[psmith2.0]

After a summer of overhyped, dead-on-arrival bullcrap, I finally see a movie today that doesn't make me go or feel like I just flung good money out the window.

First up: don't go into it expecting - or wanting - anything to do with the TV show. With the exception of the two lead characters names (and a few of their sidekicks: Zito, Castillo, Trudy, etc.), there is NO connection to the TV show: no Miami deco, no white suits with pastel T-shirts, no Wayfarers, etc.

Instead, view it through the "Heat" and "Collateral" filters, Michael Mann's two other bad-ass crime movies. Viewed in that way (and let go of the TV show memories), and it's a really enjoyable, gripping movie. To me, anyway.

Why? I was hoping you'd ask:

1. It plays it straight. Unlike other big-screen takes on TV shows (too many too list...you know the ones I'm talking about), this one isn't trying to appeal to Don Johnson fans, or recapture any kitschy mid-80's vibe. So it plays it straight, like a real movie...an adult movie, with nothing really dumbed down or served up to the masses as a "80's Miami Vice" money shot or applause-getter.

2. Other than Foxx and Farrell's lead characters, you probably won't recognize another actor in the entire thing. I love that because anystead of thinking "oh, there's some Hollywood puss I've seen drinking a latte on 'Access Hollywood' trying to play a drug dealer", you're looking at some of these guys going "holy crap, he might BE a murderous drug dealer!"

3. No music tie-ins. Great moody, music throughout. But no shameless tie-in or cross promo like you see in so many of these movies these days. But really cool music throughout, soundtrack wise. Set moods, tones, etc. I really took notice of that in this movie.

4. It kicks in IMMEDIATELY. No opening credits. No nothing. Not even a "Miami Vice" title plate. Just the Universal logo and then BAM!...you're right in the middle of some nightclub, where stuff is already going down and taking place. No "King Kong"-esque 90 minutes of build-up, explanation, etc. It's expected that you already know the characters (even if they're nothing like the TV show), so it just jumps right in. There's violence and tension in the first five minutes (when most movies are still showing opening credits). I LOVED that! Didn't waste my time.

5. First thing I've seen Colin Farrell(sp?) do that I didn't want to smack him. Jamie Foxx, too, frankly. No cutesy one liners AT ALL. No winking at the camera. No "buddy cop movie" cliches.

6. Great cinematography. Even though much of it was at night, it just had a really great look to it. Didn't go overboard on the neon/deco thing (in fact, there really wasn't any). It was seedy shipping yards, South American drug neighborhoods, etc. Some nice hand-held work at times, to put you "into the scene" (like some of the opening moments to "Saving Private Ryan".

7. Along with the great look, the sound was AMAZING. The guns sounded real. Most movies, it's played up really big. This one, the guns had that real life "CRACK" sound, as opposed to a bassy cannon. It - combined with the shady-looking actors playing the heavies and the camera work - just gave it an ultra gritty, realistic "this is happening now" vibe.

No, this movie didn't knock me out of my seat. And it's nowhere near the best thing I've ever seen. BUT it was a serious, adult, grim, straight-played crime drama that didn't insult my intelligence, didn't have me checking my watch and didn't make me feel like I just pissed away $5.50.

It adhered to the show in a couple of ways: often the TV show would get VERY somber and grim (lost love, things not turning out in the good guys' favor all the time, etc.). This movie captured that part of it, and reminded me of some of those TV show moments, with Crockett bummed about a some chick he had to come down on or turn in.



Good stuff. You may or may not like it, but it played very well for me. Of course, I love "Heat" and "Collateral", so I was going to see this latest Mann offering no matter what. But it's better than any of the superhero shit I've seen this summer, hands down. Just because it feels like a grown-up movie, made for grown-ups.

It's violent, profane, loud, quiet, somber, gritty, gorgeous to look at and what few flashes of humor, they were real, not forced, and helped ease the tension a bit.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'd go see a sequel to this in a HEARTBEAT (provided they kept the same vibe and tone, and didn't go all "Will Smith/Martin Lawrence" or sitcom on it.

