miami awful

the real vice in "miami vice" is the movie itself.

1) horrible dialogue. why didn't someone tell michael mann that he can't write meaningful (or at the least tolerable) conversations? every attempt at hipness fell flat.

"people are going to come in here and say, 'what's this? is this some jackson pollock on the walls?'"

"this is how we do it...smooth."

"i'm a fiend for mojitos."

"time is luck."

2) horrible cinematography. the viper 1K looks muddy, the framing was atrocious, and mann hasn't figured out how to use hand-held shooting in an artistically motivated fashion.

3) weird facial expressions. jaime foxx and colin farrell make weird faces throughout the whole movie. were they grimacing because of bad water or because of the bad dialogue?

4) bad blocking. for most of the movie, it was basically impossible to tell what was happening except that people were talking to each other (or killing each other).

5) excessive script tidiness. mann likes to pretend that he's better than classical hollywood cinema stylists, but he's as grounded in tradition as most american moviemakers are. for example, early in the movie, the main characters threaten to splatter someone's blood on the walls. at the end of the movie, the main characters splatter that person's blood on the walls.

6) gong li's decision to be in this movie. with "geisha", "vice", and the upcoming "young hannibal", gong plays the "dragon lady" and single-handedly sets back asians in cinema to the racist fare of the 1920s and 1930s.

2/10

as i've written repeatedly, 90% of all movies are bad.

i've written more than 500 reviews for dvdtown.com. i never see you comment on any of my positive reviews.

i started a thread for "united 93" called "the best movie of 2006". you didn't have anything to say there, either.

It looks like I'll be in agreement with Eddie (and others) here as well...

As a MAJOR fan of MIAMI VICE (and also CRIME STORY) TV shows during the mid'80s, I am so disappointed at hearing the mostly negative reviews for this movie. Note: today's WALL STREET JOURNAL gave it a marginal thumbs up due to some of the action scenes etc.

WHY did Michael Mann decide to make the film in a style totally different from the show. As the USA Today review states, there was a lot of humour in the TV show [to counter the serious stuff], and it's completely missing from the film version, among other things.

The TV show had amazing colors, music, bright beaches, cool editing, etc, and the film version looks to be nothing but "darkness" all around and poor dialog.

Well, I will probably still go see it anyway [matinee price though], but I'm looking forward to the day that Universal releases all FIVE seasons of the TV show in HD DVD! And with some of the original "cuts" put back (as a few shows had violent content edited before repeats].

Well, I still have both Miami Vice TV show music CDs to enjoy, and two LaserDiscs movies (from the first season). I know of the DVD sets of the first two seasons, but I'll wait for the (hopefully) future HD DVD releases of this great series!

Mann delivered with HEAT and THE INSIDER (among others), but blew it with MV film.

-Love Hendrix

I was shocked at just how awful this movie looks. I am curious to know how much of it inherent in the high-def photography, and how much has to do with the blow-up for theatrical release. I can't believe I'm saying this about a movie (any movie) but I think this one might actually look better on DVD. As Eddie says, the image is muddy at best, and so soft it sometimes looks like little more than a smudge, esp. in the jerkiest of the shaky cam scenes.

Speaking of "shaky cam", it is neither inherently good nor bad, but when used in a film that is composed almost entirely of close-ups and extreme close-ups, it becomes downright nauseating. There are a few bright spots, mostly the rather elegant shots of the "go fast" boats skimming the water, but I felt like I spent most of the two and a half hours looking a a movie shot through a kitty litter box filter.

Farrell seems borderline comatose throughout the movie, but Foxx is as convincing as he can be with lukewarm material. I can't bring myself to say anything bad about Gong Li so I'll just say she looks fabulous in a business suit - at least I think she does, it's hard to tell with this photography.

I left the film thinking it was ratehr mean-spirited, but I suspect that may be more attributable to the audience I suffered with. When a blood-spattering head shot induces half the audience to guffaw loudly and the other half to applaud wildly, I think to myself, "Maybe the death of theatrical distribution isn't such a bad thing."

