Michael Mann's MIAMI VICE (merged) - Page 8

MattFini · 07-29-2006, 02:59 AM

I just got back from seeing it an really enjoyed it as well.

The biggest surprise to me, being a huge fan of the TV series, was how close the film stayed thematically to its source material. It had the same downbeat, low key style that the show had. It's true that this isn't the same Vice that we all came to love in the 80s, but it does have more than a little in common with its predecessor.

I can agree that the characterizations are a bit thin. I couldn't done with a little less of the Crockett/Gong Li storyline and more with some Sonny and Rico moments.

The story moved really fast but I don't think its "weak" like some have suggested. I'll have to see it again to make see if I missed anything but it's really not all that difficult to follow.

I loved the gunfight and the ending...it was prefect!

I was sorry to see so many walkouts at my screening. The audience seemed really unhappy with it but I went with 7 other people and we all really liked it.

I'll see it again in theatres and grab the DVD for sure!

Steve Felix · 07-29-2006, 03:27 AM

It is like COPS, if COPS had extraordinary access to situations of actual weight.

(spoilers follow)

Miami Vice drops us into a sprawling operation where we feel thankful for any details we might overhear and comprehend amongst the jargon. It's quite a contrast from Collateral's deceptively simple and self contained story. For an alleged control freak, Mann has extraordinary faith in the background he creates to provide a compelling pseudo-documentary for the multiple cameras he has running simultaneously. His verite approach in MV is audacious and almost makes Paul Greengrass's in The Bourne Supremacy and United 93 seem superficial. This is actual guerilla filmmaking on a Hollywood budget. It seems the money was spent not on technology and effects, but on creating the credible world which would then be recorded in a whirlwind of brilliant documentary style, where, for instance, lower quality but free roaming cameras are favored in some shots to protect spontenaity, but the cinematographic sensibilities of a skilled operator are not lost.

Mann has long been famous for developing elaborate backstories for every element of his movies. But in MV more than any other, the reverence for background and context permeates every decision. I mentioned before how Beebe's exposure was based on backgrounds, which is a very literal example. (And although I said that subjects were then lit accordingly, it turns out that subjects are sometimes all but denied light of their own.)

More deeply, the film’s method is to deny us volumes of seemingly important information while showing us more than is immediately apparent – stories are mentioned to which we simply aren't privy, such as the FBI leak and whatever case Crockett and Tubbs were working in the opening scene, not to mention coherent exposition regarding the drug deals made right in front of us. I've never seen a movie so oblivious to the presence of its audience. If we want a story, we have to go into that world and get it ourselves.

Of course, the world is capably provided. While very little is spelled out, characters are well defined by what they do and how they react under realistic pressures.

If anything doesn't successfully grow out of the background, it's chemistry between Crockett and Isabella. I didn't understand that relationship, at least on my first viewing. But the emotional climax to me isn't between him and her. It's the very last shot, where instead of relaxing on the beach with her, he's heading into the hospital, back to his partner. He knows "which way is up."

Mann and Greengrass are, to me, the most important and exciting directors working. Miami Vice is a challenging, new sort of film. And from the way it affects the acting and staging processes to its depth and latitude, video was essential to its making.

Nathan V · 07-29-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

I've never seen a movie so oblivious to the presence of its audience.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Here is a movie that ignores all the rules of taking time to 'teach' the audience- familiarizing us with the situation, the characters, clarifying side stories and background developments and ramifications of events- there is literally no exposition in the entire picture. None. This is the first film I've seen to possess that trait, and it was difficult, challenging, and exhilerating to experience. I feel like I've just barely scratched the surface of this movie.

Mann eschews the idea of "telling a story" in favor of "dropping us into an experience" and delivering that experience in the most detailed, realistic manner possible. What we do see, we see in great detail. What we don't see, we don't see at all. We have no idea what these characters were doing the day before, or even a few hours before Mann drops us into that incredible opening (Much like Collateral, there isn't a single credit or title at the start).

He doesn't try to encapsulate the lives of the characters through dialogue and try to make them familiar to us; we learn about them by observing how they act and react to various situations. These are men of the present, who define themselves by their jobs. We don't learn of Crockett's longing for stability and peace through a dialogue scene, but rather by watching him look out the window (of the middleman's expensive condo with the big glass walls) for that brief moment in the middle of a negotiation. For a second, everything we (and Crockett) sees and hears is calm and quiet- and then he snaps back to reality. Moments like that, which pervade the movie, are as close as Mann comes to "character development" in this film.

I was reminded a lot of Good Night, and Good Luck, another film about people at work, in which we only learn about the characters by watching their actions in the workplace. Everyone in this film is a 'professional.' The only way to learn about the people and situation is by watching and listening intently- exactly as if we were actually there. This isn't Mann's version of a summer shoot-em-up; it's a very challenging movie, with a very unusual way of conveying its content. It's the first film that I wanted to see again immediately after seeing it. I feel like I've just barely seen the movie.

