Big night this Saturday as NBC will be airing the original Miami Vice pilot in a three hour time slot with behind the scenes goodies plugging the new movie's July 28 premiere in Miami.

AND if that just ain't cool enough, DV Info's very own Rick Bravo is being interviewed (locally by the Miami NBC affiliate) and has been personally invited to the cast and crew premiere being held Wednesday, July 26 in Miami. Way to go, Rick (you lucky freaking B****rd! I HATE you! :-) )

Just in case the newbies need to know, Rick was the "A" camera assistant for the series' first and second season. Wanna see some awesome focus pulling? Check out the first two seasons on DVD. He worked under the talented supervision of his father, "A" camera operator Enrique Bravo, Sr., who boasts an impressive career list himself. To see a complete cinematic Bravo family history, visit WWW.RBRAVO.COM

Just saw the movie last night and I really was disappointed. In my opinion, this movie just really sucked. On every level. I won't say more till others have had a chance to screen it and then I can give a more detailed opinion.

I'm actually going to tell my friends to avoid wasting their money on it.

K.

Now what I want to know is if they used the VW Bug with Porsch and Farrari body kits like the TV series did or did they spend for real vehicles...

So, how many people actually dressed like them, back in the 80's. Come on admit it.

Just saw the movie last night and I really was disappointed. In my opinion, this movie just really sucked. On every level. I won't say more till others have had a chance to screen it and then I can give a more detailed opinion.

I'm actually going to tell my friends to avoid wasting their money on it.

K.
O.K. define "sucks"?

I just saw the movie tonight and there were parts that I didn't like (not including the woman talking on the cell phone right behind me), but I thought that is was a good film. I could have done for a little less of the love story for sure.

Was your issue with the movie technically or just the story.

I really felt as it I was watching video. I didn't feel that way with Superman Returns, though of course that film has a lot of CG added to it.

I like Mann's stuff and will buy this DVD when it comes out.

I have to say that I did like Collateral better as a HD film that Miami Vice.

Foxx wasn't that bad, but you could tell that Farrell needed to go into rehab.

Over all I still liked the film and thought that the DP did a good job.

Dan Weber

Hey Daniel.

Hmm, I don't want to say too much till others have a chance to screen it but my issues with the film run the gamut from technical to creative.

I found the story to be lacking: full of random elements, unmotivated, no cohesive theme, nothing really interesting or serious to think on. The timeframes went off so often, why would they even make time frames a part of the story/plot. The romance? Ha. I was laughing the entire time - along with my entire theatre audience.

I also found the acting to be poor - not totally horrible - but, poor. Colin Farell totally missed the characterizations. Jamie Foxx was decent, but not great - he needs a good script at the least. Everyone else was either hit or miss, mostly miss.

I found that technically the film left a lot to be desired: too much random shots, bad transitions, too much pushing in the darker shots, too much electronic gain, lack of interesting compositions; the editing and pacing were also off and I don't think this film was as good as any typical tv episode from the series.

I can say more but maybe after you give me some of your feedback?

K.

K,

I guess that I was defensive about the film going into watch it. I love Mann's work and even though I had read a few bad reviews, I was dertimined to like it.

Afterwards I am still deciding what I think. I liked parts of the movie. I wish that there had been more action and less development of the characters. I kept feeling like he was trying to do what he did with Heat. In Heat he had a great contrast between the two stars. But he was also working with 2 of the greatest actors of this generation. Not so in Miami Vice.

I really liked the stuff shot in Cuba (probably because I have been there).

The night time stuff where Sonny and the girl are walking bugged me. Some of the night time scenes looked so "video".

Did they shoot MV with the Genesis? I believe that Collateral was done with a mixture of the Viper and Sony 950's. The night time stuff there was much better.

As far as the story goes, I kept up at first but then things got out of alignment in the story. I like Mann's films because he makes the viewer really watch them. You have to pay attention to what's happening. Heat is a great example of being able to watch a film several times and still catching things that I didn't see the first time. In fact, Heat is probably one of my all time favorite movies.

Overall I did like MV, I guess that I expected more from Mann.

Dan Weber

I'm still turning the movie over in my head whether I liked it or not. It might take another viewing to decide on that. The movie was shot with the Viper for the day and night shots and I have to agree with the night stuff. My guess is that Mann wanted to use available light for the night stuff as opposed to using alot of the typical studio lighting. My sense was that he wanted the film to feel like reality and that you were right in the middle of it all.

One thing that is not being mentioned here is the GORGEOUS aerial shots. I honestly don't think I've ever seen the sky captured like this before. The blues are rich and the clouds look 3 dimensional. Hard to describe but it seems that Mann is getting good at capturing things with digital that are all but impossible to capture on film. One aspect of the film that I do like is that it throws you in the film without any exposition or backstory. You're along for the ride and it's up to you to keep up. I found the movie pretty fascinating from that point of view and again I'd have to see the film again to make a final judgement. Not a horrible film by any means but not Heat either.

Chris Watson
Watson Videography
www.dallasweddingfilms.com

Having been a fan of the TV series, I was anxious to see the movie version of Miami Vice. However, I grew concerned about the less than stellar reviews that the movie was getting. I went to see the film with my fingers crossed. I generally like everything that Michael Mann does. I loved this film.