The constant hyper-macho posturing by every single character in the movie, both male and female, is pretty laughable, but I think it comes with the territory.

Hey now! Can we just get off the "Eddie only loves Final Fantasy" crap! The joke is old news, and quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of everyone poking fun at him about it! It's old, so drop it, thank you. ;)

In all fairness, Eddie is right about "Miami Vice." In my opinion, the movie does do its best to look good, but underneath all the convoluted substance is a complete disaster. Trust me, there's a lot more facts in Eddies take on the film than just his opinion.

Tim :@

God, is there a movie you DO like Eddie? Personally, I liked Gong's performance in this one, at least her non-verbal parts. (much more improved from "Geisha")

I honestly never see you make positive comments on about a movie on this board. Few movies are in your "elite" group of recommended films. I'm sorry that not all films can be as superfantasicalmagnificent as "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" =P


Try this on for a change, why not try start posts on films you like? (As opposed to trashing the ones you don't) You could be like...yenno.....positive for once....SHOCKER

I agree, this movie is crap! It had to be the slooooowest freaking Michael Mann movie to date. The dialog was flat, the interactions between characters were dull, plus the plot was so convoluted that by the time I could figure anything out, I just didn't care anymore. In fact, when the film finally does get to any action, I remember sitting there and thinking "Hurry up and get done already!"

What rip! What sham! The only good thing I can say is I still do like the way Mann shoots his films. I love the whole hand-held camera action and the way he makes things seem realistic but for god’s sake write some interesting dialog and give the movie a pace that won't put us to sleep! The action sequences were decent once we got there but I was so bored I just wanted it to end.

I'm with Eddie on this one, this movie freaking stinks to high-heaven! For the love of Pete, I’ve had more entertainment out of a cold bowl of split-pea soup!

4/10

Tim:.(

**And by the way, I highly recommend Michael Medved's daily radio program and several books!**


I hesitate to ask "recommend for what?" Cheap kindling? A slightly preferable alternative to dental torture?

lovehendrix,

i was responding to alexanderl, not you. alexanderl was being a reductionistic prick, so i took him to school.

eddie

"Yes, LoveHendrix, it's true, Eddie has not only written reviews for DVDTown, but for many other sites as well. These days, he writes exclusively under his long-time pen name: Michael Medved."

8) L-O-L

And by the way, I highly recommend Michael Medved's daily radio program and several books!

-Love Hendrix!

Yes, LoveHendrix, it's true, Eddie has not only written reviews for DVDTown, but for many other sites as well. These days, he writes exclusively under his long-time pen name: Michael Medved.

Eddie said... "I've written more than 500 reviews for dvdtown.com. I never see you comment on any of my positive reviews. I started a thread for UNITED 93 called 'the best movie of 2006.' You didn't have anything to say there, either."

REPLY to "posters5"... Was the above written to me (personally)? - (Love Hendrix!)

If so, then read the following...

(1) I've only been viewing this website and message board now, for a little over a month [beginning in June 2006].

(2) My message board posts have not reference you [back-and-forth comments on other threads] until this very past week, and the only reason I know of your name - Eddie - was that others here (including staff members) were identifying you by name. From what little I've read here [recent posts], your messages are given under the nick, "posters5" (without adding the name Eddie, or very rarely).

(3) So, being a "newbie" here (just since June), I did NOT realize that you [personally] have previously... "written more than 500 reviews for dvdtown.com" - OR - "started a thread for UNITED 93 called 'the best movie of 2006.'"

As I write this, I can't remember if it's possible to verify [or read all] member M.B. posts [under name link?], or knew of 'your' reviews here on dvdtown.com [news to me until now], and so I had not made the connection between you personally and any "Eddie" that's written the many reviews on dvdtown. My apologies, if they are needed.