As far as the action is concerned, it's kept as low-key and realistic as possible. It's huge and intense for the audience and the characters, but it's small scale, realistic, sort of like the FOTR finale, in comparison to TTT or ROTK. There are no car chases through te city or shootouts in crowded areas; all the characters are professionals, and the meetings (action) take place at night, in abandoned shipyards and warehouses, where things like this actually happen in life. The events determine themselves, without regard for story and audience satisfaction. The more I think about this movie, the more I like it.

More later.

Regards,
Nathan

Quentin · 07-29-2006, 12:48 PM

I agree that Mann is one of the best/most important/elite filmmakers working today. I'll watch anything he makes - twice. Even a thin film like this has so much going for it.

I'd like to see him start teaming with some quality writers like a Scott Frank or something. We know he can write - so can Soderbergh. But, he could pitch his ideas to a writer he trusts and concentrate on direction and the results, I'm sure, would be great.

BarryNS · 07-29-2006, 01:18 PM

I really found the acting quite poor in this overall...which is a shame since almost all of these folks cast as main characters have respectable talents IMHO. I felt the most "believable" performance was from John Hawkes ("Alonzo") in the first segment of the main story.

Peter Neski · 07-29-2006, 02:32 PM

I couldn't find one theatre in Manhattan showing Vice digitally,So we
went too a theatre showing it copied to film,I prefer film but this coping
HD to film is crap,
The image was soft faded at times and and not as sharp as it should be.
I wonder if Mann knew what would happen when you release a HD
Film at the same time as a bunch of Pixar" type "animated films come out
which need Digital for 3D.Leaving a film which could easliy be the best looking
film of the year looking worst then the forth season of the Miami Vice
TV show(thats when they started cuting corners)
All this great depth of feild that the fine DP talked about ,was lost in the
transfer

Nathan V · 07-29-2006, 02:44 PM

Yeah, the whole time I was thinking, I can't wait to see this properly on dvd, even though I was at the Arclight in one of their biggest screens. I think I need to see it again, and somewhere other than the front row

Regards,
Nathan

Nathan V · 07-29-2006, 02:59 PM

One more thing- Spartan is another film that assumes that its audience is completely knowledgeable about its subject matter.

Something else I should add is that there's an endless amount of quotable lines in this-

"There's undercover, and there's which-way-is-up?"

"This group goes from zero to high on the violence like nothing."

"They didn't do time with us, they're not doin' crime with us."

"Somebody's somethin's gonna go somewhere somewhen."

"This is the hand we have been dealt at 11:47 on a Saturday night."

The rhythms of dialogue are unusual and fascinating to listen to, especially in the scenes in which people are exchanging information. I'm thinking of the scenes with Ciaran Hinds (sp). The laconic dialogue helps sidestep a lot of potentially cliche situations. A friend was telling me, "this is the least cliched movie I've seen since the New World." I applaud Universal for letting Mann do his thing.

JayMacey · 07-29-2006, 04:05 PM

This was honestly one of the *WORST* movies I've *EVER* seen.

Colin Farrel's voice sounded like a bad porn star. I was also distracted by how ridiculous his hair was.

The dialogue was even worse. "If they don't do the time with us, they won't do the crime with us." or ""Somebody's somethin's gonna go somewhere somewhen." Has anyone actually ever said anything like that in real life when they WERENT about to throw up & pass out face first on the bar floor?

Isabella (i believe her name was) might as well have had a mouth full of grass, because half of her dialogue wasn't understandable.

The plot, as convulted & unnecessarily self serving as it was, used & dropped storylines as needed. After the very begining (the 20 minutes before anyone knew what the actual movie was about), we hear something about a guy involved in a drug bust whose wife was shot because of a leak. Then something about white supremicists. The two stars must find out the leak. Then for some reason, they pose as drug runners between Miami & Cuba. Two hours later, the white supremicists are mentioned & finally shown. Somehow, they had been forgotten about for the prior 2 hours. The writers forgot that the whole point of the film was to find out the leak. We never find out the leak, in fact, its never even mentioned again.

Somehow, these undercover detectives, who in reality in miami average a salary of $55K a year, live in multi-million dollar condos, drive $500K dollar cars & travel on $2 million dollar speed boats.

The girlfriend of Jamie Foxx is seen at the begining of the film having sex with Jamie Foxx, then inserted into scenes here and there throughout the film, with barely little dialogue. A semi-spoiler follows though its not big.
*************************************
***************SPOILER****************
5
4
3
2
1
Then conviently, she shows up again towards the end, in trouble.
*********END SPOILER*******************
*************************************

The two leads barely have any dialogue together, which was the point of the whole tv show. Two undercover detectives, as close as the most intimate lovers, who risk it all to solve the crime. I'm not convinced these guys even know each others last names.

In fact, the only connection this even has to the original is the title, that its set in Miami & the two leads bare their namesakes.

This movie could have been called ANYTHING: Drug Run, Dirty Dancing 3: Undercover Cops, The Magical World of Miami, or even Pirates Of Miami: Drug Mans Goods.

What I would have titled it however, is: Really Horrible Acting With An Even Worse Storyline

Grade: F

Brent M · 07-29-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayMacey

This was honestly one of the *WORST* movies I've *EVER* seen.

Clearly you need to see more movies then.