The TV show was revolutionary on several levels. This movie is not revolutionary. In this arena, Michael Mann was competing with himself. As the 2006 take on these characters and subject matter, Miami Vice is a job well done.

I've seen miami vice twice already; the movie rocked like hell!! I've always been a huge Michael Mann fan, and as always he never disapoints.

This version of Miami Vice "was an inteligent movie for inteligent people."

i was so distracted by the video-ish/amateur look of the film. it think it was pretty obvious where the viper was used and the regular hd was used. the viper looked good in some places and very cinematic where as the hd looked pretty damn crummy..
..just cause you're shooting on video doesn't mean you shouldn't take time to create good compositions and light the scene well.. having it look like an episode of cops worked for one scene (where they were raiding a trailer park just like an episode of cops), but everywhere else that technique made it just look like a porno or a bad student film...

i seriously felt like if it had been shot on film and mann had taken the time to create a work of film 'art' as he did with heat, this could of been an amazing movie.. somethings just don't play on video. i wonder if the acting really was as bad as it seamed or if the performances just seemed worse without the gloss of shallow focus, dramatic camera work, and dynamic lighting...

having said all this, the girl i saw it with had no idea what i was talking about. i asked what she thought of the look of the picture, if it looked weird, videoish, etc, and she had no idea it was any different then every other movie she had ever seen in her life..

there was a shoot-out in this movie that looked like an episode of some cheesy sci-fi television program where the picture was all red-ish from the unbalanced lights being used, everything was washed out and muddy and the muzzle flashes from the guns were clipping like crazy.. it didn't help that the editing, staging, and camera movement were silly..

i think maybe part of it is also that you can't get away with as over the top characters when you're shooting on video.. because if you're shooting on video and going for the 'real' look then having someguy walking around with a huge mop of greasy hair, wearing an eighties miami vice suit, and talking with a fake rough gravely american accent, it doesn't fit..

i think part of it may also be that we were seeing actors that we recognized from film for the first time of the big screen in the crystal clear world of video and felt more like a behind the scenes making of featurette for a movie, as opposed to a real movie.

the motion was pretty good for the most part, but there were quite a few shots where it had to have been shot at 60i cause it looked soo video in places. home video to the max.

I think it was all shot with the Viper cam. It was just the night shots were shot with what looked like available light and I think that was an artistic decision more than a camera fault. I think he wanted to make the film feel more raw and the "video" look did that. I dug the look of most of the film myself (the day time stuff) My guess is that Mann is trying for an aesthetic that doesn't mimic film but rather the strengths of digital such as night scenes of LA or the Miami sky. Two things I've never seen so well captured on film. I hope he continues using the Viper as it produces some amazing imagery in the right conditions.

Chris Watson
Watson Videography
www.dallasweddingfilms.com

I haven't seen the film but I think I am not going to see it because , for me, Miami vice is not Miami vice without Don Johnson.

IMO MANN knows the differtence between film and digital ..
he decided to go digital so if one is going in expecting to see digital that looks like 35mm he is not going to give it to you and you'll be disappointed.
Mann can shot on any medium he wants - it's his choice ..
i didn't see any "video " up on the screen ... if you are seeing video then IMO you need to spend a little more time with HD,2k/4k to see the unique differences ..

if you are seeing video then IMO you need to spend a little more time with HD,2k/4k to see the unique differences ..

if you're not seeing video then you need to spend a little more time at the optometrist.

only a portion of the movie was shot on vipercam. alot of it was shot on high-definition video; hence the video look. on top of that, alot of the vipercam stuff still exhibited the hallmarks of video; such as unspecific infinite focus, a digital strobing in wideshots with noisy backgrounds and excessive camera movement, plasticy skintones, blown-out highlights, loss of definition in shadows, and an overall sharpness to everything.

and by the way; i have no problem with hd video or digital acquisition formats when they're presented in a cinematic way that helps create a fictional narrative environment. for example, superman never looked video-ish. the footage i've seen of zodiac which was shot on vipercam looks very, very atmospheric and cinematic.. starwars's look matched well-enough with the original films.. it doesn't have to be film-like, but i'd rather it didn't look like something i could of shot in my backyard with a handycam.

i know mann chose the look of the movie, and for $150 million he could of shot on whatever he wanted.. but i seriously believe its lazy and a cop-out to just say 'ok, we're going for a real look so we won't do much lighting and i won't storyboard anything and we'll just stick a few video/viper cameras on people's shoulders and let the action play-out.' its just lame in my opinion and it doesn't have to be like that to achieve a realistic look. what's makes it even worse is when you intercut your realistic gritty video with signature micheal mann dolly shots, then you're mixing styles and it just comes off as unfocused and random.

..i also have no problem with stuff being shot on minidv or whatever if its a mocumentary or a documentary or 'blair witch project' or some other format that wants to draw attention to the medium itself.