Most of the reviews I've been reading here are primarily of the HD DVD and Blu-ray titles, and usually those are done by John, Dean, and a few others. No "Eddie" that I remember, but of course, I just learned this past week that you don't own the Toshiba player (or Blu-ray either, I think).

As for Miami Vice (again), I forgot to OBVIOUSLY mention in my comment above about how the TV show also featured many AWESOME GUEST STARS! One was even featured in a series of 5 or 6 episodes during a later season - beautiful U.K. singer SHEENA EASTON.

So anyone, are there any "star cameos" in the film?

One cameo that stands out to me (from the TV show) was the memorial performance of "bad guy" TELLER [of PENN AND TELLER comedy/magician fame], in a smaller, but very rare "speaking" role. In the episide, Teller spoke normally in his vocal actor lines - [if I remember right, it was the one also featuring G. Gordon Liddy?, of Watergate fame]

-Love Hendrix!

-8/10?

before i forget...

having two shower sex scenes was repetitive and stupid. the farrell-gong scene at least advanced the plot (they were talking about a business deal), but the foxx-harris scene was nothing to the max.

the more that i think about this movie, the more that i wish that we used a negative scale at dvdtown.com.

Seriously, why were the main characters void of ANY personality?

Why take two actors who have larger than life off screen personalities and pretty much petrify them?

I can't believe I walked in expecting to see something that puts movies like Bad Boys 2 to shame, but come out asking why it couldn't be more like it.

To be honest, it's hard to assess because so much of the movie is shot in extreme close-ups. Many a scene is composed primarily of tight shots of, say, a shot of someone's ear, a shot of a tattoo on someon's arm, an eyeball, a hand, etc. I guess Mann thinks this grants an air of immediacy to the proceedings. I found it uninvolving and disorienting (and not in a good way.) I'm sure the effect will be less overwhelming/nauseating on DVD, but I found it unbearable in the theater. And since he's using long lenses with extreme close-ups, you can just imagine how jerky the photography looks. Again, all intentional, but not my cup of java.

alexanderl,

cry a river in your parents' bedroom.

eddie

speaking of bad photography...

during the final firefight, there was a shot that made me laugh out loud. the cameraman was crouched behind someone. this wasn't exactly a p.o.v. shot because the camera was watching the action over someone's shoulders. anyway, the guy fell down, and the camera jerked backwards. it looked like the actor had stumbled backwards and hit the cameraman, causing the camera to jerk upwards for about a second. it looked like live-tv fumbling, but why the "perfectionist" mann left it in the movie was beyond me. it looked like such an obvious error that i kept giggling for two minutes straight.

well...having tight inserts is one thing...but when it's overused...it's really bad in the theater. i remember watching MI:3 and feeling that way...i even posted it on the MI:3 THOUGHTS post.

It seems that people nowdays are shooting with...well...with dvd sales in mind i dare say.

That tight framing...for such long coverage can feel natural only on a tv screen, and not on a huge screen. You see a movie like that and then pop a kubrick film in the dvd player with all those fisheye dollys and long shots and you feel like your TV just got bigger.

I think you're right, Coaster, some directors are shooting for DVD now. It's not entirely new - directors have been composing with the tv screen in mind for years, so it's only the details, not the concept, that are changing. I don't know that Mann necessarily had that in mind, but, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, "Miami Vice" is one of the few movies I can think of that I would actually recommend people watch on DVD rather in the theaters. There are numerous scenes in Miami Vice that I found nearly unintelligible as the combination of shaky cam/extreme close up just devolves into white noise.

"i was responding to alexanderl, not you. alexanderl was being a reductionistic prick, so i took him to school. "

eddie

Wow, that was so mature of you. Just to let you know, I'm thirteen. So thanks for having the high morals to call a thirteen year old a prick, would you say that to my face if I said the same thing to you in person? And I guess you didn't see the =P sign in my post, or else you just ignored it and chose to take things very seriously. And not once, NOT ONCE, did I ever call you a single derrogatory term. I didn't realize that it was OK at this site to direct such terms at visitors of this site. Was I wrong in stating that you should be more positive? Well, maybe since I don't know you, I should've been more subtle. But don't you ever, EVER call me a prick. That is de-moralizing, crude, and something that should not be tolerated anywhere.

