Miami Vice - The Movie (Shot on High Def)

[Hugh DiMauro]

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

[Krystian Ramlogan]

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.

[John Kang]

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.

[Daniel Weber]

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

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

[Krystian Ramlogan]

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.

[Daniel Weber]

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

[Chris M. Watson]

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

[Matthew Ware]

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.

[Tunde Anjorin]

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."

[Eric Gorski]

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.

[Chris M. Watson]

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

[Alex Thin]

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.

[Don Donatello]

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 ..

[Eric Gorski]

Originally Posted by Don Donatello

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.

[Don Donatello]

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 ...