Kinda funny, but my two favorite movies of the summer couldn't be further apart in style, tone and genre: an animated movie with talking cars and a big-screen adaptation of a TV show that should've, by all rights, totally sucked...but doesn't! It was all the OTHER movies (that I was expecting to love and spent months looking forward to) that fell flat and missed their mark with me. Took until the END OF JULY to finally see one worth my time and money!



Weird how that works...

I give it a thumbs-up, 4.5 out of five stars, 8.4 out of 10, etc.

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 7. Along with the great look, the sound was AMAZING. The guns sounded real. Most movies, it's played up really big. This one, the guns had that real life "CRACK" sound, as opposed to a bassy cannon.

Real-sounding guns must be a Michael Mann thing. Remember the huge gun battle near the end of Heat, after the last robbery? That's the most amazing shoot out I've ever seen in a movie. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the gun sounds were recorded live at the scene - they just sounded so real and loud, echoing through the downtown streets.

[Ghost2]

Nice review pscates2.0 I'm really looking forward to seeing this movie now.

[Kickaha]

Wow. $5.50?? Cripes, I paid $8 for *matinee* recently. :P

And they wonder why the audiences aren't coming to movies anymore...

[MCQ]

Thanks for the review pscates! I was having trouble with the reviews at movies.com - everything was either "great" or "worst thing I've ever seen".

I'll watch it on your recommendation.

[psmith2.0]

That's cool. Just bear in mind we all have different tastes.

You might not enjoy it nearly as much as I did. But frankly, that's just the kind of movie I've been in the mood for, after several months of fluff, bad writing and excessive CGI. It hit the spot for me.

I really, more than anything, just appreciated seeing something that wasn't played cute, for laughs or to satisfy fans of the TV show (going out of their way to shoehorn in the clothes, etc. just to play to the nostalgia set).

I liked how the violence/gunplay wasn't gratuitous and just crammed in, like a lot of these crime/cop movies do. Any moments of violence/gunplay came about naturally and within the story. Not like "it's been 20 minutes...time for people to start shooting because we need some action in this part".

Watching it, I just got the sense of "okay, here's how someone wanted to make this kind of movie...and, by George, they did!". It was the first I've seen in a while that didn't smack of "test screened to death", with sappy, neat little resolutions and happy outcomes, just so it would appeal to the thickheads and those with no attention spans.

I've had more than my share of those movies these past few months, thank you...

[MCQ]

Well, I enjoyed Collateral... so we'll see how this goes.

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by spotcatbug That's the most amazing shoot out I've ever seen in a movie.

So true.

[thegeriatric]

Sounds like my kind of movie. thanks for the review pscates.

[scratt]

Cool.. Thanks for that pscates.

I was relieved when I saw that Michael Mann was doing it..

However, when I saw the trailers I was pretty upset with both Jamie Fox and Colin Farrel being in it..

Jamie Fox has turned into a real pratt since he hit the fame lane. A realy P-Diddy lacky as well. But it seems that they have got his ego under control.. Good old Michael Mann again, I guess.

And I was not really sure if Farrell would be any good. Especially as both seemed to fluff their lines in the trailers I saw.. I couldn't even understand what Jamie Fox said in one!

My one wish would have been that Edward James Olmos was still playing the boss, as I think he is the man..

But based on your recommendation, and quite a few of the good points you list about it not having the usual hangers on in suporting roles, getting into the the action without and pre-amble, and not trying to hold onto the skirt taiks of the original series, I am pretty enthused about seeing this now..

[psmith2.0]

Here's what's funny: I'm sitting here, halfway watching "Bad Boys 2" on USA. It's funny because it's the COMPLETE opposite of what I saw earlier today (and how they COULD'VE gone with it, and I'm glad they didn't).

Both movies set in Miami. Both involving drug dealers and the drug trade. But the approaches are completely 180 degrees from each other. EVERY line of dialog in this one is played for laughs (everything out of Smith or Lawrence's mouth is a smart-ass one-liner, even when they're getting shot at and supposedly "in a tough spot"...so idiotic, stuff like that. The "action" is just one overly choreographed, preposterous gunfight after the other: slow motion dives, heroes NEVER in danger, bad guys can't shoot worth a shit (do they train at the same place Imperial Stormtroopers do?), etc..