'heat' and 'the insider' are 2 of my favorite films, so it just bums me out that his new stuff looks so IMO cheesy.

i just don't see how one can refer to MANNs miami production as lazy or use cop out ..
i don't know the details on the production so i don't know if he used only available light BUT if he did it was a decision he made .. he IS the director so it's his call - he earned that power over years of experience- i'll lay odds that he did many test before the shoot ..so perhaps everything you state in your 1st paragraph of what you don't like could be exactly what he was after ? again i don't know the details of the shooting but the camera does capture RAW 4:4:4 data perhaps some of the "dirty look" was created in post ? or plain and simple just liked it dirty ?

also in LA - west coast - professional circle - i have never heard of the viper referred to as HD VIDEO ... digital camera - electronic camera yes but never video ...

to my eyes - 2/3" HD progressive camera's look different then video .. i don't find they look like film either - they have their own look ... i do find some of the hand size HD camera's have a look toward video but i find they each has their own unique look ...

to my EYES there are many shades between video and film ..
teh world is no longer just VIDEO or FILM ...

The night time stuff where Sonny and the girl are walking bugged me. Some of the night time scenes looked so "video".

I thought something similar just from some of the footage from the commercial, that immediate "Wow, that's clearly video" impression.

Now, I don't hate on stuff that looks video and obviously Mann wanted that look (and from the reports of numerous HD camera /malfunctions problems stemming from the heat it was the harder road to hoe).

The new ROCKY trailer also has some clearly video shots in it - but again, I think it was for effect. Perhaps trying to garner more of the <25 year old crowd?

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

I won't hop into the fray here to defend Mann's choices because it's clearly mute... the guy has a list of film behind him that basically make him a 500 pound gorilla.

However, I will paraphrase some comments made by David Mullen on other boards related to Cinematography... David basically said that Mann is using the aberations of the digital format to create an asethetic -- which begs the question, is clipping, digital noise, smearing, viable tools in cinematography.

I also recall hearing that Mann's "spontaneous" style in his recent movies are actually very very calculated. What appears to be a found moment is actually pre-determined. Take it or leave it.

And finally, can we all agree that Micheal Mann is, hands down, the master of how to end a movie? theif, Heat, the insider... Like king of the final shot.

Best,

Dean

If u r Michael Mann or with some hollywood standing, that;s OK to try the video look, for indy film maker, this is rather a curse than do any good but for ur credit card limit. people who has power or $$ to distribute movie seems not consider video look is a selling point, they think this is a no-no. as very hard to differeciate the good movie with video look to many thousand bad digital "films".
the best-- IMHO, is just do what u think the best, even HD will not be the same as shooting on 35mm. it's hard to tell which one is better.

if anyone ask u what u shot on, just say DIGITAL, period.
if they ask more-- just simply say do u know George Lucas, we shot in more or less the same format.

if u have $$ to do blow up to 35mm, simply say we do DI and "best fit" res.

JY

Personally, I enjoyed the aesthetic choices. I think that we are at a crossroads now in cinematography, where the "look" of a movie is beyond budgetary constraints. A lot of people here have complained that the movie felt amateurish, video-like, or just crappy. Those feelings are based on some reference of "normal."

A great number of people on this board also strive for the elusive film-look, using adapters, post tools, etc. That's to say that shallow DOF, 24 frames/second, widescreen and film gamma are all how a movie should look. But production is maturing along with the technology. In the Tate Modern museum in London there is a sculpture hanging from the celing that reads "art has been dead since the romans." If you look at art as the ability to mimic reality, then the sculpture is true. We've done that, so I guess there is nothing left to do. In film terms, you could argue that we have perfected capture on film in a style that reads to viewers as "film." So we have achieved perfection, let's not move forward. Instead of worrying about how close we can make our new technology mimic OLD technology, I think we should be looking at the advantages and freedoms we gain because of the unique aesthetics of the medium.

The "video-look" has long been panned as amateur or trashy, not because of some inherent lack of quality, so much as an association with poor programming. A crappy film is crappy whether it was shot on hi8 or 65mm. And conversely, a good film is good no matter what the format. But I think Mann is on to something with his use of digital capture. The way that digital deals with sodium light, and underexposure is truly incredible. The ability to mix cadences is not new, it's just not a classical technique. Film can be shot 48 for 48 also, and film can be shot at wide shutter angles, but it usually is not. Its a look, a conscious, and instead of fighting it tooth and nail because it doesn't look like film, I think we should consider it as another tool. Whether everyone in this particular forum chooses to embrace it or not is a personal choice, but as digital capture proliferates, I believe that we will see more and more people using the technology creatively as Mann has.

...
only a portion of the movie was shot on vipercam. alot of it was shot on high-definition video; hence the video look. ...The Viper FilmStream Camera is a high-definition video camera. No if's, no and's, no but's.

The master of the ending? Clearly Miami Vice ends abruptly with no transition or conclusion to the "story" - whatever bits and pieces there were of a story. Unless it made sense for both leads to be apart at the end? Or was there a sub-text of Colin Farell entering rehab: art imitating life?

I have no problem with HD, Video, Film, CGI, whatever, being used to tell a story. I will use whatever I can to tell my stories. However, Miami Vice does not capture my interest or imagination in any way simply because the story is bad, the acting is poor, and the cinematography really looks amateurish. Realilty? No one speaks like the dialogue in this film. My opinion.

