INAUGURAL MOVIE REVIEW!!!
First, let me tell you I've been fighting the urge to do movie reviews for some time. It's passe. But I saw Miami Vice last night and need to tell someone about it. Here's a conversation I had with one of my fellow filmgoers not too long ago.
muddfx.blogspot.com says:
hey, we got into an argument over miami vice last night.
i said it looked like rubbish and shouldn't have been shot on video (which made it look like rubbish). Andy said it was stylistic and defended it. long story short, i reckon miami vice was bad boys without will smith or laughs.
bad boys: 7
miami vice: 4 (one for each hot chick i dibsed)
Better than Miami Vice? Put money on it.
Matty says:
i thought the fact that it was shot on video was the least of its problems
Matty says:
and yes it was a problem
Matty says:
I thought the soundtrack was good...
muddfx.blogspot.com says:
hell yeah
Matty says:
umm... yeah thats all I got
muddfx.blogspot.com says:
mmm. lets see. cops with attitude infiltrate drug cartel, theres sex, theres action, theres betrayal, then happy ending
muddfx.blogspot.com says:
completely original
Matty says:
the plot was all over the place, the sex was only there to distract u from the fact that the plot sucked balls, the action looked like what was left on the cutting room floor after Heat, and the only happy ending was that the damn thing finished so i could get out of there
the balls that were 'sucked'
So there you go. If you want to see a gritty crime movie with ultra violence and heavily stylised visuals, see Sin City. If you want to see a slick, glamourous film about two drug cops in Miami, see Bad Boys (1 or 2, both good). If, however, you want to see a VIDEO that makes first year film students look good, see Miami Vice. It's got Jamie Foxx, so it's at least as good as his last music video.
posted by Steve @ Monday, August 14, 2006
3 Comments:
Yeah...I didnt actually 'defend it'. I said it was a mixed bag.
I did however disagree when you said it was the first movie ever in the history of all things everywhere to look like it did and be shot on HD video.
Collateral was shot on HD video. It looked exactly the same. Its Michael Manns Style...
...oh...woops...I did it again didnt I? Presumed to have an opinion on film without having done an arts degree in filminological studies. Uh-oh.
Note: Collateral was also filmed on HD video. But, obviously this was also an accident. Damn...who accidently set this camera set up to accidently film things so they accidently look like this? Someones getting fired! Oh and by the by, can you not quote me on this site anymore. And by 'quote' I mean, 'make up stuff about what I said'
By the way, how much fun is it to not like anything! Its just heaps and heaps of fun!
*Andy wakes up and realises he isnt a 14 year old anymore*
Just to clarify one last time (and by last time, lets hope that means commenting on this hilareous blog) -- the only area where I took you to task was not the quality of the movie, but the fact that you suggested the director had kinda screwed up his filiming of it, which produced the grainy and atrifacty results, as if it was a mistake or flaw in the production of the movie. -- My point was, that was his intention. One would assume he saw the movie he made called collateral, which used the same method in filiming, i.e. onto HD video, and thought 'I think thats a good way of going'. These I assume are the directors thoughts, which I would think undermines the redundant point you were trying to make. My point here is reinforced by at least 8 different reviews Ive looked at which suggest yes indeed this was an intentional technique, not some mistake, picked up via your highly tuned sense of film making technique.
I thought the movie was ok, in parts and average in others, but enjoyed the experiance anyway..cos you know..some things are fun.
And can I just say this. I get it. You know stuff about stuff, like movies. I get it. I really do.
Post a Comment
<< Home