Every "cop buddy" movie cliche or standby is in full effect.

I realize it's a comedy/action thing, but it's just such a noisy, bombastic and dumbed-down mess of a movie. Had "Miami Vice" been put in the hands of the same dorks who made "S.W.A.T.", that's what it could've gone like. A typical Big Hollywood Movie™ (with Christopher Walken or Jon Voight sporting a dark tan, black hair and South American accent, to play the drug kingpin villain).



Such a stark contrast, for two movies that share the same setting and subject matter...

I'm officially changing the channel now.



At least the first one had the luscious Tea Leoni rocking the black hair and miniskirts!

[BarracksSi]

I don't remember much about the TV show, but from what I do remember, the movie got it all. Excellent job by Michael Mann and everyone involved.

Agreed about the gunfire sounds, too -- spot-on. Loved how the Ferrari sounded as well.

[Eugene]

The connection between the TV show and the movie? Michael Mann was involved in both.

[scratt]

Apparently Miami Vice has beaten out Pirates in weekend earnings!

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Eugene The connection between the TV show and the movie? Michael Mann was involved in both.

Yeah, that's pretty common knowledge. Were you talking to BarrackSi?

Sorry...

Yes, I saw where this outdid "Pirates". Word of mouth might help it...I've yet to see it truly trashed in the reviews I've read. And the "real life" people I know who've seen it seemed to feel about the same way I did about it: serious, adult movie, played straight and not dumbed-down or adhering to typical "summer movie" conventions.

A refreshing change, after nearly three months of complete silliness.

This might be one of those things that peaks in 1-3 weeks from now, via good word-of-mouth.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by scratt Apparently Miami Vice has beaten out Pirates in weekend earnings!

Whoa!

um...Pirates has been out for over a month. 25 million in an opening weekend isn't anything special.

[scratt]

Perhaps. I don't really know the figures that well.. I just read on a couple of sites today that Miami Vice had broken Pirates record or something.. I didn't even read it, more scanned it.. So I can't really comment, other than to report what I read / scanned.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by scratt Perhaps. I don't really know the figures that well.. I just read on a couple of sites today that Miami Vice had broken Pirates record or something.. I didn't even read it, more scanned it.. So I can't really comment, other than to report what I read / scanned.

Miami Vice didn't break Pirates 2's opening record. Not by a long shot.

It just beat out Pirates this weekend. After, you know, everybody had seen Pirates. Twice.

[psmith2.0]

Exactly. "Vice" made $25 or so this weekend, while "Pirates" took in "only" a measly $20 million...IN ADDITION TO THE $800 ELEVENTY ZILLION THEY'VE ALREADY RAKED IN THE PAST THREE WEEKS.



So it's a neat feat (for THIS weekend), but probably not a huge deal in the big scheme of things.

NEXT weekend is when you see if this movie is going to fly or not. If it makes another $25 million (or more), then that means good word is spreading. If, however, it pulls in $417.33 nationwide, it probably means it was an opening weekend wad-shooter...and will be on DVD in September.

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by Eugene The connection between the TV show and the movie? Michael Mann was involved in both.

It's been so long that I only felt like it was the same guy. He certainly hasn't lost it.

I kept wanting to hear some Jan Hammer, too.

[SKMDC]

It also played on 25% fewer screens (so it made more per engagement) than Pirates which is not to shabby.

Whoever was making the decisions at Disney knew what he/she was thinking to greenlight two Pirates movies back to back to save costs (also when the DVD ships the new one will be in theatres, smart.) and the two will probably gross well over a billion.

Could it have been the same person who told M. Night "thanks, but no thanks" on Lady in the Water which looks to go down the drain to about a 100 million dollar loss.

And not that grosses are indicative of quality but has Merle Streep ever starred in a movie that grossed over a hundred million?

Box Office Mojo Chart

[Robo]

I liked Lady in the Water. It wasn't perfect, and I totally called one of the twists, but I loved the concept. I think it might just be his best movie. It's definitely his least traditional.

Which might be why it bombed.