Anyone can argue that every cut, smear, lens flare, soft focus, whatever, that they see on their material was deliberate - no one can ever say otherwise, unless you are the Cinematographer, or the Director.

I also heard of problems on the set (from my cousin and her friend). In light of that I'm willing to say that perhaps there were problems that resulted in less than perfect material and M Mann tried to use the material creatively. I'll give kudos for that, but the overall film sux. It's weak and does not really represent a movement forward regardless of whether it was shot on HD or Film.

As to using the inherent qualities of a medium, both he good and the bad, to paint a picture...I'm all for it! Smear, Lens Flares, Blown Highlights, Crushed blacks, pushed shadows, whatever. It's all visual elements that can enhance your "story" that is, if there is a story.

My 2c.

Can anybody confirm that the original theme by Jan Hammer is not used in this movie? I have only seen the trailers, and miss the driving music by Jan Hammer.

It's true, the Jan Hammer Theme was not used.

iTunes Music Store has the soundtrack if you want to listen to it.

The remake of the "In The Air Tonight" song is not bad. Otherwise the rest is o.k. Just my opinion though.

Dan Weber

I HATED the look of Miami Vice. Why bother going to the movies to see something that looks worse then what I can shoot myself? I go to movies to see good-looking quality work that took talented people to bring it to life. People spend many years learning how to artistically make film look nice. The lighting shown in this movie tells me that I don’t have to know anything at all to make a movie. All I have to do is point and shoot, probably with auto settings and everything. This is not saying that I don’t like HD. Superman returns looked great (yet was also a bad movie) and was shot completely on digital. Further more, I hated the story mostly because they treated it like a two-hour episode of the show, rather then introducing the characters like any other movie would. If this was a directorial decision by Mann then I no longer have any faith in his abilities. I wish I could find one good thing about the movie but unfortunately I can’t. Maybe the credits, I liked seeing them because I knew the movie was finally over, and they were a cool blue color, which was easy on the eyes.

After sitting on it for a week, I find myself liking the film more and more.

I'm in the same boat. I saw it last week and still can't stop thinking about it. It is growing on me quite a bit. I find it interesting how much hate this movie is getting. I didn't mind that it didn't follow the cliche's of other cop movies but instead trusted the viewer enough to make the connections and keep up with the story. It was like we were dropped into these people's lives for a few days and were observers. I found the cinematography was incredible for the day time material and okay for the night time stuff. What I really dug were the lightening storms you saw and heard in the background. It really added to the atmosphere of the movie. I think I'm going to give it another look this weekend.

Chris Watson

I HATED the look of Miami Vice. ...It is not nice to double-post.

... I didn't mind that it didn't follow the cliche's of other cop movies but instead trusted the viewer enough to make the connections and keep up with the story. ...Agreed. This movie was very much a contemporary take on the characters and situations that we knew and loved in the 1980's TV show. Michael Mann made a conscious decision not to do an origins movie. This was not the easiest decision--certainly not for the audience. Characters Larry Zito and Stanley Switek are never mentioned by name. Gina Calabrese's name is barely mentioned if at all even though she is an important player. The audience has to have done its homework to be fully engaged. Miami Vice requires its audience to think. This is the first movie that I have seen in more than a decade that I want to return to the theater to see. Its storyline, its characters, and its cinematography come together to make a movie that stays with you.

Miami Vice requires its audience to think.

?? perhaps about where the $150 million went.. ?? :(

In the movie's defense, a lot of the budget went into dealing with the problems in Florida as a result of the Hurricane Season.

But, I cannot agree this movie is an intelligent movie. The story was not complex, offered nothing new, did not carry me anywhere any number of other cop movies have. Really, who cannot say, "Been there, Done that?" Being non-traditional does not mean avoid good story-telling, or deliberately avoid developing the characters properly.

I've said my piece already. For anyone who liked the movie that's great. I didn't for reasons I've already elaborated on - though I didn't go into great detail.

One thing I can add, so as to avoid redundency - I've seen graduate student film productions which looked very similar in terms of the style/texture/set design (all lacking, sparse), so I guess a "positive" is more people will now think they can make a great movie using Miami Vice as a "standard".

My opinion.

K.

I just saw Miami Vice, "The $100 Million Dollar Movie that was worse than the Original $1 Million Dollar Television Pilot".

IMO, the production values, music, acting, editing, pacing, story arc (although predictable), fell short of what I saw on my Miami Vice DVD.

A few shots really stood out as bad, one was when Crockett (a southern boy with an Irish accent???), was standing on the shore and is love interest, enemy, go between, the sheets, Chinese/ Cuban, South American, husband cheating used girl friend is on a boat. Now the boat is moving and however the operator (hand held I guess, I hope) cannot lead the pan to the left with the boat. It drove me nuts. looked like a busted take. And it went on for what seemd 30 seconds. The shot never framed up long enough to evoke any emotion of her.