Quick question:
Haven't seen the film, and i've heard so much about bad dp'ing on the first post. I Wanna know how is HD treating mann's love for long lenses and completely blurred out backgrounds.

That said, i would like to add that there's a night shot of colinn farrell walking in the trailer and it's packet with noise...it looks like...well...crap.
Are all the night shots like that? because in collateral they where cool.

**And for myself, I'd rather hear/read a Medved film review over any of those critics above, well, except for Vincent Canby's reviews [enjoy his for many years]. Also, don't underrate Rex Reed (I usually agree with him). And I definitely recommend always reading the movie/DVD reviews in The Wall Street Journal.**


Well.

This is the point in the discussion where I extend my hand and say, "Good luck to you, sir." And move on to another topic. :)

Chris said... "The best thing I can say about him is - at least he no longer pretends to be a film critic."

Sorry Chris - your wrong!
Michael is CONSTANTLY reviewing movies...

Almost every day Michael Medved gives a verbal film review of either - (1) a current movie showing in theaters, or (2) released on DVD - heard in 1 to 2 minute segments on his radio program [time-wise made right at the end of one of the show's hourly segments.]

Also, read Michael Medved reviews on his website: - EXTERNAL LINK -

I love what he said last week when panning BASIC INSTINCT 2 on DVD!
Concluding his negative review, he summarized his dislike by saying...
;) "AND IT'S 1 & A HALF STARS FOR BASIC INSTINCT 2, WHICH BASICALLY STINKS, TOO!" [awesome! L-O-L]

And for myself, I'd rather hear/read a Medved film review over any of those critics above, well, except for Vincent Canby's reviews [enjoy his for many years]. Also, don't underrate Rex Reed (I usually agree with him). And I definitely recommend always reading the movie/DVD reviews in The Wall Street Journal.

-Love Hendrix!

Thanks for the info, Hendrix, but I'm pretty sure I know who Michael Medved is.

The best thing I can say about him is - at least he no longer pretends to be a film critic.

Look long and hard in Phillip Lopate's comprehensive collection of American Movie Critics, and you won't find him anywhere. There's a reason for that.

Here's a list of people who actually deserve to be called "excellent movie critics":

Manny Farber, James Agee, Parker Tyler, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Andrew Sarris, Vincent Canby, Manohla Dargis, J. Hoberman, Kent Jones.

Just for starters.

I thought we were talking about how bad "Miami Vice" sucks, or am I reading the title of this thread the wrong way?

Can we stay on topic here or do we really need to get into a spat about Medved?

Chris said... "I hesitate to ask "recommend for what?" Cheap kindling? A slightly preferable alternative to dental torture?"

:@ I wonder how old you are Chris? And if you're aware of Michael Medved's long-standing contributions not only as a veteran film critic, but also as an author of several books documenting a large amount of historical information about films?

Or, if you know of his 12 years co-hosting SNEAK PREVIEWS [PBS "movie review" TV-program featuring Medved], along with fellow film-critic Jeffrey Lyons [both are excellent critics].

You may not agree with his "conservative" political views [or listen to his daily talk-radio program], but Michael (and sometimes along with a brother, Harry) has written many excellent books - with a few about movies...

-THE GOLDEN TURKEY AWARDS
-SON OF THE GOLDEN TURKEY AWARD
-THE FIFTY WORST FILMS OF ALL TIME
-THE HOLLYWOOD HALL OF SHAME: The Most Expensive Flops in Movie History
(these books provide numerous laughs, and also rare photographs)

-HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA: Popular Culture and the War Against Traditional Values
-HOLLYWOOD VS. RELIGION

(OK, you might not like these last two - perhaps reflected in your comment above?)

View more of Michael Medved's biography (and family) at his website link here...
- EXTERNAL LINK -

-Love Hendrix!

