a film. The shot from the trailers that pretty much sold the film blew me away - the car-mounted shot in which we see every detail in the night sky taking up a good portion of the top half of the frame - That's what it was all about for me. Seeing things we haven't seen before. Doing things that you just couldn't do with 35mm.

 

Here's what I really like: It's one thing to shoot HD. It's another thing to shoot HD at a time when it's becoming widely established, and then to push it to every conceivable limit. Any cinematographer HAS to respect Mann and Beebe for what they accomplished doing that.

 

But when I say that the "video"ness of it shocked me, I really really mean that. It was uncomfortable for me to watch at times, and completely unexpected. The trailer park scene and the climax particularly jolted me.

All that ultra cool mercury vapor color, EXTREMELY high contrast, and a decidedly video smoothness to the motion made me eyeballs churn a little in their sockets.

[Brad Grimmett]

I think you should be able to walk out of a movie in the first 30 mins and get some if not all of your money back . Maybe then hollywood would try harder.

I walked out of Clerks 2 after about an hour. I didn't get my money back, but I got a ticket to see another movie anytime. The girl that gave my friend and I the ticket told me we could have gotten our money back if we hadn't stayed quite as long, so apparently it IS possible. It's the only time I've ever walked out of movie by the way. It was just so bad I couldn't fathom wasting anymore time sitting there.

[Jason Maeda]

"I think you should be able to walk out of a movie in the first 30 mins and get some if not all of your money back . Maybe then hollywood would try harder."

 

I've been refunded my money before, and if they won't give you cash they almost always will give a free ticket for the future, like what Brad received.

 

I think a lot of the complaints I hear about Hollywood films stem from a wishful desire for Hollywood to produce art, when the first objective of a big studio is (and must be) to make money. If people will go to see "titanic" two or three times then unfortunately that's what the studios will have to make. I hear an equal number of complaints regarding two issues: the lack of quality art coming out of "Hollywood", and how hard it is to support one's self in this business.

 

I don't think we can honestly make both of these complaints at the same time without being guilty of asking for too much!!! :-)

 

jk :ph34r:

[Thom Stitt]

I hear an equal number of complaints regarding two issues: the lack of quality art coming out of "Hollywood", and how hard it is to support one's self in this business.

 

Right - and at the same time budgets are skyrocketing way faster than inflation and audiences are.

Kill the blockbusters, bring it back to the 70s. Studios have been quite capable of putting out real art. Just not lately.

 

Now, I know this is an absurd suggestion, and of course it's one that will never - EVER - actually go down. Like everything else in entertainment, everything about Hollywood is fickle, and that includes audiences. It puts us dangerously at bay for succumbing to fads.

 

What was the last real piece of art that was made and paid for, from the beginning, by a major studio?

Eyes Wide Shut?

That might be worth a few seconds thought.

[Max Jacoby]

What was the last real piece of art that was made and paid for, from the beginning, by a major studio?

Eyes Wide Shut?

There are very few people working in the Hollywood system that I would qualify as true artists. Certainly the most obvious one is Terrence Malick. PT Anderson might qualify as well, but I guess that's about it. So in the respect 'The New World' is the most recent art film.

[Arni Heimir]

I don't think that an art film. Is necessarily a good film. They tend to be selfserving and pretentious. That seems to be the case with European cinema. Where cinema is an "art". Not something for consumption. Hollywood and artistic expression peaked in the seventies and I doubt it will ever recur at its previous vigor. Dennis Hopper and Paul Marsusky are prime examples of that.

 

Regarding "New World", it was a utter failure. Malick didn't know what he wanted. They were reissuing the film several times. It proved that Hollywood should never leave too much autonomy with the artist. Especially someone as eccentric as Malick.

 

The director's cut is absurd and irresponsible for companies that are producing a product for mass distribution. It is ultimately a question of ego. Nothing else. I would love to hear Max make arguements in favor of it. (Or anyone else for that matter)

 

Árni Heimir

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Malick is hardly pretentious.

 

Business and art make strange bedfellows, however......

 

Its something to do with luck when an audience can find entertainmant value in a film thats sole purpose is to bring a message that provokes thought to the point the film becomes "successful", as in boxoffice.

 

The New World was a "boxoffice" failure. NOT a singular failure. There is untold lightyears of distance between the two.

 

As far as an art film not necessarily being a good film, duh. No film is inherently good by its "product" definition.

 

Producing a directors cut is anything but irresponsible by studio execs. These "Directors Cut" DVDs far outsell their standard counterparts.

[Jason Debus]

The New World was a "boxoffice" failure.

 

How can you categorize The New World as a box office failure? It just seems like the prevailing mentality is that if it's not a blockbuster, then it's a box office failure.

 

It wasn't on thousands of screens yet still did quite well.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

:)

 

however it had a budget of 30 million and made about 30,500,000. to this end it wasn't a resounding success.

and, yes, thats foriegn and domestic. BTW it was on 811 screens, and thats just America.

 

its safe to say the expectations on return were higher....

 

-Jonnie

Edited August 12, 2006 by BARCA

[David Mullen ASC]

I've always had the soft spot for the occasional big-budget "art" film, whether or not it is a boxoffice or even critical success -- because they tend to tackle subjects that need a certain amount of money to create on film (such as movies set in the past or the future). Otherwise, all art films would be restricted to what could be shot on a small budget.

 

"2001" is the classic example for me of the big-budget studio "art" film (or at least, "arty" film), but I would also throw in "Heaven's Gate", "Baron Munchausen", "Dune", "Barry Lyndon", "1492", "New World", "Thin Red Line"...

 

I'm not saying that all of these films work, only that they have somewhat non-commercial sensibilities for something with so much money attached to them. I remember one review of "Dune" which praised the film for its offbeat quality, in that generally, the more money that is spent on a movie, the safer and more conventional it tends to be. Not that the reviewer liked the movie overall.

[Dan Goulder]

I don't think that an art film. Is necessarily a good film. They tend to be selfserving and pretentious. That seems to be the case with European cinema. Where cinema is an "art". Not something for consumption.

That's an amazingly sweeping statement. The world of film would be far poorer if it were inhabited exclusively by Hollywood, bottom-line-driven fare.

 

Cinema Paradiso, Downfall, Amalie, etc. are but a few of too many to list superb foreign "art house" films that I dare say couldn't be made in the United States, where there's far more emphasis on "reaping the teen coin".