And second was a shot at night of the "go fast boats" delivering back into port. The shots looked like FBI surveillance footage from the Abscam investigation. What made it worse was it was intercut with "same location/scene, shots that were clean. I can understand but not excuse, if the entire scene had a look to it, but this was noisy footage cutting against clean. Really jarringly bad.

Digital, Viper, unlimited DOF, it doesn't excuse a bad storyline and less than cinematic production values for a budget that big. I think it would have had the same problems, even shot in 35mm film.

Now I'm going back to 1985, when steady shots, smooth dolley moves, and well cut sequences were the style.

Cheers

And finally, can we all agree that Micheal Mann is, hands down, the master of how to end a movie? theif, Heat, the insider... Like king of the final shot.

Preach on brother!

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

I watched this movie yesterday, and I keep thinking about it as well, partially because of the weird, inconsistent look and partially because the too-serious tone sapped some small part of my will to live.

I have to back up Eric Gorski (Western Oregon represent - I think our mothers are friends, seriously) and argue that this film looks amateurish rather than stylish or experimental. I did my postmodernism homework in college, and I'm all for embracing low culture (in this case video), but to claim video artifacts as a style element, a movie would have to show evidence of incorporating the artifacts into a look, even if it were a look that changes from scene to scene. But in Miami Vice, video artifacts appear and disappear within scenes. You don't have to watch for long to see this. When Crockett steps onto the rooftop above the club in the opening sequence, the 3/4 shot of him with the skyline behind him is full of video noise. The other angles in the same scene are drastically cleaner. That's not a style - that's a mistake, and it happens repeatedly. My other least favorite example was cutting intentionally video-like footage (the raid on Montoya's empty house) with more-or-less film-like footage (Crockett watching Isabella float away) and with possibly unintentionally video-like footage (Tubbs holding Trudy's hand in the hospital). Obviously I can't know the director's intent, but I find it hard to believe that the ghosting on the wide shots that Eric mentioned (e.g. the aerial footage of the waterfall's around Montoya's house) is a style element either. A couple people on this thread compared Miami Vice to Superman Returns, and I thought Superman (on the film print I saw) also looked drab, fuzzy and disappointing. Superman at least had a coherence in its mediocrity - it all looks equally bad. But I can argue that Miami Vice is amateurish without even mentioning the HD/noise/DOF issues. I simply point to the spot near the end of the movie where the camera operators mysteriously start doing incremental manual zooms in close-ups of intense conversations. It looks like some bad takes from a DVX-100 shoot.

But the thing I really disliked and the thing that makes me keep thinking about this movie is a larger issue that might be related to the sloppy look: Miami Vice is joyless filmmaking. As far as I can tell, the movie's main objective is to explain the business of and police response to international drug trafficking in as cold and flat a manner as possible. I got the impression after a while that whoever was making decisions on the set (was it really the same guy who made Manhunter? really?) was more concerned about ensuring that the actors repeatedly called big piles of drugs "loads" and talked about "go-fast boats" than about whether one shot looked remotely like the next. Nor do the characters show any joy. No one really smiles, let alone cracks a joke. Crockett even looks serious in his sex scenes. The closest Ricardo gets to showing a genuine emotion over his supposed lover Trudy is vengeance: stabbing a couple of people and shooting an injured one in cold blood when the team goes to rescue her. I'd have no idea he cared about her if I hadn't seen the tossed-in sex scene that serves only to set up her predictable kidnapping. The only thing that the undercover cops care about is their job: simulating, down to the tiniest detail, the South American/South Floridian drug smuggling business. That seems to be the film's job as well, and for all I know, Miami Vice is very good at what it does. But the whole thing left me a little bored, a little sad and rather disaffected.

Just got back from seeing this film, and being a fan of the first 2 and half seasons of the TV show.. I wasn't disappointed. All the elements are there... except maybe for the men's fashions.

Yeah, some of the low lights shots kind of bothered me, I kept thinking about all that noise--it definitely ain't film grain like in "Aliens" which is actually pleasing to look at. [I also keep thinking about Mann's short lived "Robbery Homicide Division" show which also used the "realistic" video look at times.]

Still, it didn't matter, I enjoyed this ride a lot.[The last film I saw in the theater was a year ago!]

What amazes me is how Mann gets all the nuts and bolts right, the guns are handled properly and the sound is really outstanding. You *feel* the gunshots like in "Heat" and "Collateral"

The only thing that really, really bugs me is having to look at Collin Farrell's knarly mustache for 2 hours.

I just saw the movie and I can think of more than 3 episodes from the TV series that were better than that crap. This movie doesn't even measure up to BAD BOYS 2. Moreover, I was highly annoyed by the asian chick playing a cuban. I kept waiting for her to tell the story of how her grandparents had migrated from China to Cuba...lol, but then again, how would she explain the asian accent after 3 generations...hahaha. Listening to her struggling to cut through her asian accent to sound hispanic was painful. Details like that kinda sour me on the movie from the start. The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes those big-shot Hollywood directors insult our intelligence with absurdities like that. I can't believe they couldn't find someone more appropiate to play that chick. Everything else about the movie felt like a potentially good song ruined by the absence of good hook.