Yes, it's one of many reasons nobody really takes Medved seriously as a critic. Which he doesn't really try to be anymore. He's now a right-wing political talk show host who sometimes gives reviews of blockbuster films, a role he seems much better suited for.

In his heyday, he filled the niche of "popular film reviewer", and in that regard was probably better at it than total lightweights like Joel Siegel or Gene Shalit, but that's about all you can say for him. He is a competent writer, but shows no particular knowledge or interest in film aesthetics, history, or theory. He might have been more at home in the 50s when "film critics" seemed to think films should be evaluated based on what kind of "message" or "social importance" they conveyed.

Worst of all, he included "Last Year at Marienbad" in his "50 Worst Films of All Time" which is all I ever really needed to know about him. :)

BTW, isn't Medved a Christianist moralist ass?

If I can remember correctly, he and that other fundamentalist nut Robertson did a review of Million Dollar Baby and politicized into some kind of right-to-die-propaganda movie.

The Village Voice said this in the review:

"And midway through, there is a ravishing sequence—one that single-handedly restores mature adult sexuality to Hollywood movies—in which they abscond to Cuba together to begin their affair that cannot be, amid the ramparts of a place that once was."

I don't know...I might see this movie when it comes out on DVD. I really appreciated another movie Mann did, "Collateral", which seems to look alot like how

And now I eagerly await Britney Spears' opinion on recent breakthroughs in quantum physics. :)

FYI... broadcast on today's radio program
(for all here who are interesed - well, except for staff member Christopher Long) 8)

-MIAMI VICE- Film Review
by Michael Medved - ["Eye on Entertainment" radio review]

This "Vice" boasts many virtues - gorgeous style, camera work and editing, dazzling supporting performances (especially by Luis Tosar and John Ortiz as ruthless Colombian drug lords), enormous charisma from Jamie Foxx, expertly choreographed gun battles and sexy, exotic tropical locations. Why, then, does the long (more than two hours), slow-moving, ambitious film feel like an ordeal rather than a thrill? The problem is two-fold: a listless, meandering plot and an embarrassingly bad performance by Colin Farrell in the lead role.

As undercover Miami cop Sonny Crockett, Farrell recaptures the dramatic range, depth and charisma of Don Johnson, who originated the role on TV - and that's not meant as a compliment. At this stage in his career, it's hard to understand why Farrell continues to get plum roles: his major star turns (in "Alexander," "The New World" and "The Recruit") have produced dubious box office and aesthetic results, suggesting that the problem goes beyond a bad choice of material.

In the taut but undemanding "Phone Booth" his performance worked well, but he's generally gotten parts based on his appearance and screen presence rather than any discernable ability at characterization. Here, he struggles (with no audible success) to project an American accent and his appearance is cheesy and sleazy-with a droopy moustache and flowing hippie/messiah locks that add nothing to the role.

The TV show "Miami Vice" of twenty years ago may have been purely superficial, but at least the sexy, pastel surfaces were slick and appealing. Here the equipment used by the two undercover heroes (a sports car, high-tech speed boat and nifty private jet) easily upstage the two leads, whose wardrobes look unexpectedly drab.

The plot involves our boys going so "deep undercover" that they "don't know which way is up": especially after Farrell begins romancing the icily sexy main squeeze (the great Asian star Gong Li) of the all-powerful drug titan Luis Tozar. Gong Li has distinguished herself in innumerable Chinese films, and escaped mostly unscathed from her Hollywood breakthrough "Memoirs of a Geisha," but here her inability to speak English catches up with her. Sure, she's supposed to be an exotic Chinese-Cuban sexpot (and she certainly smolders and sashays effectively on screen) but most of the words she pronounces in the course of the story remain altogether unintelligible.