[psmith2.0]

I read some recent interviews and articles about M. Night Shamalamadingdong and he really struck me as a bit too full of himself and his contributions. Quite a turn-off, frankly. I kept reading, thinking "okay, where's the punchline...no one talks seriously about themselves this way".



He was given complete free reign and creative control on his first four flicks, but, IMO, they've all gotten worse with each one (I've not seen "Lady in the Water", but have seen the others). I'm betting this is the last one he's given Lucas-like totally control over (unless he finances the thing himself). This might be what knocks him off his perch.

I've read ONE good review (out of about 8-10) for his latest movie...enough to make me not even want to fool with it. Even the trailers and pre-release hype and "making of" specials on TV didn't grab me in the least. Then when I read the interviews mentioned above, it just totally made me think "this guy's off his nut...I'm not getting sucked in to this crap".

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 M. Night Shamalamadingdong

That's exactly how I pronounce his name as well.

I've read ONE good review (out of about 8-10) for his latest movie...enough to make me not even want to fool with it.

RottenTomatoes.com has the film pretty firmly planted in the "rotten" category, at 22% on the "Critics Tomatometer." It's only at 14% on the "Cream of the Crop" version of the scale.

[irnchriz]

Originally Posted by spotcatbug Real-sounding guns must be a Michael Mann thing. Remember the huge gun battle near the end of Heat, after the last robbery? That's the most amazing shoot out I've ever seen in a movie. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the gun sounds were recorded live at the scene - they just sounded so real and loud, echoing through the downtown streets.

Many of the gun sounds from heat have ended up in sound libraries used in todays console and PC games. Can anyone say GTA

[SKMDC]

Walter Hill's 48 Hours in 1982, got guns to sound scary.
Michael Mann got the head-shot (the aforementioned Robert Prosky bad guy) in THIEF pretty good but I think Scorcese's TAXI DRIVER did it first.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 M. Night Shamalamadingdong

Leo Laporte fan, pscates?

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I've read ONE good review (out of about 8-10) for his latest movie...enough to make me not even want to fool with it. Even the trailers and pre-release hype and "making of" specials on TV didn't grab me in the least. Then when I read the interviews mentioned above, it just totally made me think "this guy's off his nut...I'm not getting sucked in to this crap".

Considering that the film openly mocks film critics, I can see why critics wouldn't be thrilled with it.

By no means was it a perfect film...it didn't quite all "come together" in a way that truly great movies do.

But it was an interesting story, and I dug the concept.

I think M. Night Shamaylan's mistake was making The Sixth Sense his first feature. It's his most traditional movie by far, and it gave everyone else the wrong expectations for the rest of his work. I mean, I know people who saw Unbreakable just because M. Night made it, and they were surprised that it was nothing like The Sixth Sense. M. Night feels like a guy that should make a bunch of weird independent films first, and then hit it big.

Perception is a tricky thing. I'm having a hard time deciding what my first film would be, simply because that's what everyone bases their expectations on. Should it be an edgy noir? A realist murder mystery? A feel-good family film? Obviously, each of those films would change what people expect from you in the future. M. Night made the mistake of making a traditional film first, and then his batshit insane ones (although, to his credit, getting funding for a weirder film might have been impossible in his shoes).

I agree that M. Night might be cocky (all the Hitchcock comparisons might have gone to his head) - he keeps on giving himself larger and larger parts in his movies, and Lady in the Water is no exception. (Of course, it is the bedtime story he wrote for his kids, so I guess it's only fair that he's in it.) But even though I think M. Night is a bit overrated (as in, he isn't the next Hitchcock), I think this recent stream of M. Night panning is undeserved...if that makes any sense.

[Bryson]

I just went to see Miami Vice. Fantastic.

I loved the level of realism (aside from the "pop to Cuba for a drink," of course ) in the movie - the sound was fantastic (gunfire, realistic levels of background noise) and I loved how, for example,

the woman cop was still too messed up by being kidnapped to suddenly strap on a assault rifle and get involved once she was rescued

or how the affect of those 50 cal sniper rifles was portrayed.

Loved it. No idea what it has to do with the original Miami Vice, though.