.... Moreover, I was highly annoyed by the asian chick playing a cuban. ...You are wrong about this one. Asians are no more novel in the Caribbean and South America than they are in the USA. I once had an ethnic Chinese student from Jamaica. Suffice it to say, his accent was nothing like Bob Marley's.

" how would she explain the asian accent after 3 generations"

go over to SF , seattle , LA , NYC china towns and you will not hear very much english spoken ... go to downtown LA and in some area's spanish is the main language ( including names/signs on buildings) ...

i think an accent can be great for a female love interest in a movie if its a sexy accent.. the problem with the women's accent in miami vice was it just made it sound like she was mentally disabled and/or a bad actress... neither of which was helpful :(

You are wrong about this one. Asians are no more novel in the Caribbean and South America than they are in the USA. I once had an ethnic Chinese student from Jamaica. Suffice it to say, his accent was nothing like Bob Marley's.
I'm totally right on this one. People of chinese descent are commonplace in latin america, especially in Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela, and Dominican Republic. However, that actress did a terrible job of playing a convincing role as a hispanic asian. She was horrible. In the end, the blame goes to the writers, script supervisors and the directors. I also think they failed to build any sympathy for the main characters. And hard as they tried to make it look otherwise, there was no chemistry between the chick and Crocket-their intended "rapport" felt contrived.

I have to back up Eric Gorski (Western Oregon represent - I think our mothers are friends, seriously)

hey zach. our moms are totally friends. pam is your mom, right? i also think we met once or twice in eugene.. you also lived below one of my girlfriends for awhile i think in a house of 18th or 19th.. i think. what are you up to these days?

you can shoot me an email if you like:
ericgorski@gmail.com

Not sure that anyone has read the American Cinematographer article... David - in your comments, you got it right - it was supposed to look like amateur footage, or FBI footage. I have a hard time believing that a camera operator at that level is incapable of holding a shot steady, or zooming smoothly, or any of the other "skills" or production values people keep complaining about. I don't think there would be an argument in stating that the DOP and crew on Miami Vice are VERY VERY skilled. The same people in this forum who trash the cinematography on Miami Vice probably drooled over the visuals from Memoirs of a Geisha. But that's not the point. Dion Bebe and Michael Mann made aesthetic choices. Whether or not we all agree that those choices fit the tone and pacing of the movie is more to the point. I found the acting painfully forced, but to me the look of the film was extremely strong. In fact, it seemed that the importance was more about the look of the film than the content. There are a few ways of breaking the fourth wall, the goal of which is to make the audience aware of the medium. Many of Mann and Bebes choices could have been done differently, and contrary to popular belief, 35mm was ALSO used on this film. But, the HD images were chosen for their aesthetic and texture, often highlighting the medium and the experience of watching voyeuristic footage. In photography, there are a million and one people capable of creating a technically decent picture. Few people can create excellent pictures, and fewer yet can be identified by their visual style. Different is not always worse.

I found the acting painfully forced, but to me the look of the film was extremely strong. In fact, it seemed that the importance was more about the look of the film than the content. There are a few ways of breaking the fourth wall, the goal of which is to make the audience aware of the medium. Many of Mann and Bebes choices could have been done differently, and contrary to popular belief, 35mm was ALSO used on this film. But, the HD images were chosen for their aesthetic and texture, often highlighting the medium and the experience of watching voyeuristic footage. In photography, there are a million and one people capable of creating a technically decent picture. Few people can create excellent pictures, and fewer yet can be identified by their visual style. Different is not always worse.
Well put, Jaron; I totally agree.

Jaron,
I don't think Mann's, Beebe's or anyone elses intentions prevent us from saying that Miami Vice looks amateurish (in the most negative sense of that word). I don't think anyone doubts that the zooms and shaky camera were intentional, but they don't play very well in practice. The candid footage/FBI surveillance look requires more than a camera aesthetic. A lot of the reason that they didn't work for me is that while the film had a different look, it used mundane continuity editing (that's an observation, not a knock) and a typical action movie omniscient viewpoint. Part of the candid/surveillance/live feed aesthetic is limited editing or cutting capability. That is to say, the zooms and shakes stay in because it's impossible to cut or it's too late for the switcher. This movie did not do a convincing job or maybe didn't even attempt to supplement the camera aesthetic in the editing. In the big gun battle at the end, the camera sometimes looks like candid footage, but in candid footage we wouldn't get to see Castillo scouting the snipers, let alone the snipers themselves.

Some of the famous deep focus movies (I'm thinking of Citizen Kane and Rules of the Game here) were also famous for long takes or other editing techniques that supplement their unique look. Miami Vice didn't capitalize on that to create an overall aesthetic. It was shaky camera work and video grain in a regular action movie package.

I'll say again, there are things in this movie that are NOT part of a conscious look and are clearly mistakes. Again, it uses standard continuity editing, so when one angle in a scene is full of video noise and the other angles are clean (this happens regularly throughout the feature), that's not a look - that's cranking the gain too high or something else.

Very interesting though that this movie does use film some of the time. I never would have known, although maybe that explains why some of the cross cutting looked weird to me.

I agree with Zach.

