Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Miami Vice (2006)

This is topic Miami Vice (2006) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001138

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-28-2006, 01:24 PM:

OK, if you liked the T.V. show you may like this movie because it is basically a drawn out version of the show with a lot more violence and profanity. I must say that I enjoyed the action sequences and the performances were good. But the plot was just a mish mash worn out subject. I would have enjoyed this movie even more if it hadn't have been for the drunk camera men they used on this production. Anyone with motion sickness should avoid this movie because they will [puke]

all over the place. Have they stopped making steady cam devices?

I give this one 2 1/2 stars out of four

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-30-2006, 07:29 PM:

Today 7/30/2006, 11:30AM, Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene, House #3, 35mm film, some kind of digital sound. Maybe 25 people there. The presentation of the feature was pretty much excellent, no complaints. Image quality on this screen was as usual very sharp, bright etc.

Miami Vice was "filmed" in HD, no? Well, the line to shoot me in the head forms to the left, but I liked the look of it. It was obviously shot on video, and I'm sure they got the look they wanted. Dimly-lit shots were very grainy. Bright outdoors shots were often very sharp and detailed and with excellent color. Other scenes were in-between. Pasty fleshtones sometimes. It all seems appropriate for this particular movie.

I was never a huge fan of Miami Vice, but I kind of liked it. Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx are slightly miscast as Crockett and Tubbs though. Something about them just doesn't quite work. Everyone else is very good. If you try to explain the plot to someone, it will sound like a tired retread, but there are some twists and turns along the way to make it semi-fresh.

That trailer blowed up REAL good. [thumbsup]

The handheld camera work didn't even register with me, so it can't be all THAT bad, nothing like United 93 bad.

3 out of 5 stars from me.

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 08-01-2006, 05:50 PM:

Well, I would have to say that it does have some neat action and the speed boats were really awesome. Of course, the gun fights were awesome. The women brought a nice touch to the movie.

Anyway, I saw the movie in Theatre #4, in Dolby SR. The SDDS Unit was turned off. But, the sound was really clear and was loud enough. The picture clairity was excellent, just the way I like it. [Big Grin]

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 08-02-2006, 09:15 PM:

Just previewed this, it's very slick. An entertaining film, not very deep or amazingly directed but good anyway. Was suprised Colin Farrell managed to act for once and Gong Li was good in her role. Can't believe how long it is though.

I'd give it 3.5 out of 5, probably on the generous side as I watched it at 10.30pm usually more ready to accept stuff in a film later at night.

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 08-03-2006, 07:49 AM:

Coliseum 12
Ottawa, ON
7:10pm show on a Monday
about 80 people
Cinema 7

Not to bad a flick but I was expecting more. You have the cool boats and cars but no boat chase or car chase in a cop film? Not to sure about the use of HD either, did it really help the look? It was sure grainy like a hi-8 camera. It wasn't a cost saving move as they tested the cameras for like 3 months before the shoot. 500ASA Film or 800 could have given better results. Man all Colin Ferrel does these days is stand around brooding... plus two shower scences in the flick with no nudity, why bother

The presentation was good, the screen was massive, but at the first 4 change overs the screen cut to black and the sound dropped out? did the projectionist splice on the black of the leaders? the film was plattered, I'm sure the film will run its whole run at that theatre like that.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-04-2006, 06:58 PM:

35mm print, screened at DGA #1 in Hollywood. (8/2)

Nothing to recommend here...

lazy, bad-looking videography
borderline cast, looking their worst
bad sound recording, editing and mixing
instantly forgettable music
boring storyline

oh yeah...and NONE of the elements that made "Miami Vice" what it was...

yuck [puke]

Posted by Gunnar Asgeirsson (Member # 3882) on 08-18-2006, 02:19 AM:

I give this movie 1 stars out of five only for Jamie Foxx and Colin Farrel.

This movie was very uninteresting and boring..

Jamie Foxx and Colin Farrel are good actors but all about this movie, specialy the plot/story line put me to sleep [sleep]

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 08-18-2006, 11:50 PM:

I saw this one with Joe...

And this movie was so boring that we walked out of it. Although Jamie Foxx was kinda hot in it. But still not worth it. I think if they just played the TV show version I'd probably stay and watch. Good thing the tickets were free. [Big Grin]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-19-2006, 12:07 AM:

Pointless theater review:
Yeah I saw this one... for free. We saw it at the shithole called AMC Flatirons Crossing 14 or some such nonsense. What a crappy theater... worst AMC in town. I hadn't been there before so that's why we went there. Anyway at about 5 minutes after the show was supposed to start, I looked back and noticed the movie hadn't even been threaded and the work lights by the projector weren't even on. I went out to find some sort of employee and eventually did. I told him to call up to the booth and tell them to thread and start #3. He pulled out his walkie and looked like I was speaking in hieroglyphics or something (if that were actually possible). Back in the auditorium the looping AMC video was running it's screensaver and maybe 2 minutes later they started threading. Little did I know that the projectionist was only trying to delay our extreme pain. After about 30 dirty trailers without greenbands, the movie finally starts. The sound level must have been at 69dB for the feature, and maybe 75dB for the trailers. And mono. Everything was in mono except the awesome AMC FirstLook™ which allowed me to be the first to get a sneak at new NBC shows and other fantastic things. Wow. Advertising for TV at movie theaters is a GREAT idea. What else can theaters do to encourage people to stay home?

Actual movie review:
This movie had nothing to do with anything. It was just a bunch of people talking, a bunch of crappy sex scenes, and more people talking. I never really watched the real show, but it couldn't have been any worse than this. The cinematograhy sucks ass (fact, not opinion) but probably not as much as those lousy Bourne movies. I noticed one scene where they were on a boat heading toward Havana or whatever, there was a helicopter shot chasing the boat, the ocean looked washed out where it was reflecting from the sun at the horizon and they tried to fix it with some lazy color-correction. This made me angry. I hope this movie didn't make much money. We walked out after about an hour or so to avoid any permanent brain damage and/or slipping into a coma and demanded/got a refund.