Jamie Foxx (as Crockett's partner, Ricardo Tubbs) fares much better with his love interest: a fellow cop played by tough, sensual Naomi Harris who participates with Foxx in a shower scene that counts as steamy in every sense of the word. These distractions offer a welcome break from the plodding story line which, in a highly contradictory sense, counts as simultaneously simplistic and hard to follow.

Instead of the hip, sometimes humorous fantasies of his old TV series, writer-director Michael Mann has attempted to convey the gritty, frightening realties of contemporary crime cartels. The result is never less than watchable, even elegant, but undermined by the feeble story line and the off-putting presence of its apparently talent-free star.

The R-rating is well deserved for harsh language, graphic sexual content, and bloody, often sadistic violence. TWO AND A HALF STARS. - For EYE ON ENTERTAINMENT, I'm Michael Medved - - EXTERNAL LINK - medved.com

-Love Hendrix!

Michael etc said... "If I can remember correctly, he and that other fundamentalist nut (Pat) Robertson did a review of Million Dollar Baby and politicized it into some kind of right-to-die-propaganda movie."

REPLY: Oh my, you expect us to believe that filmmakers (& writers) do not "politicize" their storylines? - hahaha!!

Yeah, and Spielberg's twist on true historical events was just his "non-political" version of "aesthetics-history-theory" [Chris] concerning actual events as depicted in MUNICH?

Or for that matter, Dan Brown's THE DA VINCI CODE [Sony's hit this summer] ??

And Michael Moore's humerous films [though fictionous, twisted and dishonest to actual events].

And Orson Welles excellent CITIZEN KANE... oh yes [wink, wink!], it's not meant be based on an actual person and publisher [William Hearst], right? ;) Uh huh, sure.

AND on, and on... if one thing is TRUE in this world of MEDIA, is that filmmakers and authors very DEFINITELY will "politicize" their stories [such as morality, biography, historical events, etc], and give it a "message" whether obvious to the viewer or not. You may not agree with the "message," or deny it exists, and even be critical when another film reviewer believes he is "revealing" it in the opinionated review [Medved on MDBaby].

Note: I never got around to renting MDBaby, but I added it recently to an online "rental cue" [Blockbuster] for HD DVD, so I'll be seeing it later this month. Regardless of it's (perhaps) politically-intended (or NOT) slant, as a "Best Picture" winner it has to be pretty good overall anyway. Also, I always like Clint Eastwood's direction. (ABSOLUTE POWER is a personal fav).

Finally, Chris said... "interest in film aesthetics, history, or theory"

Well Chris, I like to read FILM REVIEWS, usually, not an opinion made into a "research paper", which I guess is what you would rather read (and probably the longer the better). Chris, you better append your dvdtown.com reviews to add much more "aesthetics, history, or theory" commentary, as readers may not be getting enough of a simple film/DVD "review". Well, that is if you have the time here.

By the way guys, FYI: Medved is JEWISH, and while he accepts "Christian morality" [and politically conservative], he is openly NOT a Christian, and has said so on his radio program. Maybe you might listen to it sometime?

-Love Hendrix!

there are messianic jews, you know. ;)

You know, I saw some Jewish Rabbi on a news channel that was part of some Jewish group that I can’t remember the name of. He was explaining that Israel had no right to bomb Lebanon and that the country of Israel shouldn’t exist. He further explained that all Jews should be wandering the world living in other countries because it is what God set them out to do. I guess it goes to show you that there are many diverse view points amongst any culture.

Isn’t knowledge an amazing thing? Now if I could just remember the name of that group the Rabi belonged to.

Tim ;)

What's a Rabi? If there is more than one of them, would they be "rabies"? :)

Ooops, Sorry Chris, I fogot the double "B". (Typo) I was in a hurry to get out the door when I wrote it. Then again you stinking little smart ass, I think you know what I meant. :p ;) :D

Tim ;)

I love the latest ad/preview on TV for this movie. One of the critic quotes is, "One of the best films this year."(tee hee hee, snicker, snicker . . .) Ok, fes-up! Which one of you DVDTown staff members sent that quote into Universal Studios?

Tim ;)