In my opinion, if you make a conscious decision to introduce an aesthetic or style, that style should be consistent or at least consistent within the context in which it is used. Miami Vice does not do this and therefore we are left with jarring changes within scenes, which makes you aware of what you are seeing and hence brings you out of the movie's world.

I've been a fan of both MMann and DBeebe work up to this point, but I have to say this movie was disappointing on so many levels that I'm going to be more critical of their future work.

This movie looks amateurish, and even if certain scenes were deliberately intended to look like that, there needs to be a reference within the movie that allows us to see that obvious change, instead of the constantly shifting and at times confusing visuals which were already supporting a mediocre attempt at a tired genre movie.

Perhaps the use of 35mm was intended to convey that sense of change: "real" movie world vs "gritty" cop world? In any case, it didn't work for me because the scenes were so inconsistent throughout the movie. I'm cool with HD being used, but the use of any visual style should support the story and not be an end unto itself because then you leave nothing for the audience to sink its teeth into.

Lol, this thread just stimulates lots of discussion so this is a good thing coming out of this movie at least.

I'm happy to be around seeing these things develop. Hopefully, I won't ever make the mistake of thinking my audience wants style over substance.

My 2c.

K.

i saw this thread.. i was like.. hey another movie shot on hd, i wana see how it turns out.

i walked out of the movie half way through it. IVE NEVER WALKED OUT of a MOVIE.. dammit i paid for it, i should watch it all... i just could not.. seriously. I COULD NOT WATCH ALL OF IT. it was THAT BAD.

i could clearly see chromatic aberrations while foxx was standing close to the windows.
anything shot at night.. sooo sucked.. i mean it was 9db+ gain and thats horrible, please dont get me wrong... THAT ISNT A STYLE nor an EFFECT... thats a load of BULL.

some shots were hilarious... the tattoo guy at the beginning.. the dp was shooting the socket on the wall leaving the tattood guy holding the fridge.. TO SHOOT A SOCKET??? ive seen amateurs.. but this is so fake.. atleast amateurs try to be more professional.

it was a big mistake. seriously, what were they thinking.

the storyline was nice though.. but i'd rather watch this movie on dvd, on a smaller screen.. cuz when things arent shot nicely, when the object is not well preceived.. And on a big screen.. you totally lose what you have to have your eyes on and miss alotta the stuff... so this is a movie id rather watch on a dvd.

i mean for crying out loud.. the zooms were awfull.. theres a limit to amateurness... the whole thing lacked storytelling. I WISH this movie was shot on film and I WISH it was shot by a different director and dop. seriously.. such a waste of tallent.

the love scenes.. man.. arghhhh.. the whole theatre was giggling and laughing. pointless and STUPID.

its like a bad a sequel.. heat was nice.. and then collateral was.. alright.. and then this is like... "you gotta be kidding me"

i don't get it... really i dont.. i mean WHY couldnt he just do it the normal way when he had the expertise and the budget.. why? it pisses me off.

Think about it, most people go to 9db or greater gain (that looked more like 12-15db on a 900) because they don't have enough light or time to set up lights. A production of this scale could afford as much light as they could have possible ever wanted or needed. So no, the gain was not an accident, it was intentional. From what I've heard, they liked the look of the sky with gain - both the color and the motion of the noise, so they shot that way. Film could never have resolved ANYTHING in that sky, so that effect could not have been achieved without video.

Clearly a lot of people have the opinion that the visual aspect of the film was bad, because it was very different from convention. Low budget productions try to fight the unlimited DOF and Video look of low-budget tools, trying desperately to look more like the big guys. But that shouldn't be important! There are many ways to look at production, two of which are craft and art. Many people go into a production trying to make their craft flawless as society deems flawless. Others go in trying to make something different or unique. Ok, people argue that video noise or sloppy whip-pans and zooms aren't creative, they're just sloppy. That's an opinion, and an opinion parallel to calling the work of Jackson Pollock braindead and childish. Certainly some people here are of that opinion, but try thinking in broader terms. Michael Mann could have made a perfect clone of the TV series, but chose not to. Mann could have made a perfect clone of the visual experience of every action movie ever made, and it would have satisfied 90% of the people who are complaining now. He chose not to. Granted anyone who breaks the rules will catch heat, until the rules catch up to reality. The rules state that video noise is bad and that pans should take 7 seconds, because video should look like film. Film is the pinnacle of all goodness.

I could go into the evolution of contemporary art, but I think it would be a waste. The parallel between art and the evolution of video is strikingly similar, especially as evidenced here. People like there to be a right and wrong when it comes to creativity. If something pushes the boundaries or uses a weakness of the medium as a visual technique... well they must be wrong! By its very nature, creativity has no right and wrong! Video does not need to be stuck in an age of television talking heads. Go to the MOMA or any modern art show. Go daily for a few years. Go to art lectures, learn about art. Then go see the movie again with an open mind.

Is video/film art or craft? Is it both?

I say that Hollywood is more craft than art. But Jaron, you have more important points than that.

