Michael Mann's MIAMI VICE (merged) - Page 7

Chris Harvey · 07-27-2006, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan V

I think any film in which the filmmaker does something not quite expected will have trouble gaining fans on first viewing (particularly with Ali, which didn't even remotely try to be a summation of the famous athlete's life). Vice faces similar problems, in that viewers may be expecting a bang-up action film, a rehash, or a flashy exercise in stylistic fun, and thus they may not be looking for depth- which in Mann's films is often nonverbal...

Chris Harvey, none of this is directed at your review- I haven't read your post yet, I'm staying away from reviews until I see the film

Regards,
Nathan

Nathan, yeah, I understand what you're saying, and most of the time feel the same way about Mann's films. What *does* work in VICE is usually non-verbal... the weirdest thing is, though, is how much it felt like a rough cut; right down to the sound mix (which sounded oddly un-polished). But my issues with the film aren't technical.

I may see it again in theaters, just to see if my first-viewing feeling is right. (Usually, while repeat viewings may cause me to like a movie more, generally speaking I feel my first viewing is my most objective.)

Patrick.C · 07-27-2006, 10:18 AM

Chud.com's review is up at http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=reviews&id=7228

My favorite part of the review (talking about violence in the film) can be applied to many, if not all, of Mann's films:

Quote:

The violence is violence is violence, and Mann never takes a voyeuristic role in portraying it. The fact that Mann doesn’t slather it with style makes it completely his own – like the rat-a-tat-tat of a Tommy Gun from a man who clearly knows his Tommy Guns.

Thi Them · 07-27-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Vice faces similar problems, in that viewers may be expecting a bang-up action film, a rehash, or a flashy exercise in stylistic fun, and thus they may not be looking for depth

Based on the negative review quotes from RT, the movie doesn't deliver much of any of those qualities except the style.

Chris, how long was the cut you saw? As I mentioned earlier, there seems to exist different cuts. RT is still listing the movie as 2 hours and 26 minutes.

~T

Kevin Grey · 07-27-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

My favorite part of the review (talking about violence in the film) can be applied to many, if not all, of Mann's films:

Absolutely. That's what made the Heat shootout so amazing- everything from the echoing sound of guns, the way they handled them, and the sheer destruction that an automatic weapon can cause felt far far more real than just about any other contemporary action sequence to that point.

Chris Harvey · 07-27-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thi Them

Based on the negative review quotes from RT, the movie doesn't deliver much of any of those qualities except the style.

Chris, how long was the cut you saw? As I mentioned earlier, there seems to exist different cuts. RT is still listing the movie as 2 hours and 26 minutes.

~T

I didn't precisely check, but that sounds about right (assuming that runtime includes credits).

Nathan V · 07-27-2006, 04:25 PM

Runtime is 132 minutes 33 seconds. BBFC has the precise runtime, down to the seconds and # of feet and frames of film. This number includes credits. Early test screenings were 3+ hours, then 149 minutes, then 146, and now the final cut is 132.5. I assume he's just been whittling the film down to size, like any director. We'll know for sure tomorrow.

Regards,
Nathan

Steve Felix · 07-27-2006, 09:49 PM

I watched Collateral for about the eighth time the other week. Even after that many viewings, my breath literally caught in my throat at the beauty of the photography. It's on my wavelength precisely.

American Cinematographer's article on MV discusses how Mann and Dion Beebe take advantage of video's naturally large depth of field and expose for the background before then lighting the subject accordingly. It's a great, technical piece, as usual.

Interestingly, gain was held to a max of 6dB this time which should reduce the grain that was seen in Collateral. (It's implied that Beebe thought the grain in Collateral was too much. Naturally I'd disagree, but if the same atmosphere can be achieved with less grain, I guess that's a plus.)

Brent M · 07-27-2006, 09:56 PM

Well, after 50 reviews at RT Vice is sitting with 28 positive and 22 negative for a score of 56% so it looks like people are split right down the middle on this one. Personally, I wouldn't care if it had a score of 5% as I'm still looking forward to seeing it and am almost sure I'll love it as this is definitely my kind of flick.

Tim Glover · 07-27-2006, 09:58 PM

Does look split but I still want to see it. Not a big Collin Ferrell fan but really do love Mann's work. He's earned my $8

BrettGallman · 07-27-2006, 10:37 PM

Yep, count me in with those willing to give Mann the benefit of the doubt even in light of some negative reviews.

Chris Harvey · 07-27-2006, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Felix

Interestingly, gain was held to a max of 6dB this time which should reduce the grain that was seen in Collateral. (It's implied that Beebe thought the grain in Collateral was too much. Naturally I'd disagree, but if the same atmosphere can be achieved with less grain, I guess that's a plus.)

There are shots in VICE that are far grainier than anything I remember seeing in COLLATERAL. Clearly, though, it's an artistic decision.