First, I argue that while different does not mean bad, it also does not mean good. Just because Mann/Beebe/a crew of 200 did one thing different does not mean that they are leading the future of film. Comparing Miami Vice or Michael Mann to Jackson Pollack is not fair. Pollack was avant garde. Miami Vice is almost entirely standard except for emphasizing the video look. The handheld camera, zooms and all the rest has been done so many times in cop shows that it's not only not on the cutting edge, it's derivative. If you take away the unlimited DOF and gain, it's a 100% standard movie, and not a good one at that. What's more, nothing with a $150 million budget is personal expression like painting. I hope even an idealist can admit that.

Second, the filmmakers' intentions and past experience do not absolve them from criticism. I agree that Mann has made some great films, and I'm sure that if I watched Memoirs of a Geisha, I would appreciate Beebe. But that doesn't mean that they are infallible giants of film. As an example: Francis Ford Coppola directed the Godfather. Francis Ford Coppola also directed Jack starring Robin Williams. These people can and do screw up, and it's fair to complain about it. Hollywood movies do often contain mistakes as well. If you pay close enough attention (and I don't, but I listen to DVD commentaries sometimes), you can see that essentially all of them have continuity mistakes. Is it unreasonable to think that someone might occasionally underexpose some video while shooting with a fairly new camera?

Third, it's a nice piece of idealism to say that there's no such thing as right and wrong in creativity, but popular opinion amounts to that. That's part of the point of this forum. I don't know about "any modern art show" - that's pretty broad - but if you go to MOMA you will see exactly what art critics and society have deemed right (and by omission perhaps what they have deemed wrong) in modern art. They don't let anything into MOMA just because someone happened to create it. Institutions like MOMA tell us that Jackson Pollack and Mark Rothko and Van Gogh are right, and that we should like them. You are telling us that it's wrong to form an opinion about art, which for me defeats the purpose of experiencing art.

Finally I have a question for you (and this is serious): do you really think that in a movie that uses continuity editing, the filmmakers cut between noisy shots and clean shots on purpose as an aesthetic statement? If so, what statement do you think this makes?

"Is it unreasonable to think that someone might occasionally underexpose some video while shooting with a fairly new camera?"

are suggesting that BEBE underexposed by accident rather then underexpose for effect ?

re: JACK ... Coppolla was a hired director = i'll pay you X $$$$$$$$$$ if you direct this script & you do NOT have final edit ... so was it the script or the director ?

if i remember correctly Van Gogh never sold a painting in his day .. in 1990 a van gogh painting sold for 82.5 million !! which in 1990 would be more then a BIG budget hollywood film ... maybe in 50-100 years Miami Vice might be considered "art" because of the way it used digital ???
i'm not so sure that Mann was out to create art .. entertainment YES .. ART not in my mind but perhaps others think of all cinema as ART ...
we'll find out very quick just how entertaining Miami Vice was ( box office ) .. it will take some years to see if it is/was ART ...

okay.. em.. i bet many of you here have watched the movie "28 days later" it was shot with canon xl1's and You get to Feel the realism.. it really does tingle your imagination. it gave me an experience.. it made the whole movie seem real. i could feel the man standing in an empty town... etc. i experienced something.

miami vice... i didnt experience anything. when the guy zooms.. he zooms when people are walking... nothing is going on. whereas if he zoomed really quickly when something was going on in a scene.. added some grain there.. in the dark.. yeah.. id buy it. but the guys were walking down the road and the zoom was stuttering. whoever shot those scenes should watch the news more often.. that way he'd know when to zoom in and when not to. when ure watching news or some documentary.. the camera man see's something exciting... he wants to see more so he zooms in as if he really wants to see whats going on.. THATS Experience.

i really dont care if it was shot on video or film, i just thought it would be interesting, i thought that maybe im in for a new experience, and i didn't.

Is it unreasonable to think that someone might occasionally underexpose some video while shooting with a fairly new camera?


It's not unreasonable to think that a professional would occasionally underexpose some footage, not out of ignorance or inexperience with the camera, but because of the nature of filmmaking. You've got multiple cameras at night covering some scene and the director asks for some quick reframing of something, or to shoot in some other unlit area, and in the hustle to grab stuff, the exposure might not be perfect. Or sometimes with so many cameras, some crew member changed some setting and forgot to switch it back. Especially if what looks like another angle in a scene is actually a pick-up shot made months later.

But considering that they tested all the cameras for a month solid before shooting and then used them every day, for at least twelve hours a day, for months and months, well, the camera wouldn't be very "new" to you for very long. Besides, Beebe used these cameras on "Collateral" and I'm sure his engineer/DIT had even more experience with them.

Mann is not easy to deal with. One DP working in the daytime on a Mann shoot told me that Mann would start shooting whatever angles he was most interested in, maybe even an insert or a close-up, and then when the sun was gone and it was too dark to shoot, he'd suddenly want to get the master shot for the scene, which would then be underexposed and grainy compared to the coverage. He doesn't shoot wide first and then march in tighter, and he doesn't shoot in any order that makes continuity of lighting or exposure easier. Another DP told me that after they lit a location according to the pre-production plans and tech scout, on the day Mann would want to shoot in the oppposite direction instead where nothing was lit.